Originally Posted by
WillCAD
Take it easy on <deleted>, guys. I understand the difficult position he's in - employees of his agency violated their terms of employment and multiple laws, not to mention engaging in despicable, inhuman behavior, but the agency failed to take proper action and fire them all, and denied any wrongdoing.
But <deleted> is an employee. If he deviates from the corporate line without authorization, he will be disciplined. The supreme irony here is that he would be disciplined for deviating from the corporate line in the manner in which we all beleive the TSOs in the incident in question should have been disciplined - termination. In other words... TSA will fire <deleted> for admitting that TSA should have fired the TSOs in the Armato case.
Break policy for which you should be fired... and you won't be. But break policy by admitting that... and you will be.
So lay off <deleted>. He's agreeing with us as much as he can without finding a pink slip in his next pay check.
Could we pile on the local LEOs in Phoenix who illegally supported the TSOs in their abuse of Stacy Armato by telling her that if she failed to go along with "TSA's horse and pony show" they'd have to arrest her at TSA's request? I mean, since when does TSA get to dictate who local LEOs will or will not arrest? They can file complaints, but ultimately it's the LEOs who decide whether to arrest and charge someone. We've seen what can happen when an abusive TSA suit runs into a LEO who refuses to violate the law for him; why are the LEOs at PHX continuing to back up TSOs who are deviating from policy and even violating the law? I think without that LEO support, some of the complaints at PHX might dry up. What LE agency provides policing in the terminal at PHX?
I hear what you are saying. It was not my intent to put gsoltso aka <deleted> in an untenable position. I just wanted clarity on what he meant when he said,
"I have not forgotten about Stacy Armato, and I have indicated before that things should have been handled much better, and proper redress should have been applied." My idea of proper redress would probably differ from his. I was truly interested in what he would think proper redress would be.
If he thinks it would mean "retraining" for the TSOs involved that would be one thing. If he thinks it would mean their immediate dismissal and referral to police for criminal charges that would mean something else. Between those two extremes are any number of other possible actions that could constitute redress. Hearing gsoltso's ideas of what would be "proper redress" would indicate whether his words represented a sincere desire to see TSA actually do the right thing in an egregious case or were just empty platitudes.
Unfortunately, his response to my sincere question tends to support the latter interpretation.