Too much to ask of a Union?
Today:
TSA workers face verbal abuse from travelers
Union that represents airport screeners urges agency to protect employees
By Harriet Baskas
Travel writer
msnbc.com contributor msnbc.com contributor
updated 1 hour 23 minutes ago 2010-11-22T22:33:08
Share Print Font: +-Airline passengers aren’t the only ones complaining about the Transportation Security Administration’s new enhanced security procedures. Many TSA employees aren’t too happy, either.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the union that represents TSA workers, is urging the TSA to do more to protect its employees from abuse from airline passengers angry over the new security methods. The union reports that some members “have reported instances in which passengers have become angry, belligerent and even physical with TSOs (transportation security officers). In Indianapolis, for example, a TSO was punched by a passenger who didn’t like the new screening process,” the union said in a Nov. 17 statement posted on its website.
Union President John Gage called on TSA to provide an educational pamphlet to each passenger describing both their rights and the details of the new procedures, which include full-body scans and enhanced pat-downs.
“This absence of information has resulted in a backlash against the character and professionalism of TSOs,” said Gage in a statement. “TSA must act now — before the Thanksgiving rush — to ensure that TSOs are not being left to fend for themselves.”
“Our concern is that the public not confuse the people implementing the policies with the people who developed the policies,” said Sharon Pinnock, the union's director of membership and organization. . .
. . . Complaints of verbal abuse
Full-body scanners are now in place at close to 70 airports and send virtually naked images of passengers to a TSA screener at a remote location. Those who wish to avoid the scanners must instead undergo a new, open-palmed pat-down that many travelers, and even some security officers, feel is too personally invasive.
Aviation and security blogger Steven Frischling said he has received comments from TSA front-line screeners complaining of verbal abuse.
“Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me. ...These comments are painful and demoralizing,” one unnamed TSO posted on Frischling’s website.
Another said: “Being a TSO means often being verbally abused. You let the comments roll off and check the next person; however, when a woman refuses the scanner then comes to me and tells me that she feels like I am molesting her; that is beyond verbal abuse.”
“I have encountered a few TSA transportation security officers that have the ‘We're keeping people safe’ attitude,” said Frischling, “But when you ask them about specific aspects of the TSA's policy or procedure, they backpedal a bit and admit there are problems.”
read it all
Meanwhile, the TSA is spinning hard in defense of the pat down of the little boy. Even if the father did remove the boy's shirt voluntarily the TSA should have said stop, no, unnecessary
Jim Holt points out the bullshit in the TSA's defense
UNBELIEVABLE!… TSA DEFENDS ‘STRIP SEARCH’ OF LITTLE BOY AT AIRPORT
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, November 22, 2010, 6:37 AM
ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
STRIP SEARCHES & PATDOWNS ON INNOCENT CHILDREN ARE THE NEW NORM?—
Of course, we couldn’t use top-notch behavioral profiling like they do in Israel. The corrupt state-run media won’t tell you about those profiling techniques. Instead, children and grandmas are getting groped and strip searched.
How much of this abuse will you take?
The Transportation Security Administration is defending the strip search incident of a child at the Salt Lake City Airport on Friday November 19, 2010.
Just last week they told no children under 12 would not be subjected to enhanced patdowns.
The TSA Blog reported:
Unbelievable!
A video is being widely circulated showing a shirtless boy receiving secondary screening from a Transportation Security Officer (TSO). A passenger filmed the screening with their cell phone and posted the video on the web. Many are coming to their own conclusions about what’s happening in the video which is now perched at the top of the Drudge report and being linked to in many other blogs and tweets. We looked into this to find out what happened.
On November 19, a family was traveling through a TSA checkpoint at the Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC). Their son alarmed the walk through metal detector and needed to undergo secondary screening. The boy’s father removed his son’s shirt in an effort to expedite the screening. After our TSO completed the screening, he helped the boy put his shirt back on. That’s it. No complaints were filed and the father was standing by his son for the entire procedure.
It should be mentioned that you will not be asked to and you should not remove clothing (other than shoes, coats and jackets) at a TSA checkpoint. If you’re asked to remove your clothing, you should ask for a supervisor or manager.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
So rubbing down a little boy without a shirt is acceptable today at airports?… Even though they told us just last week that no children under 12 would be subjected to the enhanced patdowns?
This can’t be happening, can it?
Good -- now turn that rage on the cause of all this. Turn it on on the muslims. Don't let a single baghead get through any airport in this country without either being nuke-scanned or poke-searched. And if someone has the stones to demand a witness that any muslima in hijab who asks for a private pat-down has received the same treatment as a dirty kuffar American, so much the better.
ReplyDeleteThe rage is out there. It needs to be channeled and focused at the real targets, and that's not just the worker drones in the TSA union. The fear of being un-PC, of being called raaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist, is still there, so the rage is all being dumped on them now, where it's realatively "safe". The bagheads have been lying low, they haven't been showing up at airports pulling "Flying Imams"-type provocations of the TSA.
But they're going to have to fly some time.
Unless they want to dust off the camels and get a caravan together.
Just like the good ol' days.
MR,
ReplyDeleteThe TSA Union thugs are only following orders.
No, that's too easy to hide behind in this. Tax collectors in 1774 were only following orders while the pitch was being heated and the chickens plucked.
ReplyDeleteResistance has to come from BOTH sides to stop this. There have been some stories that the TSOs are not happy about this ut they have to stand up en masse and say this is too much. Their Unionneeds to back them on this THAT'S WHAT THE FUCKING UNION IS SUPPOSED TO DO.
As long as Nappy and her lieutenants know the minions will comply they will not change it.
There is a moral side to this and the TSOs are failing. There is NO reason a father should become so frustrated with security that he rips off his sons shirt in public to get it over with and no fucking reason whatsoever that the TSO SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED THE PATDOWN.
In a situation like this if you're not part of the solution. . .
Imagine if this TSA thuggery had been initiated during the Bush Presidency.
ReplyDeleteI mean, seriously, this stuff is a human rights abuse, isn't it?
I hope no one takes my suggestion seriously.
ReplyDeleteNo, not a human rights abuse (I assume that's the suggestion you don't want taken seriously) but very possibly a violation of the Fourth Amendment EXCEPT that you can remain free of an unresonable search by not flying. SO I'm not sure even that argument would hold water.
ReplyDeleteIt's just plain thuggery and extreme overreach by the gov't.
What's next? Trains and automobiles before going through a tunnel?
"The TSA Union thugs are only following orders."
ReplyDelete"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". NUREMBERG
____________________
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.