Posted on 12/31/2001 6:34:42 AM PST by 1 FELLOW FREEPER
FEDS LET AIRPORT SECURITY SLIDE By DAN MANGAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ON GUARDIA: National Guardsmen yesterday keep and eye out for danger at La Guardia, where - as at airports nationwide - security workers will be able to get by on reduced education and citizenship requirements. - Elizabeth Lippman December 31, 2001 -- Fliers yesterday said they're stunned that the federal government has watered-down citizenship and education requirements for its new airline security force, partly so people who now work as screeners can keep their jobs. "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense," said Anthony Karlic, 28, a Los Angeles painter who was flying out of La Guardia Airport. "I thought the whole point of federalizing was to have trained people there. So, if you're bring in the same people, how is that going to help?" Currently, private companies are contracted by airlines to screen passengers and luggage for weapons or other threats. Screeners employed by the companies typically are paid minimum wage or barely more than that, and have a high turnover rate. The system drew heavy criticism after the Sept. 11 plane hijackings that resulted in the destruction of the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon. So a federal law was passed mandating that the government supervise aviation security directly, by federalizing the force - hiring workers who are more qualified and better educated than the current group of screeners. The new Transportation Security Administration will become responsible for airport screening in February. It has said that "screeners must be U.S. citizens, have a high-school diploma, and pass a standardized examination." Under the high-school diploma rule, a quarter of the 28,000 current screeners would not have been eligible to remain on the job after November 2002, their deadline for qualifying for the positions, for which they must reapply. 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. Rebecca Brown, a 25-year-old city resident who was flying to Miami from La Guardia, said, "I think there should be some benchmarks for the people." If the government's goal is to retain "the people that they've been criticizing, what would be the point of changing the system?" Brown asked. Frederic Weiss, 58, a college professor from Texas, who was flying home, agreed. "I think they [screeners] need to meet the [higher] requirements." Law student Alex Brophy of New Rochelle said, "They should get rid of the people who can't" meet the requirements. "I don't think they should guarantee them a job, because that basically changes nothing except who's paying them," he said.
December 31, 2001 -- Fliers yesterday said they're stunned that the federal government has watered-down citizenship and education requirements for its new airline security force, partly so people who now work as screeners can keep their jobs.
"It doesn't make a whole lot of sense," said Anthony Karlic, 28, a Los Angeles painter who was flying out of La Guardia Airport.
"I thought the whole point of federalizing was to have trained people there. So, if you're bring in the same people, how is that going to help?"
Currently, private companies are contracted by airlines to screen passengers and luggage for weapons or other threats.
Screeners employed by the companies typically are paid minimum wage or barely more than that, and have a high turnover rate.
The system drew heavy criticism after the Sept. 11 plane hijackings that resulted in the destruction of the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon.
So a federal law was passed mandating that the government supervise aviation security directly, by federalizing the force - hiring workers who are more qualified and better educated than the current group of screeners.
The new Transportation Security Administration will become responsible for airport screening in February. It has said that "screeners must be U.S. citizens, have a high-school diploma, and pass a standardized examination."
Under the high-school diploma rule, a quarter of the 28,000 current screeners would not have been eligible to remain on the job after November 2002, their deadline for qualifying for the positions, for which they must reapply.
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.
Rebecca Brown, a 25-year-old city resident who was flying to Miami from La Guardia, said, "I think there should be some benchmarks for the people."
If the government's goal is to retain "the people that they've been criticizing, what would be the point of changing the system?" Brown asked.
Frederic Weiss, 58, a college professor from Texas, who was flying home, agreed.
"I think they [screeners] need to meet the [higher] requirements."
Law student Alex Brophy of New Rochelle said, "They should get rid of the people who can't" meet the requirements.
"I don't think they should guarantee them a job, because that basically changes nothing except who's paying them," he said.
I was for the private companies running the security with very tough federal oversight, but even some local conservative radio commentators that I listened to wanted a total govt. takeover and that's what we got.
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.
If this job was so great you would have seen clamoring for the psoitions before 9/11. Also remember that the hijackers didn't break a rule when they brought box cutters on those planes for their evil deeds. I hope that these screeners wil be fired when they screw up, though.
In closing you can see that I have some empathy for these screeners. I have worked in the travel industry and it can be a damned if you do, damned if you don't world, especially when you have loud mouthed know it alls screaming at you, like Drudge was last night describing his experience.
Yep. You could see this coming a mile away. Airport screeners, whether federally or privately employed, will not solve this problem. Increased force on each airliner will be the only way to deter potential terrorists, or stop those in the act. The only argument should be whether to arm pilots, air marshals, selected passengers, or a combination of the three.
This one bothers me.
A quick story...The reaosn I was at the airport was to bring my Mother in Law back so she could get her flight home. This was also the first time I have seen the skyline since 9/11. I used to live in an area where I could see the skyline really well but I have since moved west and can no longer see it. I have to say seeing it really made all of the talk of 9/11 sink in. Back to the story. I noticed that the screening area was guarded by men in uniform. The screeners themselves did not seem to have changed though. We were told by Delta that the FAA was requiring them to do random checks on luggage that was going to be checked in. Guess what? My 60 year old Mother in law just happened to be the random check. Now any real terrorist behind her would know that they are not setup for the random check. This to me is moronic. Anyway the screener took her bags over to the new X-Ray maching and had to scan it three times before he finally brought it back over to the belt to be checked in and sent on its way.
I dont know about you but something doesnt seem right here.
Exactly. That is one major reason I was against federalizing this bunch. When private companies are in control they can fire for incompetence.
Now any time someone shows up for work late, or drunk, or misses the briefcase with the dynamite on the xray machine, they won't be fired. The worst that will happen is a letter of reprimand will be placed in the employees folder for six months or some such nonsense. After which he/she/it will probably be promoted to Senior baggage screener.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.