Mike Elk Doesn't Think The TSA Has Enough Power
Ken White blogs at Popehat:
What does Mike Elk (Mr.) want, anyway? Well, he seems to want to give TSA agents more power. Specifically, he wants the United States to confer upon TSA agents the power to arrest Americans:TSA cannot legally arrest or detain power under powers granted to it by the federal government; in order to make arrests, TSA workers must call local police situated in the airport.TSA workers' inability to detain or arrest people also hinders their ability to protect airlines in general. "My job is to stand in the exit doors that passengers from arriving flights are leaving. I am supposed to stop people from entering the airport through those doors, but if somebody tries to run through those doors, all I can do is yell at them to stop and call the police," said one TSA employee who wished to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job.
If they only had that power, TSA agents could feel swell again. They could arrest people themselves for "assault" and "disorderly conduct" and for having sequential checks or carrying too much cash or for generally failing to respect their authority, rather than waiting for police officers trained (sort of, occasionally) in crime detection and law enforcement.
What else does Mike Elk want? Well, he wants Americans to adjust their priorities. Just as the TSA wants Americans to return to the days of unquestioning compliance, Mike Elk wants Americans to focus not so much on the fact that TSA agents are making money by subjecting them to demeaning and largely pointless searches, but on the fact that it's an unpleasant job, and agents need a better contract:
While there has been a very high degree of concern among progressives about the search policies of TSA, the often brutal working conditions of 44,000 people charged with protecting our airports have largely gone unnoticed. If those conditions had received as much media attention as the search procedures they are charged with implementing, it's possible America's newly unionized airport screeners might have had a first contract by now.Damn those selfish Americans! Damn them for thinking that TSA agents are making money by subjecting Americans to unwarranted abuse in the name of insipid security theater! Damn them for thinking that TSA agents across America are drunk with power, largely incompetent to conduct their mostly symbolic job, and subject to very little scrutiny from a mostly canine news media! Oh, won't somebody think of the gropers?
My comment over at Popehat:
"TSA agents are telling the truth about being assaulted,"Since citizens are threatened with arrest for merely videotaping (even though it's permitted by TSA rules), don't you think they'd be arrested for actually assaulting those who sexually assault us?
It's amazing to me that we are expected to stand there quietly and compliantly as our government gropes our breasts, vaginas, buttocks and testicles. Take the way-back machine for a second. It's 1999. If a government employee did this to you, would you 1. Deck him or her or, 2. stand there quietly and wait for it to be over?
Now, I'm not violent; merely hostile, but I can't fathom how people just stand there quietly, saying nothing, as this happens for no other reason than to provide a source of income for low-wage-earning Americans and to train the rest of us to be compliant in the face of having our civil liberties yanked from us.
"Oh, won't somebody think of the gropers?"
Sounds to me like this Mike Elk fellow needs to be indefinitely detained somewhere in Antarctica.
How can he refuse to do so, given that he obviously feels that someone who can't get a job at McDonalds is somehow qualified to make an accurate decision about who should be arrested or not?
This is something I've never understood.
What kind of mental weakling do you have to be to offer up all of the control over your own life to some other agent? Sounds like a bunch of daddy (or mommy) issues.
If he's not enough of an adult to live his own life, without some kind of imaginary halo of protection, he should move back in with his parents, and get back on the baby bottle, and leave the rest of the the fuck alone.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at January 4, 2012 1:27 AM
Here's the orignal article that started this...
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12477/union_negative_portrayl_of_tsa_has_hurt_us/
And the most ludicrous claim in that article would seem to be
TSA employees, who work to prevent explosives and other weapons from entering airplanes, have some of the most dangerous jobs in America.
After a statement like that, it's hard to take anything else in the article seriously.
He goes on to cite these other injustices against these poor Fatherland security workers:
- denied collective bargaining to improve their working conditions
- record low morale
- poor treatment from bosses
- vilified by the public (whom they are protecting)
Well, Mr. Mike Elk, let me clue you in on a few facts since you seem to lack them...
- These people do not have dangerous jobs. They're not shot at, they don't risk their lives going to work.
- Their low morale 'jeopardizes airport security.' No, security theater jeopardizes airport security. Attention to innocuous items like sodas and cupcakes leads to dangerous items being missed.
- 'people charged with protecting our airports' Seriously?
- workers are shouted at or hurled obscenities at... Maybe get a job where you're not shitting on the Bill of Rights.
I guess if you're an attention whore with no better way of getting attention than writing some inane article about how sad we should be for these TSA morons, I can see that. If you actually believe even one or two sentences of what you write...
