Feds Let Airport Security Slide

New York Post | 12/31/2001 | Dan Mangan

[Will E. Horton]

Actually this MIGHT be a BRILLIANT move to neuter the DEMOCRATS strategy. Let's face it: Have you LOOKED at these security people lately, I mean, DEMOGRAPHICALLY? Do they look like the types who traditionally vote Republican? NO! They are largely minorities and/or seniors and/or immigrants. In other words, federalized or not, they will not increase the voter roles of the DEMS should they stay on the job.
However, if we cut these people and bring in better educated, upwardly mobile, potentially REPUBLICAN voting workers and then UNIONIZE them, the result would be a net gain to DEM roles since those cut will likely continue voting like idiots and the new hires will likely be swayed by their union bosses.

[OldFriend]

Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, DEMONRAT........says it all doesn't it!

[Clinton's a liar]

Yes!!! That's it!!! To heck with real security measures that may prevent future terrorists acts in the air! Let's just play politics with the whole damned thing! </sarcasm>

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

Nice try, but federal union workers will not vote Republican, ever, PERIOD !! Why do you think the Dems fought so tirelessly for the new union workers? Republicans are politically stupid, not Demoncrats.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

""Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, DEMONRAT........says it all doesn't it!"" 22 posted on 12/31/01 8:46 AM Pacific by OldFriend

Sure does.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

I know what you mean, but if Bush caved, he sure wasn't alone. That useless sack o' crap, cave-in artist, Trent Lott, helped us down the road to hell on this one !!

[RightRules]

"I have said this before and will say it again. What is so great about a high school degree these days. I would rather have someone who has experience than a recent high school grad filled with mush."

I fail to see that this makes a point!! Most jobs in this country require a minimum of a high school diploma. Maybe if we were going to continue to pay these folks a minimum wage, you might get that rationalization past me. However, there are plenty of minimum wage jobs that require a high school diploma.

We're going to hire screeners as federal employees and pay them an attractive wage. Therefore, I think we have a right to expect that these people can read and write, have some degree of education, are not mush-brained, and are American citizens (and not fast-tracked nationalized foreigners who can't speak English and don't give a damn about our national security)!!

"This job doesn't require you to be a brain surgeon and is very boring. Being stuck at the same place for 2 hours and doing repetitive tasks isn't exactly a garden of eden."

Wellll, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! Am I talking to Jerry Nadler, here? Being an all-night security guard in most places is boring work. Being a disc jockey is boring work. Being a baggage handler at an airport displays no challenge. Ask a night auditor at a hotel how exciting his/her job is. How about being a parking garage attendant?

Now, of the jobs I've described none are high-paying gigs. Yet, we have people doing them. You can bet they have to have an education to get these jobs too. So, why must we set such low standards for people we expect to have the eagle eye and judgement of a police officer (who is required, by the way, to have a college education).

I don't mean to bust your chops, Dane, but this kind of thinking is making me nauseated. I saw this coming the day this bill was announced that federalized these jobs. The whiny libs are going to insist that we make every effort to hire these poor, displaced screeners instead of making sure we hire the best, most-trainable people we can find.

As bureaucrats typically do, I see the government losing sight of the critical mass: doing everything we can to keep people from blowing up aircraft full of people or flying them into buildings likewise occupied. Clearly, the focus is no longer on protecting the flying public but making sure not one of the screeners in our airports today loses their wonderful, new, high-paid gig.

Think about this the next time you see your loved one walk through the gate to catch a flight.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

""I don't mean to bust your chops, Dane, but this kind of thinking is making me nauseated. I saw this coming the day this bill was announced that federalized these jobs. The whiny libs are going to insist that we make every effort to hire these poor, displaced screeners instead of making sure we hire the best, most-trainable people we can find. As bureaucrats typically do, I see the government losing sight of the critical mass: doing everything we can to keep people from blowing up aircraft full of people or flying them into buildings likewise occupied. Clearly, the focus is no longer on protecting the flying public but making sure not one of the screeners in our airports today loses their wonderful, new, high-paid gig. Think about this the next time you see your loved one walk through the gate to catch a flight.""

You are right on the money. Good post !

[varon]

It has said that "screeners must be U.S. citizens, have a high-school diploma, and pass a standardized examination."

Is a high school diploma really necessary to learn how to "cop a cheap feel?"

[RightRules]

One more thing...

"I was for the private companies running the security with very tough federal oversight, but..."

