Whole Body Scanners Opt Out Stories [merged]
Jan 30, 2016, 4:38 pm
#4366
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
You don't give people law enforcement status. The law enforcement types will see to that.
A little bit of Googling suggests that passing the police academy takes an average of nineteen weeks. In contrast, passing TSA's training for new TSOs takes five weeks.
From where I sit, quadrupling the amount of training required to be a TSO might just lead to a greater sense of professionalism that we complain about not seeing all the time.
A little bit of Googling suggests that passing the police academy takes an average of nineteen weeks. In contrast, passing TSA's training for new TSOs takes five weeks.
From where I sit, quadrupling the amount of training required to be a TSO might just lead to a greater sense of professionalism that we complain about not seeing all the time.
But that does raise an interesting question or two, how are current employees transitioned and what happens to those federal employees who do not qualify for some reason? It is extremely difficult to fire career employees and they were fully qualified for the job when first hired.
Nothing good could come from designating TSA screener jobs as LEO.
Jan 30, 2016, 7:34 pm
#4367
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
Feb 1, 2016, 9:03 pm
#4368
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
But that does raise an interesting question or two, how are current employees transitioned and what happens to those federal employees who do not qualify for some reason? It is extremely difficult to fire career employees and they were fully qualified for the job when first hired.
IBM did this for decades, claiming that they never laid off anyone. Technically, it was true. But lots of people "resigned" when their division was reorganized and they were suddenly transferred to a different state.
Feb 2, 2016, 7:38 am
#4369
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Agreed on TSOs becoming LEOs.
Feb 2, 2016, 8:04 am
#4370
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Himeno has the answer. If the position of TSO no longer exists, then those career employees are certainly free to apply for any open position in government which matches their qualifications. If that position happens to be a thousand miles away from their current job, and they choose not to take it ... well, that's their decision to give up their government career.
IBM did this for decades, claiming that they never laid off anyone. Technically, it was true. But lots of people "resigned" when their division was reorganized and they were suddenly transferred to a different state.
IBM did this for decades, claiming that they never laid off anyone. Technically, it was true. But lots of people "resigned" when their division was reorganized and they were suddenly transferred to a different state.
Feb 2, 2016, 8:07 am
#4371
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
If managers followed the rules, policies and procedures for discipline and performance then it is not difficult at all to fire a guvmint worker (not withstanding union representation - that can add ridiculous amount of time to process a grievance - but see the first line). Depending upon the issue a good manager can have someone out in 4 weeks or less.
Agreed on TSOs becoming LEOs.
Agreed on TSOs becoming LEOs.
Feb 2, 2016, 9:43 am
#4372
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,680
Firing a career government employee requires following established rules and paying attention to detail. The managers and HR employees all have adequate training - they are simply lazy, incompetent, or aren't personally involved.
There has never been a problem firing an employee who offended the wrong manager. The lower the employee and the higher the manager, the more smoothly the process seems to work.
And spare me the BS about the union. TSA demonstrated zero interest in purging the work force of trash elements before the union. The fault then and now are the same: lazy and/or corrupt managers and supervisors who themselves should be fired for inadequate performance.
In short, behind every problem employee, there is a chain of supervisors and managers who are equally responsible for the problems caused by that employee because they are not dealing with it.
Feb 2, 2016, 10:12 am
#4373
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Wrong.
Firing a career government employee requires following established rules and paying attention to detail. The managers and HR employees all have adequate training - they are simply lazy, incompetent, or aren't personally involved.
There has never been a problem firing an employee who offended the wrong manager. The lower the employee and the higher the manager, the more smoothly the process seems to work.
And spare me the BS about the union. TSA demonstrated zero interest in purging the work force of trash elements before the union. The fault then and now are the same: lazy and/or corrupt managers and supervisors who themselves should be fired for inadequate performance.
In short, behind every problem employee, there is a chain of supervisors and managers who are equally responsible for the problems caused by that employee because they are not dealing with it.
Firing a career government employee requires following established rules and paying attention to detail. The managers and HR employees all have adequate training - they are simply lazy, incompetent, or aren't personally involved.
There has never been a problem firing an employee who offended the wrong manager. The lower the employee and the higher the manager, the more smoothly the process seems to work.
And spare me the BS about the union. TSA demonstrated zero interest in purging the work force of trash elements before the union. The fault then and now are the same: lazy and/or corrupt managers and supervisors who themselves should be fired for inadequate performance.
