The TSA Pulls A Sneaky
The TSA has gone back on allowing private screening companies at airports, blogs travel writer Chris Elliott:
It's not hard to image how much louder the public outcry would have been during the pat-down controversy last year if the Transportation Security Administration had also shut down it Screening Partnership Program, which allowed airports to privatize their security.After all, private screeners were seen as a loophole to avoid increasingly aggressive federal transportation security officers. Several airports were reportedly considering "firing" their TSA screeners after the new body-scanners began appearing, accompanied by more intrusive physical searches.
In short, the program was an escape valve through which the traveling public let out a steam of rage. Had it not been there, who knows what would have happened?
But here's more evidence that the federal agency charged with protecting our transportation systems understands the importance of timing. It waited until yesterday -- two months after the enhanced-screening media circus -- to freeze the program. I wonder how long they've been meaning to do that.
So what does that mean to us?
At some point, the TSA will probably require the privatized airports -- including San Francisco International Airport and Kansas City International Airport -- to revert back to federal screeners, even though many frequent travelers to Screening Partnership Program airports say they've experienced significantly better service and less intrusive and abusive searches.
From CNN:
Washington (CNN) -- A program that allows airports to replace government screeners with private screeners is being brought to a standstill, just a month after the Transportation Security Administration said it was "neutral" on the program.TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.
Oh...keeping the airlines in business?
More from CNN:
"The nation is secure in the sense that the safety of our skies will not be left in the hands of the lowest-bidder contractor, as it was before 9/11," said John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. "We applaud Administrator Pistole for recognizing the value in a cohesive federalized screening system and work force."
Who'd otherwise be working their way up from floor sweeper to the French-fry vat at Mickey D's.
Government scores again! A union scores again!







It is all about control. If the government can't control you -- you are a wild out of control animal.
Jim P. at January 30, 2011 5:22 AM
Check Patrick Smith's article on the Russian airport bombing.
If that had happened in the USA, I bet all airports would be shut down.
For no reason other than blind panic.
And to no effect whatsoever.
A friend at work says, "There is money to be made in confusion." That's all that's going on here.
Remember, should you hear stories of infinite numbers of "dangerous" items confiscated from Americans merely for wanting to fly on an airplane - scissors, knitting needles, nail clippers, even hammers and leaf blowers: those have flown on aircraft for 50 years without real impact.
People, not things, are dangerous, and until you learn to recognize that and abandon the ridiculous notion that the thug must be treated as an equal to the valedictorian, you will remain crippled, as an individual, agency or nation.
Radwaste at January 30, 2011 5:53 AM
I thought TSA was unable to unionize, since they're part of DHS?
Christopher at January 30, 2011 10:16 AM
Quite frankly I am at the point where I hope somebody blows up a bomb in airpot parking or in the baggage claim area just to show how inefficent and pointlesss the TSA is.
lujlp at January 30, 2011 1:33 PM
I thought TSA was unable to unionize, since they're part of DHS?
That was changed in November by the FLRA.
So now we are hosed. I wonder if they'll have "rubber rooms" for bad TSA agents? But of course what is the definition of a bad TSA agent?
Jim P. at January 30, 2011 2:02 PM
Interesting, Jim. But it looks like the union won't be able to do much.
The FLRA basically focused on the fact that the union can still serve its representational functions, even if it cannot collective bargain for the employees.
If the union can't collectively bargain to hold the government hostage to its wage and benefits demands, what purpose does it serve? If they can't engage in extortion on the part of the union members, it doesn't seem like the union has much to offer.
Christopher at January 30, 2011 4:37 PM
If they can't engage in extortion on the part of the union members, it doesn't seem like the union has much to offer.
What will happen is that they will collect dues. They will "represent" the employees to management -- and not make a bit of difference whether they get fired. Most are so low ranking they don't understand what unions used to be able to pull off.
Jim P. at January 30, 2011 6:32 PM
Leave a comment