Isn't this the issue that causes the most concern? That with Civil Service protection we'd end up with nothing but deadwood working as screeners.
I don't see this compromise as deserving of all the castration garbage.
I don't see this compromise as deserving of all the castration garbage.
Exactly, but get used to it, there is a vocal community on FR who will take any headline that Newsmax states as better than the word of God and then complain and flagellate themselves, saying how they have been "betrayed" again.
They will end up getting civil service protection soon enough, you can bet on it. They will have more protections than private hirees will- the problem with the private security staffers is that even private employers risk lawsuits if they peer into the backgrounds of their employees... just from routine hiring procedures. If people get passed over or disciplined, they cry 'civil rights abuse' every time.
Worse, being federal, there will be no commercial pressure to force good performance or good behavior. They will end up bnehaving like snotty government employees do, and will not enhance customer service, but likely will drive customers away- which is what the 'feeling' of security was supposed to prevent in the first place. They will be paid more but do no better than they are now, and will get retirement paid for all of us, whether we fly or not. It is in effect, nothing more than a subsidy program to make people 'feel' like they are secure when security will be no better- a bad thing- because people will be less vigilent.
Bread and circuses is all it is: feel-good make-work to create an illusion.