Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More stupidity from the TSA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More stupidity from the TSA

    It is very easy to notice how a government employee union is all for this..




    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.

    Though little known, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors who wear TSA-like uniforms, meet TSA standards and work under TSA oversight. Among the airports that have "opted out" of government screening are San Francisco and Kansas City.

    The push to "opt out" gained attention in December amid the fury over the TSA's enhanced pat downs, which some travelers called intrusive.

    Rep. John Mica, a Republican from Florida, wrote a letter encouraging airports to privatize their airport screeners, saying they would be more responsive to the public.

    At that time, the TSA said it neither endorsed nor opposed private screening.

    "If airports chose this route, we are going to work with them to do it," a TSA spokesman said in late December.

    But on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement, Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.

    "I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time," Pistole said.

    He said airports that currently use contractor screening will continue to be allowed to.

    Pistole said he has been reviewing TSA policies with the goal of helping the agency "evolve into a more agile, high-performance organization."

    Told of the change Friday night, Mica said he intends to launch an investigation and review the matter.

    "It's unimaginable that TSA would suspend the most successfully performing passenger screening program we've had over the last decade," Mica said Friday night. "The agency should concentrate on cutting some of the more than 3,700 administrative personnel in Washington who concocted this decision, and reduce the army of TSA employees that has ballooned to more than 62,000."

    "Nearly every positive security innovation since the beginning of TSA has come from the contractor screening program," Mica said.

    A union for Transportation Security Administration employees said it supported the decision to halt the program.

    "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."

    Advocates of private screeners say it is easier to discipline and replace under-performing private screeners than government ones.

    But Congress members have differed over the effectiveness of private screeners.

    Mica said tests show that private screeners perform "statistically significantly better" than government screeners in tests of airport checkpoints. But the Government Accountability Office says it "did not notice any difference" during covert checkpoint testing in 2007. Both groups failed to find concealed bomb components, the GAO said.

    Test results are not publicly disclosed.

    On Friday, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, lauded Pistole's decision.

    "Ending the acceptance of new applications for the program makes sense from a budgetary and counter-terrorism perspective," he said in a statement.

  • #2
    To summarize: "We're the government and we don't have to engage in fair and competitive business practices if we (or our unions) don't want to."

    Unions...

    "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

    Comment


    • #3
      Many attempts at contracting out inherently governmental functions have not provded the cost savings originally claimed, and has instead turned out to be more expensive for the taxpayer. This TSA privitization proposal could very easily be more one example of such.

      Comment


      • #4
        It really wouldn't, if there were no tax dollars allotted to it. Let the airports pay for the security
        I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The King View Post
          Many attempts at contracting out inherently governmental functions have not provded the cost savings originally claimed, and has instead turned out to be more expensive for the taxpayer. This TSA privitization proposal could very easily be more one example of such.
          Forget about the cost. There are 16 airports already doing this. They have bested the TSA in RESULTS.

          Also, the TSA itself isn't handling the privatization. It only regulates it. The airports themselves are hiring these firms.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
            Forget about the cost. There are 16 airports already doing this. They have bested the TSA in RESULTS.

            Also, the TSA itself isn't handling the privatization. It only regulates it. The airports themselves are hiring these firms.
            Hmmm...let me see, who do I want running security?

            An airport and a private contractor who can get the shit sued out of them if a bomb gets on a plane.

            Or

            The fat fucking high school dropouts at the TSA who, when they fuck up, get to throw their hands up in the air and say "we didn't do anything wrong" or worse yet, point fingers?

            The thought that these idiots want to unionize is just fucking mind boggling to me. If you think it is bad now, just wait until that happens, they'll be the worst people you ever deal with.
            Originally posted by racrguy
            What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
            Originally posted by racrguy
            Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Broncojohnny View Post
              Hmmm...let me see, who do I want running security?

              An airport and a private contractor who can get the shit sued out of them if a bomb gets on a plane.

              Or

              The fat fucking high school dropouts at the TSA who, when they fuck up, get to throw their hands up in the air and say "we didn't do anything wrong" or worse yet, point fingers?

              The thought that these idiots want to unionize is just fucking mind boggling to me. If you think it is bad now, just wait until that happens, they'll be the worst people you ever deal with.
              I think they are already unionized.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by helosailor View Post
                To summarize: "We're the government and we don't have to engage in fair and competitive business practices if we (or our unions) don't want to."

                Unions...

                That was my first thought when i read the story - the unions are squeaking about the possibility of having their jobs replaced. So the whole program gets shitcanned.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
                  I think they are already unionized.
                  Not all of them, I think some up in the Northeast are. They want to unionize nationally last time I read about it, was a few months back. Maybe they already did.
                  Originally posted by racrguy
                  What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
                  Originally posted by racrguy
                  Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Of course they want to unionize. They want to protect their totally unnecessary gravy train. That's the problem with socialism in general. You end up with so many people sucking off the gov'ts tit that are unwilling to give it up.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X