While on or off-duty, employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that does not adversely reflect on the TSA or negatively impact its ability to discharge its mission, cause embarrassment to the agency, or cause the public and/or TSA to question the employee’s reliability, judgment or trustworthiness. Failure to fully comply with the provisions of this directive or related laws, rules, and regulations may result in corrective action, including discipline, up to and including an employee’s removal.

http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=T...ocumentID=1419

An employee’s off-duty Internet access/use must not adversely reflect on TSA or negatively impact its ability to discharge its mission, cause embarrassment to the agency, or cause the public and/or TSA to question the employee’s reliability, judgment or trustworthiness.

^^^

Game. Set. Match.

As has been discussed before, regulatory fines are public records, but are they published in a handy book? I have no wish, nor desire to attempt to spend the time to gather such information. If you wish a more precise value other than "many", I can not give that too you. However, I can state that those who carry over a specific amount of bullets in their carry-on baggage are fined, those who carry gun parts are fined, and of course, those who carry firearms. We find bullets more than anything else, I would say. And depending upon the season, we find more of all of these items than usual on any given day; and of course, the size of the airport, and location of the airport are a factor.

I have never "collected" money from a passenger. However, what TSA does with the money it collects from fines, I have no idea, nor am I too interested to look it up. Sorry, just being honest. But I suspect that information can be found, if you so desire to spend the time looking.

Yes, when you cite something out of context, its easy to make an apparent successful argument. Good job ^

Nor do you mention that to many of you here that unless a TSA employee grovels and begs for forgiveness for doing their job, most of you will see us in a negative light. As happened to me when I first arrived at FlyerTalk.

Try again, Tom.

Pity it's not out of context, then.

But the fact that this...

...is true is no reason for him to do this...

Sorry but that isn't true from my experience. I remember asking you two very direct honest questions and you offered no help.

If I remember correctly at first you just ignored the questions. Then you stated you wouldn't answer my questions until others had answered a hypothetical situation that was irrelevant to my questions. Lastly you stated that my questions had been answered "numerous" times yet you failed to answer the questions or link me to a post with the correct answer.

From my experience sattso would rather lead posters on a multipage sematic arguement that usually has little to do with what the original thread is about. Instead of honestly answering questions he would rather ignore or be vague so he can play semantics with another member.

Sorry for grammar and/or spelling posting from a smart phone

Actually, it is out of context, as there have been a few cases that have already defined what Tom M. cites. Being abrasive, or even rude, does not fall under what has been defined, no matter how much many of you would wish. That is simple fact, sorry.

My choosing not to answer you does not change the fact that the question you asked me I had already answered multiple times. And simply put, I will not repetitively answer the same question over and over, when that answer is easily found. Sorry. There is no possible way I can nor will answer all questions on this site: so many are asked over and over, and it would be a huge waste of my time to repeat those answers. Doesn't change the fact that those answer are there. ;)

How hard is it to link to the right answer? Most of the time you could easily reanswer the question and save time versus going on a spiel about how you are helpful even when you don't answer questions.

I know in that thread you posted multiple long posts that dealt with hypothetical situations that you made up and you even took the time to post saying you weren't going to answer my question until your questions were answered, and even after your questions were answered you didn't answer mine. Doesn't sound like you are trying to save time.

If you really want to be helpful all you have to do is create a thread with answers to FAQs. Add to it from time to time and then link it when you see someone that needs help.

Honestly, most of the questions I have seen you answer haven't even been that helpful because you are too vague. At least when TSODEAN and GSO post usually you can clearly understand the situation they are explaining and why.

If you want to come off as helpful you have to actually help people. I have only been around since Nov, so I am sure I have missed alot before I got here. There are also lots of multipage threads, it seems unreasonable to expect someone to read every single post and thread to maybe find and answer to a simple question.

Besides since you couldn't even be bothered to answer my first questions, why should I even attempt to ask any more? When people don't get help they stop asking and start jumping to conclusions about what they think the answer may be.

To your knowledge was Alvin Crabbtree fined for bring a gun to the checkpoint?

When he's working, I doubt if he's subject to the same rules pax are.

Violence at the checkpoint is wrong, period. Doesn't matter if it's TSO on pax, pax on pax, pax on TSO, TSO on TSO. It is wrong.

Pax should respect the authority of the uniform. TSOs should live up to the responsibilities that come with their uniform and authority.

If permanent SSSS is appropriate for a pax, it should also be levied against a TSO.

I think the penalties should be harsher for the TSO precisely because the TSO is in a position of public trust and should be held to a higher standard. Just like I believe a TSO stealing from pax (or fellow TSOs) at a checkpoint should bear harsher punishment (loss of job + prosecution) than a pax stealing from a pax because the TSO is guilty of the additional crime of abusing his/her authority and violating the public trust.

I feel the same way about violence perpetrated by pastors, teachers, LEOs, or adults on children.

I think TSOs should be held to a very high standard because of what is at risk. A TSO who resorts to violence is, IMHO, a TSO who is not focused on the task at hand. He/she is a TSO who is jeopardizing my safety by his/her anger management issues.

Ummmm, no. The uniform is mere plumage, designed to be a tool of psychological manipulation implying law enforcement "authority" beyond what the clerks actually possess.

The badge is icing on the plumage cake.

Stories of screeners posturing as sworn "officers" with law enforcement powers and using unjustifiable intimidation phraseology beyond DY... have been posted.

The uniform is puffery, IMHO. When they take to hiding their namebadge to avoid being reported, their true colors appear.

I respect that the uniform comes with no more authority than a McDonald's uniform.