I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. You don't believe me? Well, you don't see any tigers around here, do you?

Just for the record, I worked for the Social Security Administration during the Reagan Administration, so I have nothing against Federal employees per se. But I really can't understand how TSA employees feel good about some of the things that they do in the name of "security." I would feel pretty stupid, personally. And I'll repeat the earlier comment that working for the TSA is a CHOICE! I don't see any chains keeping them there.

Bruce

I feel bad for people in your shoes. Really, I do.

You must be part-time if your TSA pay represents a 67% paycut from your former position paying $58k, since starting pay for screeners was about $23,600 in 2002 (and ranged up to $35,400 depending on experience).

http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?th...00051980003811
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/tsa6702.htm

Nothing else for you to do? In all of Denver?

Weren't you a former police officer? Police officers probably make more than $23,600 (especially if they have experience).

And with LEO experience, why not Lead or Supervisor? Of course, the TSA pays even more to those with demonstrated supervisory skills.

Yours only repels tigers? :)

Mine keeps me safe from murderous terrorists, driveby shootings and keeps my cholesterol in check. :)

I appreciate your remarks
 

I am full time. The amount that I quoted for a pay cut was with loss of bonuses with the old IT job. Right now I make about half of what I was making. I was LEO in the 1980's Right now I am over the cutoff point to get back in that field. The feds are even worse about the cutoff age. Denver still hasnt recovered from the IT bust that happened about three years ago. The interesting thing about lead and supervisor Ill have to PM you about.

Thats why it is an enigma
 

Your rock saying was a good analogy! I dont know what to say about the choice remark. I still have resumes out. I looked long and hard to find another job (its a long story) after the government pooped on me. There just isnt any demand. I was unemployed for 6 months before TSA

And to think that my statement af a few months ago that the TSA personnel was composed of mostly otherwise unemployables was met with high dudgeon and vigorous denials by a couple of them that look in at what's going on here.

So how many people who have been critical about the TSA on this issue have written or called their congressperson and Senators?

I'm guessing it's zero.

Which only goes to prove: talk is cheap.. it's easy to complain.. but when it comes to actually doing something valuable, most people shirk their responsibility.

Don't worry, it's typical human behavior... I posted in TravelBuzz about a valuable part of legislation expiring in November.. legislation that is particularly beneficial to travellers.. it contained contact info for congress.. the post got 64 reads and 1 response.. and quickly dropped off the radar..

(contrast: a 3-day old post in TravelBuzz about crying babies which has gotten 1500 reads and 70 responses)

I can assure you that the figure is more than zero, although I tend to agree that it isn't high enough. When the TSA started imposing fines, I was moved to write personal letters to my congressional representatives. My senators ignored me, but my representative, Rush Holt, forwarded my letter to the TSA. Eventually, the TSA responded to him, and he sent me the response. It was not what I wanted to hear, but it was a real 2-page letter signed (well, probably auto-penned) by Asa Hutchinson.

I agree with many other posters, both TSA and non-TSA, who have commented on the much higher quality of TSA staff compared to what passed for "security" before 9/11/01. The old group was a bunch of cretins. The new folks speak English, are generally polite, act like they have something to lose, etc. I am not in any way disparaging TSA employees when I ask how intelligent people with other opportunities can do such a foolish, thankless job.

Maybe the key word here is "opportunities." We have heard from quite a few TSA employees who either want to get out or already have. They find themselves at the TSA out of necessity, not a misguided belief that they are accomplishing great things by wanding little children and probing unwilling people's private areas. If I'm right about that, then maybe we should have a little sympathy for the screeners -- and I am starting to do so. But the gung ho ones are simply nuts, and I will avoid them whenever possible.

Bruce

So does that imply that I must strip down to my t-shirt (the "undershirt" or "wife-beater" for the rednecks among us) to traverse the WTMD?

Once I get stateside to pick up the winter garb, I'm going thru the first checkpoint I can find wearing shorts, loafers, and a pullover with no shirt on underneath, just for ****s and grins :D . I'll report back as to what the wand-wizard reaction is to this very thread in this very forum.

That "thunk" you hear is every Founding Father flipping in his grave. Don't kid yourself--if you had any patriotism you would work two minimum wage jobs before voluntarily undertaking a task designed specifically to unneccesarily take liberty from your fellow countrymen.

ouch!
 

That makes it sound very bad. There are a lot of good, smart people that work at TSA. I was only referring to me as an example. I wasnt here when you posted that earlier remark so I cannot say.

not necessarily
 

No you dont have to strip down to your fruit of the looms. You cant wear anything baggy though.



There are alot of founding fathers that took the stand that freedom is free. I can get quotes if you like....Sounds to me like you need a course in what a patriot really is.

There are alot of founding fathers that took the stand that freedom is free. I can get quotes if you like....Sounds to me like you need a course in what a patriot really is.[/QUOTE]


Well lets see at ORD the other morning ( on a continuation BP so it didnt have the SSSS on it - this whole thing makes no sense to me) - I was allowed to walk thru with my sweatshirt on . People ahead of me had their shoes on. Some consistency and common sense would be helpful

i agree
 

Well lets see at ORD the other morning ( on a continuation BP so it didnt have the SSSS on it - this whole thing makes no sense to me) - I was allowed to walk thru with my sweatshirt on . People ahead of me had their shoes on. Some consistency and common sense would be helpful[/QUOTE]

i agree
 

Well lets see at ORD the other morning ( on a continuation BP so it didnt have the SSSS on it - this whole thing makes no sense to me) - I was allowed to walk thru with my sweatshirt on . People ahead of me had their shoes on. Some consistency and common sense would be helpful[/QUOTE]
There is a common complaint in here on inconsistency! I believe that it is rooted in the fact that there are just too many TSA screening people taking things upon themselves to interpret the rules that we are supposed to be following. Unfortunately it falls on the managers to see that things are done consistently. There appears to a gap here. I see it every day at the airport that I work at.

:confused:

Huh?

I may not be completely intune with the fashion scene in Denver, but in most of the country where I travel, I see lots and lots of baggy pants, baggy T-shirts and baggy sweatshirts. Not everyone is dressed like Ned Flanders in his skin-tight ski outfit.

Are you suggesting that baggy clothing must be removed?

Ain't gonna happen if that baggy clothing is the only layer worn by the traveler.

Or are you saying that baggy clothing will trigger a secondary?