TSA now has a toll free helpline for travelers with disabilities and medical needs
Dec 26, 2011, 8:14 am
#31
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
I am all for accountability, I can't disagree with that in any way shape or form - with the exception of being held accountable for something that is out of your control.
Dec 26, 2011, 8:52 am
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,028
GSOLTSO,
With all due respect, your above post illustrates my point.
With all the current "layers" we are still given nothing but excuses why passengers aren't treated with respect and why TSO's don't always follow the rules.
Adding another layer just gives TSOs another "it was a miscommunication" excuse.
With all due respect, your above post illustrates my point.
With all the current "layers" we are still given nothing but excuses why passengers aren't treated with respect and why TSO's don't always follow the rules.
Adding another layer just gives TSOs another "it was a miscommunication" excuse.
Dec 26, 2011, 9:00 am
#33
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: TPA
Programs: AAdvantage 2 million, Marriott Gold
Posts: 960
Unless the phone rep can step in and make sure the right think is done (wont happen of course), it has little value when you get to the airport and find the people there do it all differently.
Dec 26, 2011, 9:01 am
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,028
"miscommunications" are not outside TSA's control.
Every action a TSO takes is within their control.
Dec 26, 2011, 9:37 am
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
I can find no fault in making sure that employees are trained well enough to do their jobs, for the most part (in my personal experience) that has been the case. Sometimes the fact that SOP was followed is not the problem, it is how the SOP is followed and the interaction that goes with it. Setting aside policy disagreements, each passenger should be treated professionally and courteously - without fail. If a passenger requires additional help beyond what the majority of passengers require, it usually boils down to a communication challenge - sometimes the passengers do not know what to communicate to the TSOs, and sometimes the TSOs don't understand what is being asked for. I also understand that this is not always the case, that some bad experiences are due to failure on the part of the TSO or on the passenger. We recieve training on how to work with folks that have disabilities (many different types of disabilities as a matter of fact), however, giving them another way to help communicate with TSA can only help if it is done correctly. I don't expect this to be a "magic" solution, but with elbow grease and proper application, this can help many passengers with disabilities in the beginning, and hopefully other passengers by extension.
I agree completely that holding employees accountable for doing their jobs correctly is not an unreasonable demand.
I agree completely that holding employees accountable for doing their jobs correctly is not an unreasonable demand.
Having other means to communicate with TSA will not correct the problem of TSA employees not knowing their jobs or performing their jobs poorly.
To correct this ongoing problem will take real training and then require TSA employees to perform as they have been trained. Then some real on-sight supervision of employees work practices will have to happen. Having the checkpoint supervisor standing at a podium overlooking the entire screening area, as I have observed at every TSA checkpoint I have seen, is not supervision.
Lack of accountability and leadership is the problem as I see it. Ineffective leadership from Pistole and HQ staff, ineffective training methods, and ineffective TSA employees all contribute to the problem and no accountability of individual employees.
This is why TSA is regarded so poorly by the public and TSA is rated near the bottom of all federal agencies as a good place to work by its very own employees.
For the tax money that is being spent on TSA I think any contractor could show better results.
Dec 26, 2011, 10:51 am
#36
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
GSOLTSO,
With all due respect, your above post illustrates my point.
With all the current "layers" we are still given nothing but excuses why passengers aren't treated with respect and why TSO's don't always follow the rules.
Adding another layer just gives TSOs another "it was a miscommunication" excuse.
With all due respect, your above post illustrates my point.
With all the current "layers" we are still given nothing but excuses why passengers aren't treated with respect and why TSO's don't always follow the rules.
Adding another layer just gives TSOs another "it was a miscommunication" excuse.
I can find nothing in your statement to disagree with, if I as a TSO remain professional and courteous (even in the face of withering commentary), then there is no question what is going on. A passenger should disagree with policy, not their treatment by the TSOs. That being said, there are always going to be some situations that are outside of a TSOs control, just like there are always going to be situations outside of everyones control in life. The only thing a TSO can truly control is their own performance and behavior, as long as they keep that squared away, then the only arguments would be about policy - which is as it should be. You should not have to wonder whether a TSO in GSO is going to bark at you or slam your things around or treat you unprofessionally - ditto for every other airport TSA works at, no excuses.
Dec 26, 2011, 10:55 am
#37
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Having other means to communicate with TSA will not correct the problem of TSA employees not knowing their jobs or performing their jobs poorly.
To correct this ongoing problem will take real training and then require TSA employees to perform as they have been trained. Then some real on-sight supervision of employees work practices will have to happen. Having the checkpoint supervisor standing at a podium overlooking the entire screening area, as I have observed at every TSA checkpoint I have seen, is not supervision.
