TSA doesn't understand diff. between coats and shirts
 

Yesterday evening at BUR my girlfriend was rather steamed when she was asked to remove her jean shirt exposing a white tank underneath. I told her that it was now SOP for all travelers to remove jackets, and that her choice was to remove the shirt or be sent to secondary for wanding. Naturally, she pointed out that nobody in OAK gave her a second look on Friday when she was wearing the same shirt.

I can understand why jackets must now be removed as osama is no doubt plotting new ways of sealing plastic explosives into coats (not that this would be detected by x-rays). No doubt the new policy is the result of the recent GAO or Inspector General reports on the TSA's incompetence. But it makes little sense to have a policy that is at best inconsistently enforced. Apparently they also need to provide TSA with a crash course on what constitutes a jacket. :D

Actually the X-Ray can assist with detection of an explosive, not by chemical analysis but by specific image charactistics.


No, it is as result of the incident in Russia.

The incident in Russia forever confused our bureaucrats about the difference between a coat and a shirt. The aftereffects will be felt around the country this coming winter, as the wand-wielding-whatzits who man our checkpoints trudge through ice and snow wearing only thin shirts, apparently mixed up with their winter coats.

Since the tragedy in Russia, I too have lost the ability to distinguish a coat from a shirt. Some mornings I show up wearing only a pair of pants and a parka.

You are correct:
 

They are both outer garmets and if they cover another garmet and obscure the bodies natural profile, they have to be removed or screened.

So, if I am wearing a long sleeve collared shirt with an undershirt underneath it (not exactly a revolutionary style concept), I must remove the outer shirt? Even if tucked-in? Surely this cannot be the case.

Sounds like the TSA-approved outfit must be some sort of spandex J-Lo creation... Um, obscuring the body's natural profile is sort of the purpose of clothing. That's why we wear it. So we're not naked.

This is a strip-search, plain and simple. Travellers should not be forced to disrobe at checkpoints.

Last week in ABQ I had to remove my long sleeved shirt (over a tank top).
I was wearing a similar shirt and tank top on the outbound from ATL with no problem. So much for consistent enforcement. :rolleyes:

If you wear a shirt as a coat ( over the t shirt or a top), you will be asked to remove it! ;)

What if you decide to wear a coat in lieu of a shirt? ^

ummm no
 

Like I said in the first post "OBSCURES THE NATURAL CONTURE OF THE BODY. Like it hangs on you, creates bulk spaces etc etc. Tucking it in would eliminate most of this issue.

So if you wear a baggy sweatshirt with nothing underneath you must take it off and go topless? If not, then why do you have to take it off if you have a t-shirt underneath? Shouldn't the logic apply either way (easy to conceal items underneath baggy sweatshirt regardless of whether another garment is under it)?

Of course, who said this was based on anything like logic? :td:

But if not tucked-in than it must be removed?

Again, inconsistency. I wore a black shirt hanging loose over a white shirt at SEA this week, & no one asked me to remove it.

I would really like an answer to the baggy sweatshirt question - my overnite flying "costume" often consists of CX jammy bottoms :o and a sweatshirt - ( with no bra) - am i going to have to walk thru stark naked on top - that would be one way to clear the area :rolleyes: :D

If you wear a baggy shirt
 

Or coat as one poster said, and it is the outer most garmet covering skin, you dont take it off, you go for additional screening.

Further evidence that our nation's air "security" is managed by people without the slightest idea what they are doing.

Stupid Americans.

You mean I get my breasts played with again? -- You know when they start feeling mens genitals - thats when the TSA will probably finally get their hands slapped . ( and yes I do consider the "top of the breast " a private part)

Soon we'll have a definition of private parts like the tortured (haha) definition of torture that our government has asserted: a private part is an organ essential for bodily function, like lungs, the heart, liver, etc. We didn't mess with your liver so we didn't touch a private part when we gave you a body cavity search because you refused to remove your baggy sweatpants. :mad:

Many times in the past the TSA people on here have refused to support idiotic policies that the "leadership" is passing down. Why are TSA people defending the pat-downs? There is no logic behind them, they won't decrease in any meaningful way any meaningful risk, they are un-American, and they are degrading to both the perpetrator and the victim.

When criticizing these idiotic policies we (at least the vast majority of us) are not criticizing the people who are forced to carry them out, we're criticizing the policies themselves and those who created them.

Forced? :confused:

Increasingly, I will criticize those who CHOOSE to carry them out, as I'm not aware of any TSA employees who are compelled to work there.

