Some random thoughts...

1. Success in a bureaucracy, especially a Federal one, is completely different from that in the people's economy. Best way to explain is through humor.

2. I suspect the rash of thefts and other criminal acts perpetrated by TSA employees has made many more travelers credibly suspicious of TSA.

3. The uniforms and badges have a polarizing effect in perception. Those who are mollified by the display were never the problem while those who see through it now view TSA in the same category as mall security.

4. Most people I know quietly resent the intimacy of the screening process.

Some pre-rebuttals...

On 2, other airport jobs associated with sticky fingers (perhaps wrongly so) are not there for our 'safety' and do not have the word "Security" on their organizational name. Until management deals with the apparently conducive environment, that perception will never change. That will never happen because of #1.

On 3, Paramedics and EMT's have respectable and commanding appearance without the bling.

On 4, no one I know has told me they like the current regime, but I haven't asked everyone either.

^^ to all of the above.

Immediately after 9/11, most large international airports overreacted - not to the degree that we did, of course. Over the past five years, I have noted a very subtle change overseas, as responsible, non-fear based leadership and thinking have taken hold in most other developed countries, while we have mantained our misguided "security uber alles" approach. Slowly but surely, more and more Americans are becoming tired of TSA and DHS antics, and we can only hope that more members of Congress wake up and realize that the Security Theater that they have allowed DHS to construct is both wasteful and inefficient.

I think we all realize this... My goal - and I'll state it publicly - is to also see if our resident TSA friends are willing to admit to this as well in some way.

I am really interested in reading how they explain this one away. Something that's clearly not permitted in the workplace (i.e. sexual harassment) is clearly taking place at their checkpoints as part of an inspection routine. It doesn't matter whether we talk about leering at one's genitals through a computer screen or feeling one's genitals through clothing in this regard - as they should well know from their TSA sexual harassment training, sexual harassment is in the eye of the beholder. (In other words, if the passenger feels harassed, then it's harassment. If the screener feels harassed for having to do it, then it's harassment.)

I do have one additional request for any TSOs who care to answer this. Let's try to avoid using the kindergarten-level TSA babble like "resistance", "pat down", and the like. Let's keep the conversation at an adult level and call things by their appropriate anatomic names.

And I've got a question for any lawyers who may be following this thread as well... What are one's rights when going through a checkpoint to fly somewhere on business for an employer, if one should feel that one was sexually harassed? To what extent can employers be held responsible? To what extent can TSA be held responsible?

I disagree with that. The law speaks in terms of a reasonable person and there's a reason for that.

There's been a very long thread on that. Let's not repeat it. Basically, the answer is "none at all" since the employer is completely uninvolved in any activity that might be ruled as harassment.

Ultimately, a court may have to decide that. But unless and until a court ruled that it was harassment, no employer could even potentially held liable for something that was required by the government. And if it ever was ruled as harassment, the TSA would have to stop doing it, so the question of whether an employer could be held liable for travel beyond that point is moot.

Myself and other have predicted this; the gropes are so unpleasant for the TSA employees forced to do them, they cut corners.



I must say, you've had some interesting things to say about the Nude-O-Scopes. :eek:

Thanks. Someone is lying about saving the images...I wonder if ATR will likewise save the data.

I agree, they should be put on the "registered anti sex offender list".

You fell for our successful troll.:)

Good game that was.

Bart, the passengers have no rights at checkpoints. Your coworkers have repeatedly said that the checkpoints are Constitution free zones and that the TSOs can pretty much do or say anything they want to, to to the passengers. Your coworkers abuse the passengers and wonder why the passengers are hostile towards TSA employees. This we understand.

The workplace abuse triangle has violence at the top. I suspect that the checkpoint triangle will also has violence at the top and we are now seeing the results of years of abuse and indifference towards the passengers by TSA coming to fruition. Your agency's upper level management ignored the problem early on and continues to ignore the problem today.

I suspect that the person who eventually violently lashes out will be a frequent flier who snaps at one outrage too much because they've experienced the worst TSA can dish out. In the world barrel of airport security TSA scrapes the bottom of the barrel in both efficacy and customer relations.

Scrapes so hard there's splinters flying like shrapnel.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2.1; en-us; SCH-I500 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I clearly understand your frustration. The TSOs who tell you that checkpoints are "Constitution free zones" are wrong.