Lack of accountability and leadership is the problem as I see it. Ineffective leadership from Pistole and HQ staff, ineffective training methods, and ineffective TSA employees all contribute to the problem and no accountability of individual employees.
This is why TSA is regarded so poorly by the public and TSA is rated near the bottom of all federal agencies as a good place to work by its very own employees.
For the tax money that is being spent on TSA I think any contractor could show better results.
To correct this ongoing problem will take real training and then require TSA employees to perform as they have been trained. Then some real on-sight supervision of employees work practices will have to happen. Having the checkpoint supervisor standing at a podium overlooking the entire screening area, as I have observed at every TSA checkpoint I have seen, is not supervision.
Lack of accountability and leadership is the problem as I see it. Ineffective leadership from Pistole and HQ staff, ineffective training methods, and ineffective TSA employees all contribute to the problem and no accountability of individual employees.
This is why TSA is regarded so poorly by the public and TSA is rated near the bottom of all federal agencies as a good place to work by its very own employees.
For the tax money that is being spent on TSA I think any contractor could show better results.
Dec 26, 2011, 11:28 am
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
I look at it a bit different, if it puts another set of eyes and ears into the pipeline to bring compliance in line, then I can handle that, and I would hope that it would create some more accountability, which is what you are asking for. I don't care where accountability comes from, as long as it is there. It can come from new programs that come from HQ, from negotiations with the Union, from outside 3rd party suggestions (if they allow it), from the White House, even from Mrs. Davis' Sophomore argument class at podunk U. If it helps to increase the accountabiliy and prevent unprofessional behavior, then bring it online and lets get to work.
Those things may create requirements but accountability is the active monitoring of employees to ensure they do their jobs correctly.
That is why I fault Pistole who runs TSA. He has not taken steps to make employees accountable for their actions. It is his lack of proactive leadership to put in place the tools needed by managers. Poor leadership and supervision is TSA's #1 problem in my opinion. Without strong leadership and direct supervision of employees management doesn't know what problems they have to deal with. Then Pistole aggravated the problems by agreeing to having a TSA union, a very poor judgement call.
I don't think anyone would claim that TSA is highly regarded by the public. There is no question that TSA is rated very low as a good place to work. Employee turnover is still higher than desired.
All of these things clearly point to ineffective leadership up and down the TSA chain of command.
Dec 26, 2011, 11:49 am
#39
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
In the private sector, as a supervisor, when one of my subordinates brings discredit to my organization, I am disciplined as well as I was not effectively supervising my employee.
Also, if a person that I have trained exhibits poor training it affects my evaluation as a trainer.
In neither case do I have direct control of the employee's action, but I still carry responsibility for their actions. That is the reason I train and supervise with great seriousness. My employee's failures and my trainees failures are my failures as well.
As to TSA supervisors, it is my impression that they are more interested in supervising the process than they are interested in supervising the employees.
Also, if a person that I have trained exhibits poor training it affects my evaluation as a trainer.
In neither case do I have direct control of the employee's action, but I still carry responsibility for their actions. That is the reason I train and supervise with great seriousness. My employee's failures and my trainees failures are my failures as well.
As to TSA supervisors, it is my impression that they are more interested in supervising the process than they are interested in supervising the employees.
Dec 26, 2011, 11:58 am
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
In the private sector, as a supervisor, when one of my subordinates brings discredit to my organization, I am disciplined as well as I was not effectively supervising my employee.
Also, if a person that I have trained exhibits poor training it affects my evaluation as a trainer.
In neither case do I have direct control of the employee's action, but I still carry responsibility for their actions. That is the reason I train and supervise with great seriousness. My employee's failures and my trainees failures are my failures as well.
As to TSA supervisors, it is my impression that they are more interested in supervising the process than they are interested in supervising the employees.
Also, if a person that I have trained exhibits poor training it affects my evaluation as a trainer.
In neither case do I have direct control of the employee's action, but I still carry responsibility for their actions. That is the reason I train and supervise with great seriousness. My employee's failures and my trainees failures are my failures as well.
As to TSA supervisors, it is my impression that they are more interested in supervising the process than they are interested in supervising the employees.
I think the typical TSA supervisor is as you say more interested in the process but limited to how the public is complying with TSA Secret Rules that we are not privileged to know but must obey.
What is missing is how the screeners are interacting with the public while they (TSA) conform to SOP. With TSA making it nearly impossible for the public to comply with its secret rules no outcome but failure is really possible.
Keep in mind as I mentioned earlier, I see the TSA Checkpoint Overseer so removed from what is going on all that all they can really monitor is through put. That leaves a gaping hole of poor worker supervision.
