I don't think it matters if the figure is public or not. First of all, calling someone an idiot, while rude, is not a threat to aviation security nor a threat to the safety of the screener. It's just a threat to the ego. Secondly, what law would be broken? Thirdly, if TSA decides if it's interfering with a screening, it'd really only be interference if the screener allows it to be.

We've all worked in service industry jobs where we see both nice and rude people. I'm sure we've all been called idiots or worse at times. It's part of the job. Not a great part of the job, but one none the less. If a person's going to retaliate somehow when someone insults them, they shouldn't be on that job. Period. Even if it bruises an ego.

I'm not really arguing a law difference (although, depending on the level of noise, vehemence, etc. a disrupting charge can be made). To me it's a matter of equity - a passenger won't want to be called an idiot. Golden Rule kind of thing.

And like I said, I didn't say it wasn't rude. But if we're going to push the equity thing, let's take a look at what a level playing field we're on.

Scenario A: Pax calls screener an idiot.
What could happen: In an ideal situation, the screener would ignore it and life goes on. However, the screener can call for a secondary or any other number of checks that they have their disposal. Furthermore, an LEO could be called and if asked, screener's associates are likely to speak up and say the pax called them an idiot. Bottom line is pax's life can be come miserable really quickly.

Scenario B: Screener calls pax an idiot.
What could happen: Pax complains about screener to supervisor. Screener denies that he/she called pax an idiot. If asked, screener's associates will likely deny that they heard calling the pax an idiot. Pax has no real recourse unless someone else speaks up and says they heard the screener call the pax an idiot.

The playing field really isn't equal. I'd also say that both the pax and the screener have the right to be treated with respect. However, the reality of the job is that when in a customer service type situation (and let's be honest, TSA is a customer service organization), the customer has to be treated with respect, even if the customer is a jerk. If the rep is rude to the customer, the customer has more recourse. Customer refuses to spend any more money at the establishment and tells all his friends, famly, coworkers, and so forth that the institution sucks and why and that they shouldn't spend their money there. So in the private sector, there is at least a reasonably level playing field. The business wants the continued patronage of the customer just as the customer wants to get a fair value for the money (and get what they're paying for).

Government doesn't have that incentive. The "customer" can't go to anyone else for the service. The best any "customer" can do if wanting to fly is to travel to another airport where the customer service "experience" sucks less. That's not always feasible when other airports aren't available and/or returning home from an area where other airports aren't available. Not to mention the expense of changing a ticket. So government pretty much has the public by the short and curlies. So they can continue to get away with things because where else can they really go?

While the golden rule is the ideal and something I agree should happen, the reality is that when it's not applied, things are drastically titled in TSA's favor.

What made the OP think that they were of lower intelligence? By the way, you can't even call someone on FlyerTalk an idiot. I'm not sure why he felt that doing so in public to someone he doesn't know that much about was appropriate. Did you ask to talk to a supervisor about this?

+1.

"I am just doing what I am told" is a moral copout and an abdication of personal responsibility. It is never acceptable, regardless of what your job is.

And I also agree with Spiff. Once you make this kind of compromise with your integrity, where will it stop?

I'm sorry, but we're not talking about genocide here. The TSA staff follow policies just as do pilots, flight attendants, maintenance staff, ticketing agents, ground personnel and air traffic controllers. It really has nothing to do with abdication of personal responsibility. Doing a job doesn't mean doing what you want. I haven't even seen anything in this thread whereby the OP so much as asked for a supervisor. The LEO offered to hold on to his keychain for him. Apparently, he was too pissy to accept. They keychain meant so much to him that he didn't even want it back yet he needed to make a thread about it on a frequent flyer forum.

In the end, the question of "Is It Wrong to Call The TSA Idiots?" is really a stupid question. The TSA is a government agency. The term idiot refers to a person. It's sort of ironic that the OP would call the TSA staff idiots and then make a post about calling them idiots and not even word it correctly. :cool:

You are correct. We are not talking about genocide. We are talking about people willing to go along with bad decisions because a superior told them so.

You are correct that doing a job doesn't mean doing what you want. It also doesn't mean that you get a pass when you do something wrong simply because your boss orders you to do so.

I just came across this thread, and I had a similar experience about two weeks ago.

I was going through security at DEN, and some medicine set off the alarm.
The "whose bag is this", was followed by a "mine" response. Furthermore, I also asked the TSA lady to stay there with my bag in sight until I was ready to move on.
She refused to do so, and I asked again to wait there with my bag until I was ready to move on (I was waiting for the rest of my stuff).
She said she was going to meet me "there", by the tables.
I then yelled: "These F(beep) idiots!", and I ran after her, because the stuff in my laptop bag is a lot more important than my week worth of clothes...
Another TSA-er heard me and said that what I said was not allowed. I told her it was, since free speech still exists. Furthermore, I said that I specifically asked the TSA-er to stay with me, with my bag in sight, and she refused to do so and walked away with it.
She repeated that I was not allowed to say that, and asked for my ID and boarding pass.
After some arguing, in which I made my point clear, I was given my boarding pass and ID, and they "let me go" with an angry look in their eyes.
I then walked over to their supervisor to complain, and she was going to follow up with the employees :rolleyes:

"You are correct. We are not talking about genocide. We are talking about people willing to go along with bad decisions because a superior told them so.

