Rules Will Allow Screeners to Remain in Jobs

The New York Times ^ | 12/29/2001 | David Firestone

[Whilom]

You gotta just shake your head in wonder that nothing seems to embarrass politicians -- of whatever party. First: We must create a Transportation Security Administration and give it billions of dollars to replace the screeners. Second: They keep the billions and the Administration with all of its bloated personnel roster and decide we don't need to replace the screeners. If the public swallows this, they deserve the result. I think the president is going to be "mad as heck" when he finds out that he was sold another scam and then sold it to us.

[hattend]

After stoking high expectations that the federal takeover of airport security would lead to a new breed of airport security screener, one who was better educated and more qualified to assume a position of increased responsibility, the Department of Transportation has decided not to impose rules that would displace thousands of current screeners.

Most significantly, the department will not insist that screeners be high school graduates, a requirement that would have disqualified a quarter of the present work force of 28,000.

The Congress lied, nothing has changed, nobody can be fired for incompetence. Only thing this accomplished was the federalization of aiport security and increasing the staff of federal employees by 28,000, most of whom will vote Dem.

Who wants to bet that in 3 years this will not be returned to the public sector?

[Congressman Billybob]

Note a recent case in the Supreme Court, Postal Service v. Gregory, in which the female employee hid mail, left work without authority, failed to deliver certified mail, and falsified her overtime requests. This employee had four union grievances, a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge, a hearing by the Merit System Protection Board, a hearing by the Federal Court of Appeals, and now by the Supreme Court.

The case is not yet over. It has been remanded for surther consideration, four years after the Post Office made the decision to fire this "able" employee.

As I said in writing this case up from a legal standpoint, the grateful taxpayers would have been better off by guaranteeing Ms. Gregory her salary for life on the one condition that she never again enter a Post Office except through the front door to buy stamps.

So, you are absolutely right. I did miss something. (I also mistyped "Democrat" as "Deocrat" - which they think they are, anyway, as an earlier poster pointed out.)

Congressman Billybob

Click and bookmark for my national, morning commentary.

[John Jorsett]

My question is why is George Bush allowing the Dept. of Transportation to get away with this? In his capacity as chief executive, he could tell Mineta to institute some real standards instead of this crappola.

[Mr. Bungle]

All this nonsense "federalizing" baggage screeners is particularly absurd given that it was not the screeners that failed on Sept. 11 - but rather, the intelligence community, the INS, and Congress.

This measure will do nothing to protect us. None whatsoever.

Hire air marshals, arm pilots, and secure the cockpit doors. Link the INS/FBI "watch lists" with computers at points of entry on commercial flights. Problem solved.

[KC_Conspirator]

Pathetic! One out of every four of these $hitheads are high school dropouts? No wonder they are so inept!

[archy]

I am probably going to get major flames for this, but here it goes.

What is so great about a high school diploma these days? I would rather have someone who dropped out of high school who has worked for a reputable security company, rather than a brain full of mush recent high school grad.

You'll get little argument from me, though I'm hardly unbiased: my own son chose to go the GED route rather than continue to be spoonfed mush for his brain, and I'm rather proud of him.

That said, I'd think that an honorable military discharge would make a much better qualification, though then the airlines might have to pay the security contractors four times as much so that the salaries of the screeners could be raised by less than half of what they now make.

It sounds to me as if the Republicans cut a behind-the-scenes deal with some of those largish security firms run by former FBI insiders prone to make largish campaign contributions, doesn't it. It certainly worked for Al Gore, and it looks like some of the thirsty Republican leadership is now drinking from the same tainted waterhole.

-archy-/-

[summer]

[summer]

See above post. :)

[Gritty]

Note a recent case in the Supreme Court, Postal Service v. Gregory...

Noted (but not surprised). I hadn't heard of that case and I guess I don't have the stomach to hear any more about it.

When all this is said and done it sounds like the new screeners will have about as use properly screening out murdering undesireables from actually getting on airplanes as the North Carolina DMV has screening out illegal aliens from getting drivers licenses.

[spycatcher]

Good enough for government work

[codeword]

My question is why is George Bush allowing the Dept. of Transportation to get away with this?

Because he's courting the Hispanic vote. That's why he is also going to "expedite the naturalization process for screeners who will lose their jobs if they do not become citizens." And that is why he supported another amnestia.

Remember how close the election was. If he can steal some Hispanic votes from the Democrats, well, every little bit helps! And disgruntled conservatives have nowhere else to go.

[Rockitz]

As a relative expert in image processing, I see an enormous opportunity for an entrepreneur to develop software to eliminate these jobs altogether. Too bad I'm having too much fun launching rockets and haven't the ambition to pursue it.

I hope the pilot and flight attendant unions take a firm stand against this. Shots from the airline owners, flying corporate America, and the right will be largely dismissed.

[Magnum44]

...the Department of Transportation has decided not to impose rules that would displace thousands of current screeners.

This story seems misleading. Unless another Clinton appointed DOT official is trying to circumvent the law through obstruction, I don't see how any branch of the executive can just ignore a specific law enacted by congress. This would shot down in any court I think.

Congress writes law (not always competently), executive branches are supposed to enforce (not make up or disregard on their own wim).

[newzjunkey]

What is so great about a high school diploma these days? I would rather have someone who dropped out of high school who has worked for a reputable security company, rather than a brain full of mush recent high school grad.

Not a flame but if you couldn't muster the concentration and committment to finish high school, what makes you think such a person would be a good screener? A good screener, it would seem, would need to be able to concentrate, be observant, detail oriented and so on. Where are you going to find that in a high school drop out? Generally, you won't. Also, what "qualifies" as a reputable security outfit? Mall cop? Stadium event bouncer?

In fact, if you compare this with the reality that many screeners aren't even citizens, then you paint an ugly picture of "security".

[conqueror]

What a croc of $shit!!! The high school thing does not bother me because the schools are only teaching P C B S anyway. The citizenship thing is critical though. They should be born in the USA not merely quicktime rubber stamped by the INS. They should have to pass a very stringent I Q test. If this is allowed to pass then my flying days are over.

[conqueror]

A very close friend of mine is a high school drop out (10th grade) and a member of Mensa.