Originally Posted by
OldGoat
Given the importance of protecting children, and you point about the TSA not being able to tell which employees will engage in improper behavior with children, what could possibly justify putting the children at risk with a "pat down"?
I am all for actions that will weed out potential abusers of any kind. I'm just pointing out that adding psychological testing to the hiring process adds a cost increase that you, the taxpayer, have to be willing to pay. I truly don't see the cost benefit, especially given that the nature of the crime is extraordinarily difficult to detect, regardless of profession.
One thing I forgot to add during one of the previous posts, I always make it a point to wait for the parents before screening a child (I've only patted down one underage child under the new procedures; I'm talking more about the old hand-wand screening). In most cases, the parent(s) basically got angry with me because I waited until they were present before I began. They expected me to begin without them being present as witnesses. And when I was a lead TSO, I've often had to explain to parents that we don't want to screen a child without a parent or guardian or other adult companion present. Only on rare occasions have I been thanked for this consideration. More often than not, they expect us to get it over and done with.
I strongly recommend being present whenever kids have to be screened if for no other reason than to explain that they did nothing wrong. (I make it a point to explain that upfront, too.)