Dec 26, 2011, 3:38 pm
#41
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,765
[QUOTE=Boggie Dog;17693507]
I agree with Boggie Dog, none of those things create accountability, and neither does a hotline. On Tuesday, a hotline person tells the passenger that their disability will be handled in such-and-such a way, they won't need to remove their clothes, it won't take very long, they'll be able to stay with their traveling companion the whole time, they'll be able to watch their belongings, etc. On Wednesday, the passenger goes to the airport where they quietly mention their disability to the screener, who insists that they'll have to go to a private room, take off their shirt, "no, your daughter can't come with you, your bags will have to stay here, but it's okay, the other screeners will watch them for you, DTW2FT" etc.
Where is the hotline person at that moment? How do they step in NOW and stop the screener, reassure the passenger, make sure the screening is done "with respect and sensitivity"
and then, after the passenger has gone, tell the screener what should have been done? How do they follow up for the next day or week to make sure that the screener is doing it right the next time, and the time after that, without having to be reminded? THAT would be accountability. But the hotline person is in a call center in DC (or Bangalore) and has no idea how the passenger is actually treated on Wednesday, or authority to fix things.
Accountability is not someone telling me what SHOULD happen, or saying afterwards that it SHOULDN'T have happened. Accountability is someone who sees the problem occurring, recognizes that it's a problem, and has the authority and willingness to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
Programs from HQ do not create accountability, they just provide more things for screeners to either get right or get wrong, but "programs" don't correct the ones doing it wrong. Same with the union. "Suggestions" from passengers can't create accountability. The White House isn't going to step in to tell Joe Screener to stop being an idiot.
I look at it a bit different, if it puts another set of eyes and ears into the pipeline to bring compliance in line, then I can handle that, and I would hope that it would create some more accountability, which is what you are asking for. I don't care where accountability comes from, as long as it is there. It can come from new programs that come from HQ, from negotiations with the Union, from outside 3rd party suggestions (if they allow it), from the White House, even from Mrs. Davis' Sophomore argument class at podunk U. If it helps to increase the accountabiliy and prevent unprofessional behavior, then bring it online and lets get to work.
Where is the hotline person at that moment? How do they step in NOW and stop the screener, reassure the passenger, make sure the screening is done "with respect and sensitivity"
and then, after the passenger has gone, tell the screener what should have been done? How do they follow up for the next day or week to make sure that the screener is doing it right the next time, and the time after that, without having to be reminded? THAT would be accountability. But the hotline person is in a call center in DC (or Bangalore) and has no idea how the passenger is actually treated on Wednesday, or authority to fix things. Accountability is not someone telling me what SHOULD happen, or saying afterwards that it SHOULDN'T have happened. Accountability is someone who sees the problem occurring, recognizes that it's a problem, and has the authority and willingness to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
Programs from HQ do not create accountability, they just provide more things for screeners to either get right or get wrong, but "programs" don't correct the ones doing it wrong. Same with the union. "Suggestions" from passengers can't create accountability. The White House isn't going to step in to tell Joe Screener to stop being an idiot.
Dec 27, 2011, 7:33 am
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,028
Dec 29, 2011, 2:52 am
#43
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
[QUOTE=RadioGirl;17694579]
I agree with Boggie Dog, none of those things create accountability, and neither does a hotline. On Tuesday, a hotline person tells the passenger that their disability will be handled in such-and-such a way, they won't need to remove their clothes, it won't take very long, they'll be able to stay with their traveling companion the whole time, they'll be able to watch their belongings, etc. On Wednesday, the passenger goes to the airport where they quietly mention their disability to the screener, who insists that they'll have to go to a private room, take off their shirt, "no, your daughter can't come with you, your bags will have to stay here, but it's okay, the other screeners will watch them for you, DTW2FT" etc.
Where is the hotline person at that moment? How do they step in NOW and stop the screener, reassure the passenger, make sure the screening is done "with respect and sensitivity" and then, after the passenger has gone, tell the screener what should have been done? How do they follow up for the next day or week to make sure that the screener is doing it right the next time, and the time after that, without having to be reminded? THAT would be accountability. But the hotline person is in a call center in DC (or Bangalore) and has no idea how the passenger is actually treated on Wednesday, or authority to fix things.
Accountability is not someone telling me what SHOULD happen, or saying afterwards that it SHOULDN'T have happened. Accountability is someone who sees the problem occurring, recognizes that it's a problem, and has the authority and willingness to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
Programs from HQ do not create accountability, they just provide more things for screeners to either get right or get wrong, but "programs" don't correct the ones doing it wrong. Same with the union. "Suggestions" from passengers can't create accountability. The White House isn't going to step in to tell Joe Screener to stop being an idiot.
