Originally Posted by
InkUnderNails
Like you, I snipped a bunch so I could address a singular point.
You seem like a really nice and compassionate person. I appreciate that. You may not be cut from the right cloth to be a TSO. However, that is not the reason for my reply.
I think my compassion actually makes me a better TSO, but that may just be me.
The system in which you work takes a person that has already been the subject of a difficult situation and submits them to even greater distress just because there is a possibility that a medical device they are using, one that is of an embarrassing nature to many people, may be "faked" as you say. You have a responsibility under your SOP to ascertain that it is real so that you can clear this person to complete the lawful contract they have made to purchase air travel on a common carrier.
Exactly! That is exactly the problem I discovered here!
Here is the problem with that. Until you can give her clearance to enter the sterile area, she is now both medically distressed and under a cloud of suspicion as a person with criminal intent.
It is a matter of perspective that we have discussed here many times. Hopefully you will understand this distinction. I will try to frame it as simply as possible. The process of air security used to be one in which the primary assumption was that everyone that entered the checkpoint was without nefarious intent, and it was the job of the screening process to identify those that may not be safe to proceed. Now, the assumption is that everyone that enters the checkpoint is under suspicion of criminal intent until the screening process can prove that they are not.
While the distinction may seem trivial, it is far from it. In the first instance, we need only come as our normal everyday selves. We wear what we normally wear, act as we normally act and have with us the things of life that we will have in any other situation in which you may find us outside of the checkpoint.
The second is quite different. We now must be concerned that what we normally are does not reinforce or multiply the suspicion that is inherent in the process. We must carefully analyze the everyday things that we carry or possess to assure that they also do not support the suspicions that we are under. We even must be concerned of the things we say, even those that are relatively benign in any other situation other than at the CP.
Oh yes, I see exactly what you're saying. In the past, checkpoint passage was of an "innocent until proven guilty" mentality, whereas nowadays, it's managed to segue completely into the "guilty until shown otherwise" vein. I always try to let people know that I don't think of them as "bad people," even if patdowns or handswabbing or bag checks are involved. They're not "bad," they're just caught up in rules and regulations and until the time said rules and regulations change, I'm stuck enforcing them. I'm not saying a "bad" person won't come through at some point, but I have to believe that proper screening will find him/her and not a "You're not bad? Prove it!" deal.
Where do you draw the line? You have no control over the line. It is positioned for you and any ability that you may have to move it only moves it around within a broken framework of everyone is a suspect that must be cleared.
I hate to think that the line is this concrete. I want people to feel safe and secure, not scared of us or saddened by our pointed screening of their disabilities.
Only your management can redraw the line and they have deliberately chosen where they want it. It is the insult added to injury that we endure just to travel for vacation, to work, to visit family or whatever the reason is today. You said it yourself. You have been taught to assume that medical devices can be faked and you must prove it is not. Our lives, and yours, would be much simpler if system were to assume that they were legitimate medical devices and that the screening would look for evidence that it is not.
I really really like how you worded that. Particularly with the part, "assume that they were legitimate medical devices and that the screening would look for evidence that it is not." That would be a great way to avoid the sadness that my screening caused this woman. But how? Speaking just in the realm of a colostomy bag, how would we be able to screen in this fashion? What evidence would be needed? Hypothetically of course, no one needs to come up with specifics unless they want. I guess that's my biggest issue, and that's something that's out of my hands, which is that our actual screening methods need revisited and revamped. (But for those in management who are reading this - I will continue to screen per the SOP while I wait for reform.)