Originally Posted by Bart
The biggest thing that flunks most TSA applicants is x-ray interpretation. Whether you want to admit it or not, it takes a degree of skill to look at two-dimensional images and perceive three dimensional objects. In any organization, there's always an entry level of a minimum set of requirements. Identifying a profile image of a pistol, for example, is an entry level skill. Within a month of being trained, that operator must now identify the same object from all sorts of angles, including the most difficult one: head-on (pistol pointing towards you). The same goes for IEDs, but I can't go into detail about the different types of images we use. Suffice it to say that the traditional three sticks with a 9v battery, alarm clock and inserted detonator is the entry level image. It gets progressively more challenging from that point on. I seriously doubt McDonald's has a program that presents similar challenges to its employees.
I would certainly hope so. I would hope that these people have the adequate spatial abilities to do such a task. And I agree that this would be more challenging.
TSA screeners are required to be dual-functioned. They must be knowledgeable of screening procedures at both checkpoint and checked baggage. They must maintain a weekly standard of proficiency that is recorded monthly. In other words, in order to accomodate for leaves (vacation), they have to meet a certain standard within a 30 day period but is accounted each week. Every year, screeners are evaluated on their proficiency in both areas. TSA is now moving towards a quarterly evaluation in both areas. I seriously doubt McDonald's has a similar program. The duties for a McDonald's employee is significantly simple compared to the various duties performed by TSA screeners.
I think the paper requirements and actual practice are a bit different though. How is this proficiency measured? Are there REAL consequences for not being up to snuff?
Based on my experiences (and I'm sure others would back this up), the knowledge factor of a lot of screeners is lacking. They might be able to pick out a bomb on a screen, but they can't pick discern an inch.
While McDonald's might not be as rigorousin their testing, I have no doubt that there evals to ensure that they're doing skills correctly. Even as a teenager many years ago (I'm probably older than you think
) working at Little Caesars, we had skillls we had to pass off. They had to protect their image and quality (think of it what you will), and you were gonna pass it if you wanted to continue working.
The SOP expanded from a relatively simple format to a more elaborate one. A wide range of screening scenarios are addressed in the SOP. Every couple of weeks, there are updates that either clarify the interpretation of a certain procedure or modify that procedure. The screener is responsible for staying current. I seriously doubt McDonald's procedures change over a given period of time or require as many updates.
McDonald's doesn't pride itself on designed inconsistency either.
I'd argue that for the most part, that the SOP shouldn't have to change as much as you state. I'd say get it right the first time, or first few times at least. I'm realistic enough to understand that the process will need some tweaks here and there. However, updates that often indicate to me that there's a deeper problem and it was either poorly planned, poorly executed, or both.
McDonald's employees undergo a relatively simple criminal records check as opposed to the background check that TSA employees undergo. I don't know how often McDonald's employees undergo random drug tests; we get them pretty regularly. I don't know if off-duy conduct has the same impact on McDonald's employees as they do on TSA employees. While there's some controversy about how invasive TSA is into our personal lives as employees, there are policies that attempt to regulate our off-duty as well as on-duty conduct.
I really think this is a moot point and doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand.
The most common complaint outside FlyerTalkWorld is how rude customers are treated at....McDonald's. You may have been away for a while, but the typical complaint is about how McDonald's employees aren't courteous or friendly. I'm not saying that there aren't rude TSA employees; however, even in FlyerTalk, many members admit that TSA screeners are more professional, courteous and friendly than their contracted predecessors. The complaints deal more with TSA policy than they do TSA employee behavior, although, as we used to say in the Army, one aw-sh*t wipes out a whole bunch of attaboys, and the complaints of "retaliatory screening" focus more on the minority of TSA screeners as opposed to the majority.
I've ran into tool boxes at McDonald's. Sure, no question about that. While they might not be the most happy people on earth, I generally get what I want, how I want it, quickly and at a reasonable cost without any hassle. If there's a problem, they apologize and fix it on the spot. If I don't like how I'm treated, there are plenty of other McDonald's around or many competitors that would gladly take my money. I can vote with my wallet. I don't have that option with TSA ... I have to pay to use their service and still more is paid out of my tax dollars. I either deal with them or I don't fly. Neither option is appealing to me.
Pre-9/11 screeners were more or less the same way. Not the happiest of folk, but I got thru quickly and without a hassle. Then again, I'm not there to share my life story or chat about football either. Screening was adequate. No planes fell out of the sky and there were no hijackings.
I think things changed with TSA as they definitely need a more positive PR image. The things we complain about ... the long lines, shoe carnivals, etc, are TSA's own making. So when we get up there, they had damn well better have a smile on their face. Of course I've met professional and happy people. I've met many that weren't. While it may be a small minority of bad apples at your airport, it isn't that way everywhere else. You've been offered many chances to see that for yourself at no cost to you.
Instead, what I find disturbing is the elitist attitude that some members seem to have with both TSA and McDonald's employees. I didn't know that working at a particular job was something to be ashamed or embarrassed of. While I've pointed out that there is no comparison between TSA and McDonald's employees, in no way am I attempting to belittle or condescend the work that McDonald's employees perform. I appreciate good service whenever I receive it, and I don't pass any judgment on the work anyone does.
No argument here.
You seem to forget that as a retired field grade officer, I've pretty much been there, done that. If you have any familiarity with the career path of military officers, then you should understand the wide variety of tasks, jobs and duties performed that rival those performed by many corporate executives. I choose to do the work I do, and I appreciate the simple satisfaction of a good honest day's work, even when dealing with people who have no appreciation for what I do.
I'm surprised that you aren't more objective.
I was trying to be objective. I honestly didn't see much difference in the minium qualifications for the TSA screener and what you posted for McDonald's. I can see where you're coming from too.
I really think you should take a step back and try to see what we see and experience. Fly thru IAD, DEN, or EWR and please try to tell us that we're exaggerating. Ask Joe Traveler what he thinks is the biggest hassle in air travel today. When I did my briefing last year on shoe carnivals for a briefing skills class (the class was made of run of the mill civilian and military folks, and taught by a retired AF E-9), I got that reaction. I started of my briefing "Hi, I'm Superguy. And I love to travel. If you were to name one thing about air travel that was the biggest pain, what would it be?" Everyone simultaneously said security.
I don't doubt that TSA wants people to be professional. But theory and practice are two different things.
Super