Officials to Ease Requirements on Hiring of Airline Screeners

NYT via Yahoo! News via Drudge ^ | Dec 29 2001 | David Firestone

[dr_who]

Saturday December 29 03:02 PM EST 


							

Officials to Ease Requirements on Hiring of Airline Screeners

By DAVID FIRESTONE The New York Times

In a shift, the federal agency supervising aviation security has decided not to displace thousands of current screeners by requiring them to be high school graduates.

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.

As recently as Dec. 20, the department said in a news release that "screeners must be U.S. citizens, have a high school diploma and pass a standardized examination."

But the Transportation Security Administration, the new agency created to supervise aviation security, announced a few days ago that it would allow a year of any similar work experience in lieu of a high school diploma.

The decision has dismayed advocates of tighter airport security, including groups representing flight attendants and business travelers, who had expressed hope that federalization would lead to an upgraded work force.

"We're dealing with very sophisticated and trained individuals who are trying to blow up our commercial aircraft," said James E. Hall, until recently the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. "These screeners are going to be an important line of defense, and it seems to me we should have higher educational standards for them. If all we're doing is recycling the existing screeners, why have we made this tremendous investment in creating a federal work force? It sends the wrong message."

Of particular concern to such critics is the agency's position that it hopes to retain many screeners who lack diplomas. Along with the decision to expedite the naturalization process for screeners who will lose their jobs if they do not become citizens, the relaxed education requirement suggests that the government hopes to minimize the turnover among the screeners when they become federal employees next November.

The guidelines published by the agency say that applicants for screening jobs must have a diploma or "one year of any type of work experience that demonstrates the applicant's ability to perform the work of the position." The agency has not said what kind of work experience would qualify, but a spokesman said it would apply to screeners who have been on the job for a year.

"The idea is to allow current screeners who would otherwise qualify but may not have high school diplomas to be eligible, so they do not get left behind," said Paul Takemoto, a spokesman for the security administration, which is part of the Department of Transportation. "Having a year of experience on the job is a valuable asset, and many of those people are perfectly qualified, even if they don't have a diploma."

But critics say the point of the new federal law was to upgrade the work force, not to retain the current workers, who have drawn fire in recent months for slipshod performance.

Kevin P. Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, which represents many large corporate buyers of travel services, said passengers have the right to expect a basic educational level from the screeners, given their importance in protecting aircraft from terrorists.

"This job is more than just looking at an X-ray screen - it's about looking at people and interpreting their answers to questions and making judgments," Mr. Mitchell said. "As much as anything here, we have to restore the confidence of the American people and the integrity of the aviation system, and I think most people would view the lack of a high school diploma with some alarm."

The Association of Flight Attendants, the largest flight attendants union, has also protested the lack of an education requirement, saying it fears the government will hire too many of the same screeners who allowed terrorists on the planes in the first place.

Security screeners now working for private companies are already required by the Federal Aviation Administration to speak, read and write English, and to demonstrate their ability to operate X-ray equipment and conduct physical searches of passengers. Transportation agency officials say the new law toughens the requirements with strong federal supervision of screeners, a criminal background check, and a passing grade on a new test that will measure aptitude, ability to deal with the public and English proficiency.

Those requirements will apply to all new screeners hired after February, when the security agency takes over responsibility for airport screening. Existing screeners may stay on the job, but by November 2002, they will have to reapply for their jobs and be hired by the federal government under the new rules.

Transportation officials also said this month that they planned to work with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to find ways to expedite the citizenship process for screeners with good work records. They also plan to increase the pay of screeners, which until recently had been at minimum-wage levels, and to give a preference to hiring displaced aviation workers.

Advocates for the current screeners agreed with the agency's decision that experience, an aptitude test and a background check are more important than a high school diploma. Because of the high turnover in low-paying private screener jobs up to now, anyone who has remained in the job for a year has the kind of experience that the federal government will prize, they say.

"Anyone who can go through the training and pass the new tests is clearly qualified for the job, whatever their educational level," said Jono Schaffer, director of security organizing for the Service Employees International Union, which represents screeners in Los Angeles and San Francisco. "The only important requirement is whether they can perform the duties of the job."

