Originally Posted by
chollie
I took it to mean that 1) it never should have happened and 2) 'redress' B]should[/B] have been 'applied' - it clearly wasn't, because PHX TSA continued to harass and retaliate against Amato.
I don't disagree. My point was to take the discussion further and address what form the redress should take. What is redress?
re·dress
[n. ree-dres, ri-dres; v. ri-dres]
noun
1. the setting right of what is wrong: redress of abuses.
2. relief from wrong or injury.
3. compensation or satisfaction for a wrong or injury.
verb (used with object)
4. to set right; remedy or repair (wrongs, injuries, etc.).
5. to correct or reform (abuses, evils, etc.).
6. to remedy or relieve (suffering, want, etc.).
7. to adjust evenly again, as a balance.
In other words,
how should TSA have gone about setting right what was wrong or giving Ms. Armato compensation or satisfaction for the wrong done to her?
How should TSA set right, remedy or repair the the wrong she suffered?
How should TSA correct or reform the abuses that were inflicted on her?
GSOLTSO aka <deleted> clearly stated that he felt redress should have been given but when asked what form that redress should be he refused to offer any meaningful example. The only thing that would satisfy some commentators here would be to have the erring screeners arrested. My opinion is that is harsher than is appropriate. TSA's idea of redress is a pseudo apology where they express regret that the passenger had an unpleasant experience while admitting no wrongdoing. My opinion is that is grossly inadequate.
I was wanting to explore GSOLTSO/<deleted>'s thoughts about what form he thought would constitute proper redress. What should it be: a public apology by the manager? an apology by each screener involved? financial compensation? a free Nexis card? half off her next order at the airport McDonalds?
My point is that calling for "proper redress" without being willing to offer any example of what that entails is meaningless. I'm sure <deleted> would claim that he treats passengers with proper respect while screening them but I'll bet he would never agree to let me define what would constitute "proper respect" and constrain his actions to that definition. Such terms are meaningless without specificity. I was truly not trying to cause problems for <deleted>. I actually wanted to know what someone who seems to be an intelligent, conscientious screener would think the appropriate response the Armato incident would be. I am sincerely saddened that he is either unable or unwilling to formulate any meaningful response.