Is screening about to get LESS secure?
 

It is reported on king5.com that to "speed up" security - hasn't TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger told us it is about security and not speed - that private contractors are being sought to supplement TSA.

Will private contractors make security any safer? Is "speed up" motivated security about security or convenience?

The Inspector General for Homeland Security, John Roth, has testified about airport security:

We ran multiple tests at eight different airports of different sizes, including large category X airports across the country, and tested airports using private screeners as part of the Screening Partnership Program. The results were consistent across every airport. .... We found layers of security simply missing.

So security simply missing under TSA actual control and under (profit motivated) Private contractors. What is not realized is that EVEN with (profit motivated) private contractor TSA Management is still in control.

What we know about TSA Managements approach to security is for quite sometime Management was more concerned about efficiency outcomes (most likely lines) at the expense of diligent resolution of alarms. TSA also had "disproportionate focus on efficiency and speed in screening operations rather than security effectiveness." This approached was stated by Peter Neffenger, as recently as March 1, 2016.

We also know that TSA Management will seeks to PUNISH those who speak up about security issues. TSA Management punished those who spoke up through involuntary transfers. Those who spoke up about security lapses were told transfer or leave the TSA. TSA Management culture is reported as being a “double standard exists for senior leaders and promotes a shut up and move up”.

This is TSA Management, "double standards", "shut up and move up", retribution against those who raise concerns about security, and over all an approach that is reported to put the public at risk.

How should the public expect a profit motivated contractor to react to TSA Management? Should the public believe that a profit motivated "security" provider that is overseen by the TSA will challenge TSA Management concerning security issues. Should the public believe that a profit motivated security provider hired under the stated purpose to "speed up" will provide security?

If the 'private contractors' are paid appropriate (minimum) wages to stack tubs and stand guard in front of a closed WTMD, sit guard at an exit or check IDS, then it could help. These are minimum wage tasks and the TSOs currently performing them are vastly overpaid for what they do. How much skill does it take to stack tubs? Does it really require academy training? And any good bouncer can do a better job of checking IDs.

The private contractors would be unnecessary if TSA would emulate the practices of non-US checkpoints, where everyone is expected to work and there are no clusters of security people standing around jacking their jaws or playing with their cellphones instead of working.

I would like to know the connection between Neffenger/TSA brass and any private contractors who might be handed special over-priced-for-the-taxpayer contracts. Is Neffenger going to fund his retirement by making sweetheart deals with private contractors instead of buying new hardware?

Minimum wage in Seattle is between $12 - $13 hour, to increase to $15hr - blue shirt TSA make about $15 - $18 hr depending on location.

Who would pay a private contractor? Is the Airport paying about the money or is TSA paying for it?

The taxpayers and travelers will pay for it.

According to USA.Jobs there are no vacant TSO positions in Seattle.

As long as private contractors have to do what TSA tells them, nothing will improve. The issue is not who is doing the screening, the issue is how the screening is done.
The screening process as currently done in the US and mandated by TSA is wasteful, flawed, unnecessary and less secure then in many other parts of the world.

The screening in the US as done prior to TSAs creation was more secure then what happens now.

TSA (and, I would assume, their private counterparts) are missing 95% of contraband going through checkpoints. What does "less secure" even mean in such a context? :confused: Missing 98%? 100%? How would you tell?
No, what we know is that TSA management is most concerned about their own job security and prestige. They are also concerned about (increasing) TSA's budget - because it enhances their own job security - and about creating lucrative opportunities in the private sector - because it enhances their future career options.

With such serious concerns to address, they don't have time to worry about petty things like efficiency, effectiveness, actual security or similar nonsense.
Indeed, and not just financially.

Yes less secure, because based on passed performance of TSA and it management style, a profit motivated business has more incentive to ignore security issues and to do whatever TSA management tells them to do.

Your personal opinions aside, could you support your claims with documented facts? I do not think there is any evidence of increasing TSA budget.

Neffenger has spoken about how TSA Management was rated. Neffenger even stated that the performance measurement would be reevaluated.

Wut?

The fact - FACT - that TSA is currently asking Congress for budget increases isn't evidence that TSA wants to increase their budget?

OK :rolleyes:

TSA asked to increase screener by 323, that is not 1 additional screener at each airport screened by TSA employees...so how does not adding any noticable of screeners help with Management job security? It does not.

Furthermore, ONLY Congress can get rid of TSA. TSA management have job security; so long as they "shut up to move up". Even at airports with private screeners TSA MANAGEMENT is in charge. See Sai's incident at SFO where TSA Management refused to allow him medically necessary liquids.

It is unfounded that TSA is seeking to increase its bugdet as a job security play by TSA Management.

TSA Management has ZERO incentive to protect the jobs of screeners; why, because TSA management keep their positons and salary under private screening partnership program

Sorry, but if you're trying to make some sort of point, I'm not getting it.

Please demonstrate how TSA budget request creates jobs security for TSA management.

In pretty much any organization, the more staffers, the more managers.

Getting rid of the TSA will be the first step in making our airports more secure.

Until that step happens, our airports will remain completely INsecure.

Care to disclose your source or are you just parroting stats on tests?