In the new law, Congress gave the under secretary of transportation for security flexibility in interpreting the educational requirement. The law says that federal screeners must have a diploma "or experience that the under secretary has determined to be sufficient for individual to perform the duties of the position." Those were minimum requirements, however; the agency could have insisted on a diploma, but instead chose to accept a year of comparable work experience.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas and one of the principal authors of the new security law, said Congress decided it was too limiting to restrict screeners to being high school graduates.

"We know there are people who have dropped out of high school who still have the basic intelligence to do that job," Ms. Hutchison said. "The military service doesn't require a high school diploma, and we think the Transportation Department is also capable of making judgment calls on a person's background. You don't want to judge someone in a cookie-cutter way if they have a good work record."

The private security industry, which lobbied hard against the new law, agrees with that assessment. Kenneth P. Quinn, counsel for an association of the private airline security companies who will turn over their responsibilities to the government next year, said the repetitive nature of the screening jobs is often not a good fit for people with higher educational backgrounds.

"There's no demonstrable nexus between advanced educational degrees of any kind and the ability to perform at a high level as a screener," Mr. Quinn said. "In fact, the opposite is often true."

But many security experts say the government should begin to have higher expectations of its screeners, giving them more responsibility than just robotically working the checkpoint machines.

"What we really need are people who understand how terrorists work, who can spot a false passport, who can ask the right questions of the right people," said Isaac Yeffet, former director of general security for El Al Airlines and now a private security consultant in Cliffside Park, N.J. "Every screener is holding on his shoulders a 747 full of passengers. It is impossible to imagine that they would have dropped out of high school."

[dr_who]

Federal government management in action. Special thanks go to the New York Times for actually reporting the news for a change and to the Republicans in congress for sitting back and letting this happen.

[codeword]

This article was posted on 12/29/01 11:13 PM Pacific by STARWISE.

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/598795/posts?page=29

[Jay W]

By "easing" up on the screener requirements, who can take this country's airline security efforts seriously?

[joathome]

"Along with the decision to expedite the naturalization process for screeners who will lose their jobs if they do not become citizens......" arrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh Let's just make sure that Johnny Jihad's traitorous friend is an American citizen! Nuts... totally nuts!

[Amore]

Gee, you mean Congress isn't sticking to it's guns? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell ya!

[NilesJo]

"Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas and one of the principal authors of the new security law, said Congress decided it was too limiting to restrict screeners to being high school graduates."

Yeah, right. I suspect that they found that people with HS diplomas who were WILLING to take this job weren't any more suitable than the those already doing it.

[Amore]

here’s the link to the previous thread.

[LiberalBuster]

Now that these people will be asked to join a federal union, the less educated they are, the better. Also, less education increases the likelihood that they will vote Democrat.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Just further proof that the entire bogus "anti-terror" industry is nothing more than a thinly disguised welfare program for functionally illiterate high school dropouts who haven't a prayer of getting a real job.

[Exit148]

Diploma or not, it is the training and the insistance on bending to the task that is important. IMHO. There have to be supervisors at all times and consequences for slackers.

Were the personnel in France, who let Sneaker Reid through the check-point, educated beyond high school? I would suspect they were, yet look at how they screwed up.

I'd be interested in the requirements for El Al Screeners.

[glc1173@aol.com]

I'd rather have every screener be a native-born American high-school dropout than an alien with a Ph.D.!

[gcraig]

This pisses me off. I knew that they govt was going to back down on this.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

With the Govt. taking large amounts of airline stock in return for assistance, one could suspect they are trying to cripple the industry to get more.

I have sworn off flying, not because I am afraid of any cowardly, misogynist girly-man Islamic terrorists, but because I would rather have the airline industry die than become the proving ground for all the draconian "anti-terror" measures the Feds are itching to shove down our throats.

WTC did not occur because Americans have too much freedom. It occurred because foreigners have to much freedom on American soil.

[arly]

This is really pathetic !

[breakem]

We rail on and on here at the ole FR about the state of our public school system. Now we want people who graduate from there to protect us. Seems the ones who don't graduate would be better qualified.