And yet they still work there. Oh and I almost forgot, did the Dallas (DAL) TSA supervisor screener who assaulted a screener get fired or just promoted? With or without permanent "SSSS" and any future travel? Does the TSA now consider this behavior "within scope of employment"?

http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dw...t.2c95dab.html

Justice Department backs Love Field TSA supervisor in assault case
Officials say he has immunity in handling of other screener
09:42 PM CDT on Monday, October 8, 2007
By MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]
The Justice Department says a Dallas Love Field security screener should be immune from prosecution on a charge that he assaulted a subordinate on the job. And last month, the government asked a federal judge to step into the misdemeanor case.

The case involves a February incident in which a Transportation Security Administration screener told police that her supervisor grabbed her arm, turned her around and held her in place during an argument over how to handle an upset passenger.

The Justice Department argues in court documents that the supervisor was acting "in the scope of his employment ... under the color of federal law."

"That's outrageous," said Cris Soulia, a TSA screener and representative for the southwest region of the American Federation of Government Employees. "Nowhere have I read where we are allowed to lay our hands on anybody outside of normal screening functions. We don't detain people. We're not law enforcement."

While TSA screeners are allowed to pat down passengers to search for explosives and other weapons, they rely on police to detain passengers and make arrests. It's unclear what authority a supervisor has to touch another screener.

Spokeswomen for the Justice Department and the TSA declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

But Mr. Soulia said he wasn't surprised that the government is taking the supervisor's side.

"It's just the way that management takes care of their own and not their employees, not the front-line screeners," he said. "And people wonder why we need a union."

Since the creation of the TSA in 2001, the federation of government employees has been fighting in court and on Capitol Hill to get collective bargaining rights for screeners.

But while the TSA allows screeners to unionize, the agency has said a collective bargaining arrangement would inhibit the agency's ability to adapt to changing security needs.

TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said the agency looks after all its employees.

"Every case is different," she said. "Certainly we look at things with an unbiased eye."

The Love Field incident described in court documents started when a passenger passed through a security checkpoint carrying a bottle of water. TSA screeners told her she couldn't bring it through, and the woman walked out of the security area to finish her water, according to a police report.

She then became irate, yelling and crying, after TSA screeners told her she had to go through security again, police said.

The acting screening manager, James Smith, 62, was called over to talk to the passenger.

Julia Blackburn, a lead TSA screener, told police that she then tried to tell Mr. Smith what happened but that he told her, "You need to go over there and do your job." She said he then grabbed her by the arm and held her.

Ms. Blackburn, 60, waited a week to report the incident out of fear of retaliation, she told police.

The Justice Department alleges in federal court documents that Ms. Blackburn interrupted Mr. Smith's conversation with the passenger.

"At all times, Mr. Smith's actions in communicating with [Ms. Blackburn] were authorized by law and were necessary and proper," Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine A. Miller wrote in court documents. "Mr. Smith believed that his conduct supervising [Ms. Blackburn] was justifiable under the circumstances."

Ms. Miller argued that the misdemeanor assault citation should be handled in federal court instead of municipal court because there is "interest in preventing the harassment of federal officials by disgruntled employees through the filing of criminal complaints with state law enforcement agencies."

Ms. Blackburn has not responded to the request to move the case into federal court, and no hearing date has been set.

Neither Mr. Smith nor Ms. Blackburn returned calls seeking comment.

While the TSA is a relatively new agency, it's not unusual for the Justice Department to step into criminal cases or lawsuits involving federal employees on the job, said Gony Goldberg, assistant general counsel for the federation of government employees.

Before intervening, the department will usually evaluate the case on its own to determine whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment, she said.

Courts have split in previous cases alleging an assault on the job.

"Some courts have held that the assault is not within the scope of employment," she said. "Some courts have held that it is within the scope of employment based on the fact that it happened on the job during work hours and that, therefore, this is a discipline issue, not a criminal issue."

I believe what you are referring to is workplace sexual harassment. "Sexual harassment" in the workplace, where the reasonable person standard is invoked pertains more to "creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment." The airport checkpoint is not the workplace.

There is no "reasonable person" standard for negative feelings resulting from unwanted touching.

We should not even be thinking "sexual harassment", we need to be thinking "sexual assault" or "molestation", which is what is taking place at checkpoints.

I believe that is the very point of the frustration being experienced at the checkpoint and being expressed here. It's not an explanation; it's the problem....like having your dentist tell you that he clearly understands your pain and that the reason your tooth hurts is because you have a toothache.

I said someone was lying about the data being saved. That meant it could well be you and not the TSA, which might be truthful in not saving data.

The point is, we need pax representation to monitor these things and make sure that data cannot be saved or transmitted, and is not saved or transmitted. It is unreasonable for TSA to expect anyone to trust it at this point.