I agree that the person on the hotline is simply a conduit for information. If it is used the way I read it, it is a little different than that, as there will be someone at the specific airport relaying the information to the psecific checkpoint. That has the ability to add another person requiring the TSOs to follow the SOP and do what they are supposed to do. I am not saying this is perfect, but it has the chance to do something to help accountability. It is not the end all/be all of fixing accountability, but it has a chance to be a starting point to increase it. The White House may not step in, but Joe from outside the STSO corps may, and if that is the case, it can create some positive change - which is my long term goal.
I agree with Boggie Dog, none of those things create accountability, and neither does a hotline. On Tuesday, a hotline person tells the passenger that their disability will be handled in such-and-such a way, they won't need to remove their clothes, it won't take very long, they'll be able to stay with their traveling companion the whole time, they'll be able to watch their belongings, etc. On Wednesday, the passenger goes to the airport where they quietly mention their disability to the screener, who insists that they'll have to go to a private room, take off their shirt, "no, your daughter can't come with you, your bags will have to stay here, but it's okay, the other screeners will watch them for you, DTW2FT" etc.
Where is the hotline person at that moment? How do they step in NOW and stop the screener, reassure the passenger, make sure the screening is done "with respect and sensitivity"
and then, after the passenger has gone, tell the screener what should have been done? How do they follow up for the next day or week to make sure that the screener is doing it right the next time, and the time after that, without having to be reminded? THAT would be accountability. But the hotline person is in a call center in DC (or Bangalore) and has no idea how the passenger is actually treated on Wednesday, or authority to fix things. Accountability is not someone telling me what SHOULD happen, or saying afterwards that it SHOULDN'T have happened. Accountability is someone who sees the problem occurring, recognizes that it's a problem, and has the authority and willingness to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
Programs from HQ do not create accountability, they just provide more things for screeners to either get right or get wrong, but "programs" don't correct the ones doing it wrong. Same with the union. "Suggestions" from passengers can't create accountability. The White House isn't going to step in to tell Joe Screener to stop being an idiot.
Dec 29, 2011, 4:03 am
#44
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
[QUOTE=gsoltso;17708399]
I agree that the person on the hotline is simply a conduit for information. If it is used the way I read it, it is a little different than that, as there will be someone at the specific airport relaying the information to the psecific checkpoint. That has the ability to add another person requiring the TSOs to follow the SOP and do what they are supposed to do. I am not saying this is perfect, but it has the chance to do something to help accountability.
I don't see that. It's certainly a positive step, if it happens that way, but, to me, "accountability" refers to what would happen after the passenger clears the checkpoint, not before. Is somebody who's checkpoint experience didn't go the way the hotline said it should going to be able to have somebody to talk to in order to resolve why it didn't go that way? This story is silent on that issue. But if the answer is "no", then whether or not this problems helps people with disabilities in some way, I don't see how it's creating "accountability".
I agree that the person on the hotline is simply a conduit for information. If it is used the way I read it, it is a little different than that, as there will be someone at the specific airport relaying the information to the psecific checkpoint. That has the ability to add another person requiring the TSOs to follow the SOP and do what they are supposed to do. I am not saying this is perfect, but it has the chance to do something to help accountability.
Dec 29, 2011, 4:21 am
#45
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,765
I agree that the person on the hotline is simply a conduit for information. If it is used the way I read it, it is a little different than that, as there will be someone at the specific airport relaying the information to the psecific checkpoint. That has the ability to add another person requiring the TSOs to follow the SOP and do what they are supposed to do. I am not saying this is perfect, but it has the chance to do something to help accountability. It is not the end all/be all of fixing accountability, but it has a chance to be a starting point to increase it. The White House may not step in, but Joe from outside the STSO corps may, and if that is the case, it can create some positive change - which is my long term goal.
Scenario 2: Passenger calls the TSA hotline and gets the same information as the TSA website, as above. They then get mistreated at the checkpoint, and claim that it's different from what the TSA hotline said.
How is scenario 2 any better than scenario 1? Sure, the hotline person could call the specific airport to, what, remind them to be "sensitive and respectful" with this particular passenger. If the airport is ORD or LAX, how will the hotline person get the message to the right checkpoint and the specific screener who will be on duty at the time? If the TSA screeners can read the TSA website, they can get the same information the passenger has; if they can't/won't read the website, why will having a hotline person call the airport change anything?
This is simply an excuse to employ even more people, and another useless layer so they can claim they're "doing something."