In short, behind every problem employee, there is a chain of supervisors and managers who are equally responsible for the problems caused by that employee because they are not dealing with it.
A TSA screener with a GED/High School or some college (no degree) education would most likely not qualify for any LEO position in federal government. That could be the case if there was a move to have TSA screeners classified as LEO's.
Feb 5, 2016, 2:27 pm
#4375
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
Given the demonstrated (lack of) competence of the Security Theater Authoritarians, the last thing anyone wants them to do is leave guns lying around inside the Security Theater Perimeter.
Feb 5, 2016, 2:53 pm
#4376
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,426
h-- wait...
...that's how we got where we are...
Feb 7, 2016, 2:23 pm
#4377
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: FNT, but DTW if I can't help it
Programs: AAdvantage Former EXP/Current PLT / Total Rewards - Diamond / Hilton HHonors - Gold
Posts: 757
So, I had a strange experience today at SEA.
I'm pre-check, and I (of course) got "randomly" selected for secondary screening. I opted for a pat-down, and before I could get my shoes, belt, and sweatshirt off, they had a male assist ready to go.
I walk over to the "Freedom HJ station," as I like to call it, spread 'em, and the guy puts my stuff up haphazardly on a table, with my laptop teetering on the edge of the table. I protest his arrangement, telling him my computer was going to fall, and he disregarded it and left it as-is.
Laptop started to tumble, and I lunged forward and narrowly caught it before it hit the ground. I apologized and told him I know I'm not supposed to touch the bags, but this was an extenuating circumstance.
He seemed fine about it (but didn't apologize), completed his process of caressing me all over my body, went over to the machine that tests gloves, swabbed his gloves once, then went off to the right, pulled a *different* swab out of a sealed plastic container, then swabbed his gloves again. he then inserted that second swab into the machine.
I hear him whispering around about calling Seattle PD, he comes up to me and says his glove tested positive for explosive residue.
A second TSA agent comes over and says he's going to conduct a second pat-down. As he does so, first TSA agent takes everything out of my carry-on and swabs it... Puts the swab in a DIFFERENT machine. Stuff comes up negative. Glove on second TSA agent comes out negative, I'm free to go.
I asked the supervisor if the explosive residue detection ever "randomly" comes up with a positive the way the metal detectors "randomly" come up with people to scan for secondary. She said no, but that "many household items can come back as positive" and told me to have a good flight.
Thoughts?
I'm pre-check, and I (of course) got "randomly" selected for secondary screening. I opted for a pat-down, and before I could get my shoes, belt, and sweatshirt off, they had a male assist ready to go.
I walk over to the "Freedom HJ station," as I like to call it, spread 'em, and the guy puts my stuff up haphazardly on a table, with my laptop teetering on the edge of the table. I protest his arrangement, telling him my computer was going to fall, and he disregarded it and left it as-is.
Laptop started to tumble, and I lunged forward and narrowly caught it before it hit the ground. I apologized and told him I know I'm not supposed to touch the bags, but this was an extenuating circumstance.
He seemed fine about it (but didn't apologize), completed his process of caressing me all over my body, went over to the machine that tests gloves, swabbed his gloves once, then went off to the right, pulled a *different* swab out of a sealed plastic container, then swabbed his gloves again. he then inserted that second swab into the machine.
I hear him whispering around about calling Seattle PD, he comes up to me and says his glove tested positive for explosive residue.
A second TSA agent comes over and says he's going to conduct a second pat-down. As he does so, first TSA agent takes everything out of my carry-on and swabs it... Puts the swab in a DIFFERENT machine. Stuff comes up negative. Glove on second TSA agent comes out negative, I'm free to go.
I asked the supervisor if the explosive residue detection ever "randomly" comes up with a positive the way the metal detectors "randomly" come up with people to scan for secondary. She said no, but that "many household items can come back as positive" and told me to have a good flight.
Thoughts?
Feb 7, 2016, 2:49 pm
#4378
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
You said:
You neglected to mention whether he actually tested the first swab, or if he just swabbed his gloves and immediately went to the other swab container.
If he tested the first swab and it came up positive, I understand why he'd go to a completely different container for a second swab, to eliminate the possibility that the first positive swab came from a contaminated container.
I also understand why he swabbed your stuff and tested it on a different machine - to eliminate the possibility that the first machine was broken and throwing false positives.