DrCos at January 4, 2012 3:41 AM
I'm fine with giving them the authority - as long as they assume full, personal liability for any false arrest or harm they caused. Do you suppose any insurance company would bond or insure these untrained minions?
That won't happen, so the answer is no.
I support the bill that would take away the fake badges and the uniforms. I'd go one step further and make them employees of airlines or airports.
MarkD at January 4, 2012 5:24 AM
If Elk wants TSA personnel to have the authority to arrest, then the agency should revamp its training and procedures to meet the standards of agencies w/ similar powers. But that's already been proposed. Their union is strongly opposed to the idea - few of the current crop would qualify under that standard. So what Elk wants is expanded authority without demonstrating a commensurate competency or aptitude. He doesn't even want the agency to hire people who have received such training elsewhere, based on his complaints about the hiring of supervisors with military experience.
jonah at January 4, 2012 6:55 AM
Jonah said what I was going to say, but better. Yeah, maybe the TSA screeners could be an effective organization if the personnel met the following conditions:
- They had a clearly defined mission with measurable indicators of success
- Procedures used in meeting mission requirements were reasonable, effective, and consistent with travelers' rights
- They were thoroughly and consistently trained to meet the mission
- They and their leaders were held accountable for violations of their own rules, just as police and military are supposed to be.
From what I've gathered, none of these conditions are met consistently across the board. While I have no confidence that the TSA will ever be disbanded, maybe, just maybe, the TSA's mission could be refined somewhat.
Old RPM Daddy at January 4, 2012 7:32 AM
Most of them couldn't graduate FLETC.
ParatrooperJJ at January 4, 2012 9:04 AM
Right - let's give the power to arrest and detain to the people who couldn't pass the test to be a mall cop.
What could possibly go wrong?
brian at January 4, 2012 9:22 AM
I'm a very nice person. I'm very polite to first tier technical help on the phone. I'm very sympathetic when someone has to abide by a company policy even if it doesn't get me what I want. I always make a point of looking in the eyes grocery store clerks, servers, and etc. Nobody deserves bad treatment for being in a service position and having to work within their own rules.
That being said, I want TSA agents to feel awful. I want them to dread coming into work. Whatever little contribution I can make to increase the turnover rate in TSA agents, I consider a win. Fuck them.
Elle at January 4, 2012 9:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/04/mike_elk_doesnt.html#comment-2892284">comment from ElleI'm a very nice person. I'm very polite to first tier technical help on the phone. I'm very sympathetic when someone has to abide by a company policy even if it doesn't get me what I want. I always make a point of looking in the eyes grocery store clerks, servers, and etc. Nobody deserves bad treatment for being in a service position and having to work within their own rules. That being said, I want TSA agents to feel awful.
I'm like you in all those ways, and I make a point of telling phone reps when they're good at their job and they've helped me and telling them how much I appreciate that. I also write notes about people to their superiors to tell them when they're great. I called Trader Joe's by accident the other day -- hit redial -- and the manager came on and I said, "Sorry, wrong number, but while I have you on the line, I have to tell you how wonderful your employees are..."
But as I wrote in my op-ed about our eroding civil liberties:
Amy Alkon
at January 4, 2012 11:06 AM
Regarding being nice and kind to TSA agents: I feel about it roughly the same way I do about being nice and kind to telemarketers. I acknowledge a possible obligation arising from my religion, but not from reason or public policy.
Ken at January 4, 2012 11:14 AM
This isn't about the TSA agents' morale or their powers to detain. It isn't about "dangerous" working conditions.
It's about the union (AFGE) gaining more power and forcing the government to increase TSA employees' wages (and, as a result, their union dues).
You see, the Obama administration reversed the Bush-era directives and allowed the TSA employees to form/join a union and engage in collective bargaining.
The union is claiming that TSA administrators have so far refused to bargain in good faith.
Despite their "dangerous" job and the distinct possiblity of being blown up by a bomb in a passenger's luggage every time the screeners open that luggage, in the past 10 years, not one TSA agent has been killed in the conduct of his job and not one bomb has been detected by the TSA in a passenger's luggage ... or underwear ... or shoes ... or cupcakes.
Conan the Grammarian at January 4, 2012 11:32 AM
Sorry, sir. Those cupcakes look delicious--I mean dangerous, and we'll have to confiscate them.
Mmmm, cupcakes.
DrCos at January 4, 2012 7:23 PM
Thats why I recomend lacing your the stuff you know will be confiscaed with cyaninde
lujlp at January 4, 2012 9:02 PM
Leave a comment