[E. Pluribus Unum]

1) I never said this group was "highly qualified"

You said they deserved more than minimum wage. All they do is stand there and harrass people. Forty hours of training and you are an airport screener. How difficult is that? That qualifies for minimum wage in my book, and it will qualify for zero when all the airlines go out of business because travelers refuse to subject themselves to airport/concentration camps. I flew seven time in 2001, two times in 2002, and it will be zero times in 2003.

2) Since you love to "bet" I betcha that very few of them are without a high school diploma.

7000 were grandfathered in.

"In late December, The New York Times kicked up a stir by reporting that the Transportation Security Administration, a new federal bureaucracy, had backed away from plans to upgrade airport security by requiring personnel to hold high school diplomas. Such a requirement, it turns out, would remove one in four current employees -- 7,000 people -- from their jobs."

And that's not counting the non-citizens.

"Meanwhile, the government plans to lean on the INS to put the workers who would lose their jobs under the new law’s citizenship requirement on a naturalization fast track."

The TSA is not about security, it is about make-work.

[MizRiz9]

Gentlemen,

I just read all of your posts regarding airport screeners.

It seems to me that E. Pluribus Unum is exaggerating quite a bit. I am not sure where he gets his numbers from but I have a feeling it isn't by scientific method. Therefore, I believe he is making up some of his statistics just to prove his point.

I do know that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act does specify the following qualification for screeners:

"have a high school diploma or equivalent" [GED]

I do know that many screeners throughout the country have lost their jobs because they do not have the qualifications specified by the security act. I know this because I did a quick search on the net and found at least 6 articles from newspapers across the country that bemoan the fate of those who lost their jobs because they no longer qualify.

Justshutupandtakeit, you are egging this poor soul on. It appears that his posts get more outrageous with each reply he sends to you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

More falsehoods about what I have said.

I never said anything about the wages that should be paid screeners. YOU are the one knocking their educational backgrounds and claiming they were paid minimum wage. I merely said I doubt many were at minimum wage. Your "book" is irrelevent since many jobs start at more than minimum wage with no training. That depends upon the job market conditions.

Diplomas, GEDs why quibble, right? Or is it ok for you to quibble but not your opponents? However, I don't believe your source anyway. The Times probably just grabbed a number out of thin air just as they do any time there is a chance of slandering Bush.

What does make-work have to do with INS speedups of naturalization procedures? Is this the kind of logic Paul Ross likes and understands?