Originally Posted by
T-the-B
I don't disagree. My point was to take the discussion further and address what form the redress should take. What is redress?
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.
As I said in my previous comment, I tend to refrain from making any specific redress suggestions without all of the information. Many here say that is a cop out, while I look at it as having enough wisdom to know that every story has 3 sides, and to pass judgement without out getting as much of all 3 sides as possible, is simply irresponsible. Taken at face value, the story could call for a termination, but that does not have the other side of the story taken into account. Like I also said previously, it would be a pretty high bar of reasoning to pass in order to make this an acceptable situation, hence the reason I said it could have been handled better and some form of redress should have been applied. As for what that redress would be, I would have to know the other side of the story in order to make a valid recommendation. Even then, I probably would not make that recommendation in public, as I am merely a frontline employee with some ancillary duties with the Blog team (as was so astutely observed earlier by some in this thread), due to that work, anything I would say publicly would be considered speaking for the organization.