And I understand why a second TSO did a second swab test on a second pair of gloves after patting you down - to eliminate the possibility of the first TSO being the source of the contamination.
All in all, the redundancy of these tests seems far more scientific than I would have given the average TSO credit for. My only complaint is that the second TSO felt it necessary to give you a complete second pat-down; if all they need is a second sample from a different TSO for testing in a different machine, a full pat-down really wasn't necessary. All they had to do was swab YOU with the second swab and eliminate the need for a pair of gloves at all (another possible source of contamination).
So, I guess my thoughts are, nothing to see here, move along. Oh, and that they're still allowing opt-outs at SEA, at least in the PreCheck lanes.
He seemed fine about it (but didn't apologize), completed his process of caressing me all over my body, went over to the machine that tests gloves, swabbed his gloves once, then went off to the right, pulled a *different* swab out of a sealed plastic container, then swabbed his gloves again. he then inserted that second swab into the machine.
If he tested the first swab and it came up positive, I understand why he'd go to a completely different container for a second swab, to eliminate the possibility that the first positive swab came from a contaminated container.
I also understand why he swabbed your stuff and tested it on a different machine - to eliminate the possibility that the first machine was broken and throwing false positives.
And I understand why a second TSO did a second swab test on a second pair of gloves after patting you down - to eliminate the possibility of the first TSO being the source of the contamination.
All in all, the redundancy of these tests seems far more scientific than I would have given the average TSO credit for. My only complaint is that the second TSO felt it necessary to give you a complete second pat-down; if all they need is a second sample from a different TSO for testing in a different machine, a full pat-down really wasn't necessary. All they had to do was swab YOU with the second swab and eliminate the need for a pair of gloves at all (another possible source of contamination).
So, I guess my thoughts are, nothing to see here, move along. Oh, and that they're still allowing opt-outs at SEA, at least in the PreCheck lanes.
Feb 7, 2016, 3:35 pm
#4379
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: FNT, but DTW if I can't help it
Programs: AAdvantage Former EXP/Current PLT / Total Rewards - Diamond / Hilton HHonors - Gold
Posts: 757
You said:
You neglected to mention whether he actually tested the first swab, or if he just swabbed his gloves and immediately went to the other swab container.
If he tested the first swab and it came up positive, I understand why he'd go to a completely different container for a second swab, to eliminate the possibility that the first positive swab came from a contaminated container.
I also understand why he swabbed your stuff and tested it on a different machine - to eliminate the possibility that the first machine was broken and throwing false positives.
And I understand why a second TSO did a second swab test on a second pair of gloves after patting you down - to eliminate the possibility of the first TSO being the source of the contamination.
All in all, the redundancy of these tests seems far more scientific than I would have given the average TSO credit for. My only complaint is that the second TSO felt it necessary to give you a complete second pat-down; if all they need is a second sample from a different TSO for testing in a different machine, a full pat-down really wasn't necessary. All they had to do was swab YOU with the second swab and eliminate the need for a pair of gloves at all (another possible source of contamination).
So, I guess my thoughts are, nothing to see here, move along. Oh, and that they're still allowing opt-outs at SEA, at least in the PreCheck lanes.
You neglected to mention whether he actually tested the first swab, or if he just swabbed his gloves and immediately went to the other swab container.
If he tested the first swab and it came up positive, I understand why he'd go to a completely different container for a second swab, to eliminate the possibility that the first positive swab came from a contaminated container.
I also understand why he swabbed your stuff and tested it on a different machine - to eliminate the possibility that the first machine was broken and throwing false positives.
And I understand why a second TSO did a second swab test on a second pair of gloves after patting you down - to eliminate the possibility of the first TSO being the source of the contamination.
All in all, the redundancy of these tests seems far more scientific than I would have given the average TSO credit for. My only complaint is that the second TSO felt it necessary to give you a complete second pat-down; if all they need is a second sample from a different TSO for testing in a different machine, a full pat-down really wasn't necessary. All they had to do was swab YOU with the second swab and eliminate the need for a pair of gloves at all (another possible source of contamination).
So, I guess my thoughts are, nothing to see here, move along. Oh, and that they're still allowing opt-outs at SEA, at least in the PreCheck lanes.
Yes, opt outs are alive and well at SEA in precheck, and as of a week ago, also at DTW regular lanes, as I went through when precheck was closed and refused the scanner.