You are correct that doing a job doesn't mean doing what you want. It also doesn't mean that you get a pass when you do something wrong simply because your boss orders you to do so."

Oh please. Are you unemployed, in school or retired? Almost everyone in the workplace ends up carrying through on things that they consider 'bad decisions' by their boss. In cases where laws are broken you might have a point, but it's not like they illegally detained the guy. They questioned him about a bullet keychain.

I'm not sure it's the wisest thing to bring on an airplane. Should he have to get something from his bag, he could cause plenty of passengers to be upset if they saw a guy rummaging in his bag and they saw something that looked like a bullet.

In the case of TSA agents doing something wrong, the guy could have asked for a supervisor. Also, in the end, all they did was not allow that one particular item to go through. He lost his temper. Someone calling TSA agents idiots as he walks away isn't exactly the most mature action that someone can do in the run of a day. The police were nice enough to even hang on to his bullet shell for him if he wanted. He was even more mature by refusing this apparently out of spite.

He got upset, lost his cool and they called him on it. The police talked to him. They could just as easily do that if one passenger got mad and started calling two other passengers idiots.

What are they McDonald's? They're there to enforce security rules. They aren't the nice old ladies who hand out free cookies when you land in Fort Wayne. It's not a customer service organization. In terms of it being an even playing field, they'd likely lose their job if they called you an idiot. Your recourse for anything you disagree with them doing, including additional searches, is to ask for a supervisor or write complaints. Plenty of people on here keep that address pretty handy.

Should you not want to deal with the hassle of security, then fly private. I flew last night. Security, including the lineup was 5 minutes of the 50 minutes it took me to get from my house to the plane. I have a 30 minute drive and the rest was pretty much walking. I still am puzzled why you guys get so worked up about all of this.

Wrong (again).

"We take immense pride in offering unparalleled security along with excellent customer service."

Source: http://www.tsa.gov/approach/people/index.shtm


Bringing a firearm to work is not a terminable offense, so I doubt the "idiot" comment would do it.

I am gainfully employed, and yes, sometimes I have to carry out bad decisions.

There is, however, a difference between merely executing a decision you disagree with and doing something that is contrary to your principles.

We are getting OT here, but let me give you an example. Some years ago my then-employer was involved in selling telecommunications equipment to Communist China. While perfectly legal, I felt that the technology would be used as a tool of oppression. So, I politely explained to my boss that I could not, in good conscience, be involved in this project. I knew I was putting my career on the line, but principles were (and still are) more important to me.

The TSA should not be bowing to the fears of Chicken Littles. I can't even believe you would suggest that as a legitimate reason.

The key chain had been through many other checkpoints and is not a threat to aviation security. As such, it was an idiotic decision for the TSO to not permit it airside. Much the same as the decisions to not permit (i) a knife airside that is the exact same one as airlines hand out to its passengers for dining and (ii) spent shell casings.

A bullet is a piece of metal. It is no more dangerous than a 3/8 inch bolt from the hardware store.

Let me just clarify a few things for TheGeneral. First, I didnt call them idiots under my breath as I walked away. There were 2 TSA agents standing right in front of me when I called them that. As soon as I said that, the LEO was called over and I was taken out of the screening area. Yes, I guess I could have asked for a supervisor when I was finished with LEO but decided it was more important to catch my flight. I assumed I could have followed up with a complaint using the TSA website (which I assume I can still do). As for the LEO, I wouldnt have called my attitude prissy. And yes, I could have gotten my key chain back if I wanted to make the effort to retrieve it. The LEO was nice enough to make that offer. To me, it wasn't worth the effort. I still stand by my comments to the 2 TSA agents, however rude it may seem to others. My intentions for posting here was not so much to call attention to how idiotic TSA agents are or seem to be (that has been done if far better fashion then I ever could). It was to ask a question to other flyers that are as frustrated as I am: Is it wrong to call the TSA idiots?

"Wrong" is such an interesting word to evaluate.

• You are certainly within your First Amendment rights to speak your mind.
• Calling anyone an "idiot", to their face, will rarely generate a pleasing response. Most people don't respond favorably to insults.
• As I read your accounts, there is an ambiguity as to whether or not your complaint is with the screeners (the "idiots"), or a policy they were enforcing. They may have been good people enforcing an idiotic policy. (Please, let's skip the usual "why do you work for such an agency" retorts ...) In which case, they would have reason to react defensively to those remarks.

So ... legally, sure, you were probably ok. Morally, there's some ambiguity.