But, we've been there and done that. There has been a litany of FAA regs for airport security. Do a Google search on Argenbright and you'll find the story of a conglomerate who was the successful low-bidder, winning "security" contracts for airlines (i.e., United) at most of our larger airports. You'll learn how this company repeatedly thumbed their noses at the law, hiring screeners with criminal backgrounds, hiring illegal aliens, then dragging their feet when the government gave them time to clean up their act. The government's response? Argenbright is still engaged in the business of compromising our security. Only one of their clients, Boston's Logan airport, fired them. The feds are content to collect fines which are paltry sums to this conglomerate.

Just wanted to demonstrate how well private companies are doing at airport security in the face of stringent federal regulation.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

"Is a high school diploma really necessary to learn how to "cop a cheap feel?"

Maybe not, but being able to speak, read and write English is DAMNED important in a job like this!!

[Dane]

I don't mean to bust your chops, Dane, but this kind of thinking is making me nauseated. I saw this coming the day this bill was announced that federalized these jobs. The whiny libs are going to insist that we make every effort to hire these poor, displaced screeners instead of making sure we hire the best, most-trainable people we can find

Maybe some of them are the best, after all they have been working at the job and some may have exemplenary records(I didn't say all). On the job training is the best way to learn how to do a job.

You shouldn't blanketly say all the current screeners are worthless.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

""Just wanted to demonstrate how well private companies are doing at airport security in the face of stringent federal regulation.""

And now the feds are watering down the requirements that they promised us right from the get go.........How do you spell IMPENDING DISASTER ??

[John Jorsett]

Clearly not. The next paragraph says, "But with an eye toward retaining those people, the TSA said it will accept work experience in place of a diploma, and also is speeding up the naturalization of non-U.S.-citizen screeners", so apparently experience in copping feels counts.

[RightRules]

"On the job training is the best way to learn how to do a job."

Fine. After they've had some serious, meaningful training before they're on the job. And, you may be able to appreciate that, if they have no study or learning skills (gained from an education), we have a problem, Houston.

"You shouldn't blanketly say all the current screeners are worthless."

I've reviewed my post and I don't see any indication that I summarily dismissed all of the current screeners. However, I want to see this job zero-based. Allow the current screeners to apply, but don't dumb-down the standards and fast-track their citizenship to "help" them qualify!

Bear in mind that one of the points made for making sure these people were better-paid was that there was such high turnover. Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that we don't have many highly-experienced, career airport screeners running around.

Just weeks ago we were given certain assurances that the quality of security in our airports was going to approve. Already, the government appears to be succumbing to pressure from special interests and dumbing-down the requirements. If that doesn't matter to you, you must not fly much (or love someone that does).

[RightRules]

"And now the feds are watering down the requirements that they promised us right from the get go.........How do you spell IMPENDING DISASTER ??"

Well said!

If you want something screwed up (FUBARed), let the government handle it.

[RightRules]

"And now the feds are watering down the requirements that they promised us right from the get go.........How do you spell IMPENDING DISASTER ??"

Well said!

If you want something screwed up (FUBARed), let the government handle it.

[Dane]

Bear in mind that one of the points made for making sure these people were better-paid was that there was such high turnover. Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that we don't have many highly-experienced, career airport screeners running around

High turnover doesn't mean 100% turnover. Some people may actually like their jobs as screeners and stuck with it even with the low pay and lousy working conditions. All I was trying to convey is that not all the current airport screeners are incompetant, as this article seems to suggest.

[timestax]

Yeah, I did a one man "anti Gore protest" "FReep" at a lyinAlgore rally in Newport,Ky, at the so called UN Peace Bell during the Presidential campaign. Well lyinAlgore wasn't there, it was his daughter there in his place. I had a big sign that said KENTUCKY FOR BUSH on one side, and DEMOCRATS FOR BUSH on the other side.

Well the union gang arrived in vans, all with the same union T-shirt, and massed produced signs promoting Gore/Liarman. They harassed me unmercifully. Only the national, and local T.V. cameras trained on me kept me from a beating. One union leader old man with a hat got near me and tried to Don Adams me, but I said "don't try anything", but I think he was more concerned with the cameras trained on us.

So what's my point?=that I know first hand how much the union boys hate Repubs and love the DemonCRAPS

Oh, and I had to laugh when the same union creeps saw me protesting lyinAlgor,and Liarman at their rally in Clifton(Cinti),OHIO. They said "didn't we see you at the Kentucky rally? I just laughed.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

Hired GOONS....THUGS. I dare say you were lucky. They will mercelessly beat up an old couple on national television!!