in the most recent threads it sounds like some people have had good experiences with some TSA agents, but overall-any bad experience overshadows any good experiences. how would the situation be any different with a different cadre of folks doing the same job?

I agree its unfair to paint all of TSA with the same (negative) brush just because of a few (or few thousand) poor screeners.

But that doesn't change the fact that this is essentially a customer facing, customer service (with undertones of 'National Security' organization). Screeners should be polite, friendly and firmly enforce the rules (and ideally the rules would be logical AND consistent). But this is not a job that requires advanced levels of education, nor is it one that undergoes ultra stringent background checks as required of other government/law enfocement jobs). Not to demean the position, just pointing out that it isn't rocket science or something that requires free and creative thinking; it simply requires adherence to policy.

If this is seen through to fruition, behavioral profiling when done by trained individuals (and I don't mean the 80-hours-of-training lackeys that comprise most of the TSA) can be an IMMENSE improvement for airline/airport security.

It takes an extremely well-conditioned terrorist to be able to slip by behavioral profiling, hence why Israel never has a single incident. However, where today's front line of "security" is based upon clothing and the ability for someone to take a cursory look at an x-ray monitor, the chance of a terrorist slipping through is as high as it was pre 2001!

This is great news. Maybe the TSA can take a hint from other more developed security systems and not subject every traveller to invasive bodily searches when they pass a brief behavioral interview/interrogation. Sounds good to me!

I agree. I think most of the problems FTers have with TSA are policy-based, not personnel-based. I have seen far fewer dim bulbs now than I did in the Wackenhut-Argenbright-ITS days. The difference now--and what makes FTers cranky--is the added rules and the lack of adherence to those rules in some instances. Neither of those would change under a privatized scheme. A private screener is no more or less likely to ignore or misconstrue what constitutes a "profiled shoe" than one on government payroll.

I would argue that having screeners on TSA payroll has benefits for when things do go wrong. For one, there's at least accountability of a governmental nature. Private contractors don't have to publish rulemaking notices in the Federal Register or respond to FOIA requests. The government does. You get to elect the people who have ultimate control over the DHS payroll...you do not get to elect the Wackenhut CEO. If you want a good example of how lack of accountability to the public can cause big problems, go back and read about the Washington Metro Transit PD's crusade against french fries and talking loudly.

Matches the people they are screening, dim bulb passengers. I have watched many passengers who can't tie their own shoes much less read signs which tell them everything they need to know.

its not a law enforcement position, and a comparable background check is not needed since it doesn't fit the job. the rules are made by higher ups like we've discussed before, and is separate of the screeners themselves. i agree on the logical/consistant part though.

i agree that it doesn't require advanced levels of education, but that doesn't mean that those working on the job are not educated.

i've talked to many who were former military who do fall under the same criteria that those advocating el al type screening. as well as others who are working the job to finish up a bachelors or masters then moving on to something that requires more "advanced levels of education" in a similar field. some may go on to become FBI agents or research better ways of doing things by the screening process. they have a better understanding of whats involved than probably anyone of us here (save for a few who are those individuals) and change (more common sense) probably won't come until those working the job right now displace those that got their position by political appointment.

not to knock those who spend the long hours at the helm of the ship, so to speak... but they were never screeners. its kind of like they (screeners) get it from both ends. they get the brunt of an unhappy and upset public, and they have to adhere to the rules that they were given.

c'est la vie.

I respectfully disagree. The issue is that there's no accountability. The TSA talking heads, who officially speak for the Director, routinely blow off the taxpayers. There are countless examples of this. The TSA responds to FOIA requests by not responding to them. The only thing the FOIA law states is that an agency has a specific period of time to respond that they received your FOIA request. They are under absolutely no obligation to anyone to ever respond. The only oversight that occurs is an agency head who makes it a priority to respond to the taxpayers -- their customers, by the way.

The TSA grew out of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security. After my retirement from the USAF in 1998, I interviewed for several senior positions in the FAA, including the deputy director position in the Civil Aviation Security office. (Thank God I wasn't selected!!!) I had a senior VP from one of the FAA's major contractors tell me that it's the FAA's style to "hunker down and retreat" (his words) when public criticism comes their way. Substitute "TSA" for "FAA" and it's very easy to see that the culture remains intact. Face it: The TSA is like the old Soviet Politburo. The main reason for their existence is to perpetuate their existence.

Wackenhut was doing just fine on 9/11/01. A whole lot of US Government counterterrorism things failed LONG before 19 terrorists passed through airport checkpoints.

I do agree with you. I was unclear in the original post. I'm not in a million years saying that TSA is a pinnacle of <i>actual</i> accountability. My point is there is at least a theoretical means with which to change the organization via our elected representatives. A private contractor is subject to exactly the same problems, except there is entirely zero legal recourse. With a governmental agency, that door remains at least slightly open. It's not that I'm anti-privatization, but I don't think the benefits of privatization come to fruition when it's by government contract and according to strict government rules. Then, the government still gets to set all the rules we hate, but can avoid accountability by saying "Well, it's our contractor who's doing them." The contractor could decide we all have to stand on one foot during screening with our eyes closed. The private actor means it's much harder to bring a constitutional case.

I'm with you on changing the culture within TSA. But, putting quasi-law enforcement -- especially with the powers TSA now has -- into the hands of private actors has some major legal consequences I don't think folks around here would appreciate.

To get into TSA you have to take the MMPI. An English comprehension test, A situational evaluation, a physical agility test, an x-ray interpretation test, two interviews and very complete physical plus a background examination that is equal to a secret clearance. Less than 1 in 1000 make it.

That's good; making sure people aren't nuts before putting them in positions of authority and/or trust.
Hablo Engles?
This is appropriate; check for eyesight and see if they can do the basic job; but without prior training, are the items they are checking for pretty hard to detect, or pretty obvious?
Hmm.. background equal to secret clearance? A computer check to make sure they aren't felons and a credit report??? Is smoking pot within the past few years a disqualifier?
Then perhaps the problem is with the applicant pool. The requirements listed, in my uninformed opinion, shouldn't be that hard for most people to pass, unless the applicatiants (the 999 who don't make the cut) are pretty poor to begin with.

Also, I gotta ask about this.

Is this number based on the fact that TSA isn't hiring anybody anymore, but still gets applicants? Or is this number based on when TSA was ramping up??

With (let's say) 40,000 employees; and only 1 out of 1,000 applicatants were accepted, that means TSA had 40,000,000 (thats forty million) applicants for positions. I find that number a bit hard to believe.

Notice he didn't say you have to "pass" the MMPI.

I cannot and do not believe that every screener I've come in contact with has "passed" the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory. I've taken this test myself.

Yep, I have had people tell me that they failed this.

SEE

Pretty tough for the untrained. I have seen people with prior training fail this part.

Yes the background check is the same as a secret clearance. They even check with all your schools, prior jobs, neighbors etc. We have random drug testing too. I have seen several people bite the dust this way.

This would kind of fly in the face of the remarks about workfare and things like that wouldnt it?

That's ridiculous. The TSA has 45,000 screeners. If fewer than 1 in 1000 applicants are actually hired, then at least 45 million people applied for those 45,000 jobs. Try again.

Bruce

Is representative of the number of applications that have been received since TSA inception vs the number that was actually hired and held the job after all was said and done. Some people were weeded out immediately and some failed any portion of the process.