[aruanan]

Officials to Ease Requirements on Hiring of Airline Screeners

You mean they can be blind and deaf in addition to being idiots, high school dropouts, and criminals?

[Uncle George]

New application for Government jobs as airline screeners ---Have you finished high school? If no has any of your family finished high school? If no have any of your friends finished high school?If yes you qualify. Question #2- Are you or do you want to be a citizen of this Country? Why are they recycling these people after all the ballyhoo over federalizing the jobs?

[piasa]

You mean they can be blind and deaf in addition to being idiots, high school dropouts, and criminals?

The government is an equal opportunity employer, after all...

I hear the only requirement for the supervisors is they have to own their own set of congressional kneepads so that they can keep up with their patronage qualifications.

[STARWISE]

Thanks for posting the link, Amore. It is SO essential that this information get out there. Everyone ... please pass it along to all you can .. email, fax the government officials involved .. blast 'em with rebukes about this idiocy!! I'm truly more terrified to fly now than ever before. We're telling the terrorists how little committment and resolve our government is willing to expend for our safety. I shudder!

Here's a re-post of the the very prompt and personalized response I received to my email to the Dept. of Transportation. I am very surprised and very appreciative. You'll see a copy of my email to Sen. Hutchinson with cc's to a bunch of others on the link above from Amore. Please note the contact info contained in the response and take action:

__________

This is our first public use of new Email software. Please contact us at ntlfeedback@ntl.bts.gov if you note any problems. We appreciate your patience. Response (*Reference Staff [pg] ) - 12/30/2001 11:42 AM Thank you for writing to the National Transportation Library (NTL) with your comments and concerns. It is clear that you have very strong feelings about the issue of qualifications for airport security screeners as well as the Department of Transportation's handling of this matter. I also understand that you do not currently feel safe about flying.

As a member of the NTL Reference Staff, I can tell you the following:

All messages concerning airport security, as well as all other messages concerning the events of 9/11 and their aftermath, are being forwarded to the FAA for their review. Every piece of e-mail the NTL receives is read by an NTL staff member, and each and every comment, question and suggestion is promptly noted. Additionally, a report is sent to DOT executive staff each day regarding what has been read. Please know that you have been heard.

Should want to contact President George W. Bush, the e-mail address is:

president@whitehouse.gov

Additional White House contact information is located at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ (Not a US DOT site)

Questions concerning issues falling within the purview of the Transportation Security Administration can also be directed to Ms. Mirian Edwards, either by email or FAX. email: mirian.edwards@ost.dot.gov

FAX: (202) 366-1312 Attention: Mirian Edwards

You may write to Mr. John Magaw directly at this email address:

john.magaw@ost.dot.gov

Should you also want to contact the FAA directly, the following information was made available on Friday, 21 September 2001 for contact concerning issues emanating from the terrorist acts of 9/11:

The new e-mail address is 9-awa-tellfaa@faa.gov . The fax number is 202-267-5091.

The telephone number, which will be staffed Mondays - Fridays, 8:30 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Eastern Time, is 1-866-289-9673. If at all possible, please use e-mail or fax.

Additionally, you may contact U.S. Transportation Secretary Mineta directly, by email, telephone, FAX, or regular US Mail. Contact information is:

The Honorable Norman Y. Mineta
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590

email: Norman.Mineta@ost.dot.gov

Telephone: 202-366-1111

FAX: (202) 366-7202

(NOTE: Because of the current crisis situation, your best option for a prompt reply is to call, email or FAX instead of sending a letter.)

For your reference, we are keeping people informed as to new developments via our Frequently Asked Questions page at: http://ntl.bts.gov/faq

FAA's faq site can be found at:

http://www.faa.gov/apa/faq/pr_faq.htm

Thank you again for contacting the National Transportation Library, and for your concern during this difficult time. I regret that you are so upset.

Sincerely,

National Transportation Library
NTL Reference Staff

____________________________________________________

To contact us again concerning this matter, please *reply* to this email. To offer feedback on our reference service, please *forward* this message with your comments to us at:

ntlfeedback@ntl.bts.gov

In either case, please retain the bracketed number shown in the Subject line. Thank you.

____________________________________________________