TSA stupidity in PHX
 

One of the first trouble spots that emerged in Phoenix: Baggage handlers and other employees who worked outside weren't able to get their sunscreen through security because of the ban on liquids and gels. Ditto for extra drinks. They quickly found a way to deliver three vats of suntan lotion and extra water to workers who routinely endure temperatures as high as 145 degrees as they load and unload bags from planes.
http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...ofile0827.html

BTW, a poster on usaviation reports the "vats" are 20 oz containers of SPF 20 sunscreen and that many rampers in PHX use SPF 50.

Now, uniformed flight crews with ID are allowed items such as toothpaste in their crew bags. One might think that the same standard could apply to uniformed rampers with ID to bring sunscreen to work in PHX of all places. But, this is the TSA we're talking about here. Of course, if the airside gift shops in PHX are like the ones in ORD or LAX, sunscreen is available to purchase. Doing so every day would get expensive.

Sandwiches with mayo and ketchup are being confiscated from lunchboxes as well, according to the poster.
http://www.usaviation.com/forums/ind...ic=30557&st=15


Now, having said this, I do think the fountains in YVR being closed is even more stupid. But you can't blame the TSA for that one.

I think every employee, badged/uniformed or not, should be subjected to the same stupid harassment rules that the passengers, aka the customers are.

If they don't like it, as I imagine they would not, they should chase Comrade Kip Hawley up a tree and set fire to it.

I respectfully disagree.

Why do you disagree, if I may ask?

Spiff, if I would try to post that here it would take a book. Let's just say when you have had the background checks we've had & been employed as long as most of us have(my airline anyway) there is nothing to worry about.

Probably works for an airline in a role where he can get away with taking stuff on. :rolleyes: I think it's ridiculous flight crews can take stuff on and we can't. I personally would subject to a full background check to be able to carry what I used to carry on. I dont' get why we don't switch to a system like that if the flight crews are allowed to carry on. I would even pay for the background check.

No "sleeper" employees? What about all the TSA agents who steal and have passed background checks? Or baggage handlers?

TSA, I agree with where I work the other just does NOT happen.

Some of us have been through background checks that make yours look like a cakewalk.. :rolleyes:

Your background checks are nothing more than a criminal history check and potentially a credit check.

I agree that the indoor airport employees and flight crews should be subjected to the same stupid rules as the rest of us (depending on one's point of view either because a) it "enhances security" by keeping even more "dangerous liquids" off planes; after all, we can't even trust a bottle of water purchases airside not to explode, :rolleyes: or b) by subjecting them to the same crap they are more likely to complain and less likely to tell their customers "it's not so bad," or "anything for security.").

But for anyone who works outside, I disagree. I personally think any group who is being told to work outside in that type of climate without being allowed sunscreen (and presumably also not allowed unlimited water on demand) should do all of the following: a) immediately strike and refuse to work under those conditions, b) contact whatever agency deals with occupational health violations in that state, and c) contact a lawyer to discuss action against the airline, airport, TSA, police, and/or anyone else suggesting they work under these condititions.

I generally do not support employees/employers punishing customers due to labor spats (i.e., strikes/lockouts) because the loser ends up being the paying customer (ref: some of my inflammatory posts in the NW forum re: my opinion of CHAOS :) ), but I would wholeheartedly support the ramp workers if they did this and shut down a whole lot of airports. Skin cancer is not to be toyed with.

Neither is dehydration!

Sorry, but those background checks are cursory at best. A check for criminal activity, immigration status, outstanding warrants, and in the case of pilots, medical history to check against the class of FAA medical being applied for.

If you think these airline/AOA background checks are sufficient to weed out suspected troublemakers, I have some land to sell you. The TSA, with its own so-called fancy background checks, has hired more criminals than the Gambino crime family. We're not amateurs here - many FT posters have extensive backgrounds in aviation, security, international affairs, government, the law, and many have current or previous secret level government clearances.

However, I am going to approach this from another angle - we want you to go through the same hassle as the customers do so you can suffer along with us and offer your own protest against this lunacy. If you're immune to the effects, you won't protest. If you have to suffer, the voices of industry professionals might carry abit more weight than the customers which the TSA cares little about.

I agree that dehydration is not to be toyed with, but dehydration at least has the benefit of being fairly immediate and obvious.

If you force employees to work in the heat with grossly inadequate water, they will soon (within hours or less) start to suffer symptoms which will prevent them from doing the job at all. So the employer has an immediate motivation to fix the problem.

On the other hand, months of working with grossly inadequate sun protection may lead to sunburns but probably won't stop people from working. By showing up much later and not directly impacting the job at hand, skin cancer is much more insidious.

I want to add my comments were focused on indoor employees - keeping the outdoor workers from sunscreen and water is downright criminal.

I am surprised they didn't all walk off the job in protest. How are they expected to perform without water? What if someone gets a skin cancer in 5 or 10 years...they could trace liability back to a sunburn they received on the job now, and probably make a good case for it.

I think the point is that badge or no badge, background check or no background check, everyone in or around airplanes should be subject to the same screening requirements. There's no reason why ramp personnel and outside TSA agents can't be as creative and resourceful as the rest of us have had to be lately. When you've sweated off all that sunscreen, what's to prevent you from leaving the sterile area, re-applying sunscreen, and coming back through screening?

You might also try a liquid sunscreen such as Clinique, provided you can buy it in 4oz quantities.

Also, please recognize that there are many of us here on FT who have had more thorough & frequent background investigations and have held (or do now hold) higher security clearances than most of your colleagues could imagine, so the background investigation argument falls on lots of deaf ears.

Ultimately, it will take all of us being hassled together and putting money where our mouths are in order to put enough pressure on Comrades Chertoff and Hawley to put an end to this nonsense. Maybe the airline employees unions should authorize a strike?