Seems being told one can no longer work for TSA is the same as being fired.

How do you see a difference in this?

Or how about the screener that harassed Bierfeldt?

He surely got the maximum bonus available.

If your fired from federal service, near impossible to get hire anywhere in the govt. If you "resign" you have a better chance to get hired somewhere in federal service. Big difference.

So instead of TSA management taking the needed steps to fire someone they let them resign allowing them to go infest some other agency.

Good plan.

Ok, but I still can't get my brain around this. If you're told that you can no longer work for TSA, and you don't resign, what happens?

I mean, I totally get being offered the "choice" of resigning or getting fired; lots of companies do that, including mine. I'm just trying to make sure that this is the scenario we're talking about here ...

fair enough ^ but as ND Sol points out below, this apparently does not apply to those who break the rules.....

Why should someone be fired if they can't pass a image test? Why would your ruin any future chance of employment for them at other agencies? Just to be mean?

I was talking eariler about our test, We have different ones - those are part of our standards. Part of such test are image mastery test. It is very much a skill. You are expected to improve over time. Example, when you first apply for TSA you actually have to examine x-ray images before any interview. If you do not do well enough, no go. During the actual training class for new hires, there is another image test, which is more difficult. At the end of on the job training (hands on) there is another test, again harder. As a TSO you take more test. These are progressively difficult.

As far as Alvin, I haven't kept up with the case. Was he charged with a crime, has he been convicted? I know of one employee charged with a crime (and I mean more than a speeding ticket). He hasn't been fired because he plead not guilty. It's going to our courts. He has been placed on limited duty pending the outcome of the court trial. He has told me, if he's guilty, he's fired. If they fire him and he is found not guilty, he can pursue legal action against TSA. Isn't there a thread going on right now about how TSA violated someones right?

Again, I have no idea about crabtree. Don't know his situation. But yes, I have seen people fired from TSA for criminal activities once everything is said and done.

So what's the status on him? Is the DA pressing charges?

Edit: if someone is given the choice to resign and they chose not to, and they are not a problem maker, there are other options the govt has besides firing that person, though that is an option. I can't think of the term rift now, but there is another option TSA has used to remove an employee that is not considering a firing if that person doesn't resign.

If it is only a skills problem then I can see letting someone resign.

If it is a matter of wrongdoing, abusive behavior, or such then I would not be in favor of letting them resign.

I agree- if someone can't perform their job, has been given additional training, etc., and still fails evaluations, they should be allowed to resign, they may be best suited for another job.

Egregious behavior on the other hand shouldn't be rewarded, after all TSA does have some sort of employee standards that they adhere to, don't they?

Maybe it's just me, but I think TSA employees getting a raise would be a good thing. This would increase workplace morale, and in turn, they would treat passengers better? Just a different way of looking at it.

Let me say, first off, that I have no opinion on TSO pay rates. I don't know what they're paid, much less what they should be paid.

But I will point out that the statement:

doesn't logically follow. While there may be a correlation between workplace morale and passenger treatment, one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

One could have "bad" TSOs (I suspect very few are) who say "look at all the money I'm making, I must be valuable, don't question my authoritah you [expletive deleted] passengers." On the other hand, you could always turn things around and make customer satisfaction a precondition for getting raises.

So, while I'm not inherently opposed to giving people raises, the logician in me insists in pointing out that the two issues need not be as tightly coupled as we might like.

Federal Employees Unions? The TSA is unionized? Since when?

These pay raises actually just cover the yearly increase of the health insurance.

Don't worry Congress is hard at work making sure a pay raise of any amount will not cover the new taxes imposed for national healthcare.