Originally Posted by
InkUnderNails
Finally, if you and I were in the process of a difficult business negotiation, the first thing I would do is lay out the ground rules as I understand them and suggest if you disagree, that you might indeed need to get someone that had the authority to act if you do not. If you take that wrong, then I would make no apology. I very often end up in very difficult situations to resolve involving multiple competing interests across departments or even companies. It is hard to do without a firm understanding of the responsibilities and limits laid out at the onset of the process.
You and I would not do well in a difficult business negotiation. If that were someone's first comment to me (and I'm the head negotiator for the deals I'm involved in at my company), my response would be to get up, hand them a business card, and tell them to call me back when they're interested in handling this like an adult instead of making insulting comments from the get-go.
Originally Posted by
InkUnderNails
I am not hostile. I state the situation. It is very difficult to write words in an internet forum while including the attitude with which they are said.
I agree with you there. The red flag for me is saying it all at once. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "I opt out, and I need to be somewhere that I can see my belongings." That's a simple statement of fact that's not aggressive at all, and it lays the groundwork for you to escalate if the screener refuses your request. There's nothing wrong with the second statement being, "Your SOP says I need to be able to see my belongings, and I'm moving to where I can. If that's an issue, call your supervisor and a LEO," I just wouldn't start out with that. Remember, the screener has no actual authority, but they can retaliate by making sure that your life is a living hell getting through that checkpoint, and there's nothing you can do about it other than file a comment card, which goes into the TSA's circular file.