People who violate other people (in what you admit are un-American ways) so that they can collect an above-market paycheck are increasingly hard for me to separate from the un-American leaders for whom they toil.

YMMV.

Sure it's un-American to fondle and grope the way we now do, but like any job, somebody's gotta do it, and it might as well be me, especially since the pay is so much better than it was before the TSA was created.

Sorry, I don't buy it, and I predict that fewer and fewer Americans will buy it either.

Giving the TSA folks some benefit-of-the-doubt, I think it's too early to see some of the stupidity that will IMO certainly come out of the outer-garmet and patdown policy.

Just like the concept of the shoe policy made some sense (screen big bulky shoes like work boots, giant high tops, etc.), there is some sense in the concept of removing winter coats or patting-down extremely bulky billowing garmets.

The problem is and will be the implementation--overzealous checkpoints that will "recommend" removing regular shirts, or all but undershirts, or whatever, and then punish those who don't comply with an aggressive pat down.

Once those problems widely reported (which I have no doubt will happen, just like it did with shoes), I expect some of the more level-headed TSA people here on FT to condemn the policies and the overzealous airports. We've already have a TSAer critize the report of sock-removal from DTW.

What is unfortunate is that it is improbable such rational people will ever be put in charge where they can make a difference. It is my opinon that TSA leadership is out of control. (and yes, I have written my congressman to express that opinion)

I completely understand your sentiments but I think you're taking it a bit far. We are all making compromises (at least the vast majority of us are) in regards to our principles versus the various realities of our jobs. I personally have made such sacrifices. (I have stood by and done little with the exception of writing letters to the editor and to my Congressional representatives, and made political contributions, while my government illegally tortured and illegally held without any due process over 600 people [we think] at Guantanamo Bay. I could have done more.)

Some people took these screener jobs thinking they were doing a service to the public after 9/11. They have stayed because these jobs are decent jobs with good benefits. Many of them disagree with the policies. Should we insist that they all quit and jeopardize their families' well being? Most of us are making a similar value-judgment that the screeners are when we agree to taking off our shoes or going through a feel-up secondary search beause we simply MUST make it to that important meeting. Why shouldn't we be following our principles and get arrested rather than make that meeting?

So what would be the "American" way of handling this?

They don't have one. This is a place where they are free to name call, bash and threaten persons but god forbid you attempt to react then they are quick to click the Report TOS icon.

Can you defend these policies? What purpose do they serve? What is the nexus between the degradation (of the idea of America, the perpetrators, and the victim) and the benefit gained? See my posts above -- I'm not attacking the people enforcing these policies, just the policies themselves and those who put them into place.

I'm amazed that after almost 3 years and ZERO terrorists caught, most of the TSA employees posting here still apparently believe that they are doing something useful for the country. I realize that they are putting food on their own tables, but what are they doing for everybody else? How can they feel good about their jobs? It really amazes me.

Bruce

Bruce,

They are no different than most government employees. Honestly, how many government employees have you come across who feel "good" about their jobs? Most that I know are pretty proud of their "hack" status and will continue to mooch off of the government for as long as they can.

I'm not condoning these idiotic, un-american and possibly un-lawfull practices the TSA Screeners are performing, but now that they are government employees they can never be expected to think like "Real World" employees.

How do you know
 

That what you said is true? Are you referring to the fact that the omnipotent media hasnt said TSA caught terrorists? Can you prove that our efforts have not deterred terrorists? This is an enigma! If you catch one it is working, if you catch none it is working. IF you miss one is it not working?

Ummm no
 

You have no idea about the issues that we face outside of our screening duties "as employees of the Federal Government." I was laid off from a 58k/yr job as an IT specialist before TSA called me to go to work. It was a 67% pay cut. There still is nothing out there for me to go to. There are a myraid of problems with this so called hack. Most of us stay because we are patriots.

I feel VERY sorry for anyone who thinks that any job within the TSA is patriotic.

VERY sorry.

I've come across a lot of (US) govt. employees that feel good and/or proud of their current or former work and who are not "hacks." Granted most of my expereinces have been with military or civilian DoD types, but I still think the above is a little harsh and overly broad. Maybe we've met different people. I've definately known of a few "hacks" and/or people who admitted they were being paid to do nothing, but it wasn't the majority. It doesn't much if at all better in private industry, especially when unionized workforces are involved and you can't hire/fire based on merit.

I dont
 

I dont need your sympathetic response, Just look at the definition of patriot and tell us where you stand.
pa·tri·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr-t, -t)
n.
One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

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.