Anecdotal gripe : the amount of self-important power tripping and vicious snickering among TSA agents has been getting worse as of late.
I feel as if I can't walk through a security line without overhearing one of their staff berating some other traveler for offenses as minor as expressing a wish to walk through the X-Ray instead of the 3-d scanner, or for not taking their liquids out of a bag (a rule which is arbitrarily enforced at best).
I typically sympathize with positions and roles who are entrusted with security, and where success may be measured by a lone failure rather than otherwise sustained competency (much like a sysadmin). However, given what I perceive to be a pattern of escalating negative experiences this report does not surprise me in the slightest.
The TSA's hiring process is guaranteed (at least from my wife's personal experience with it here in DC) to hire shit-bags.
My wife, after being a stay-at-home mom for years, wanted to get a job while going to college part-time. She applied and was eventually offered a job by the TSA at DCA airport.
Upon looking at the hours, it was completely, utterly unworkable. Rather than a 40 hour a week job, they offered her 20 hours a week, which is reasonable, but get this: the 20 hour a week job had a schedule that completely changed week to week. This means that a person can't have ANY, and I mean ANY other responsibilities/jobs/schoolwork while working as an entry level TSA employee. She was told this was the standard in hiring new TSA workers. No wonder the lines are always staffed by people who, predominantly (with a few memorable exceptions), have a shitty work ethic, bad attitude towards customers, and poor problem solving skills.
In other words, the people who can't get/hold a job anywhere else end up at TSA.
Not to defend the TSA, but most part time hourly jobs have variable schedules like that. I've even worked high paying sysadmin jobs that were like that.
What you're describing is how most young people(early to mid twenties) I know work. The best you can hope for is to set your availability while applying or during the hiring process so you at least have a few days of the week where you can consistently work on other things. This lessens your chance of getting hired and typically reduces the number of hours you work even on the days you're available.
I usually cheat and just carry a stripped lower receiver if I'm not going to be carrying at the destination. I avoid going to NYC to the extent possible, too, though. The TSA people sometimes lol. The ones who handle guns also seem to be the best ones at the airport, and especially at Seattle, I like talking to them (someday when I get my manufacturer FFL I hope to show off some hot title II stuff there)
Tempted to start carrying an 80% lower, which is tech I ally not a firearm, to be even safer. Should still be able to get firearm service at the tsa for it.
There might be a market for cheap-as-hell injection molded lower receivers, not really good for any sort of shooting at all, to be sold to travelers so that they can be "technically" carrying a gun. It would be considered disposable so they could just crack it in two and throw it away at their destination (or perhaps have the shops that sell them also buy them back). I figure injection molded plastic would be sufficient, as plastic lowers have already been demonstrated.
It would only work to and from certain states of course. There are probably problems with selling and buying them back in airports, so disposal in some states may be a problem. If you are flying Kansas<->Vermont or similar it could probably be made to work though.
If I'm not mistaken, you can use a flare gun and get the same kind of service. This is a fine, nominally non lethal option if you still want the same assurance as a gun, but don't care for the whole lethal weapon aspect of it.
Like Uncle Ben said, "With great power comes great responsibility," the TSA employees are exactly in that position -- they have the a great deal of power at their disposal and they are not trained to control it. One can also argue that they are just doing their job, but it's probably not as simple as that. On multiple occasions when I had to deal with them (I forgot to take out a water bottle of my bag), I have found them to be unnecessarily rude. It almost seemed as if the TSA agent was enjoying it thoroughly. And I know this first hand, having worked in a customer service position for many years, I can probably smell it.
Aside from the standard "customer service" jadedness, there's a class stratification at play: people who have to take a TSA screener job to pay the bills, versus people with enough income to fly. When you put an underclass in control of the overclass, don't be surprised when they try to wield whatever power they can, regardless of how disproportionate.
It would be an interesting experiment to staff a TSA gate with frequent fliers selected "jury pool" style (say, one day of service for every 100k miles flown annually), and see if both passenger and agent job ratings are any different.
I would be great at a job I knew I only had to perform for one day (or even one week). I also wouldn't be terribly concerned with upholding rules and laws, and just do it how I would want it to be done. Plus it would be fun and different, almost like a game.
I didn't take out my water bottle from my bag once, because I wasn't aware I was going to have to go through security a second time when arriving in the US from an international flight. It had one sip of water in it. I told them I would just drink the sip of water, unacceptable. The TSA employee told me that if I dumped it or drank it, that was fine, but I'd have to get in back of the line again. Why? I don't know. He sat there holding my water bottle saying "I'll only give it to you if you'll get in back of the line." I finally said fine, keep it. I still don't understand why I could drink it and get in back of the line, but I couldn't drink it and stay in front of the line. It seemed to me like he was just power tripping.
I've had the TSA full-body massage twice now and in both cases the agent was very respectful, communicated in advance what they were going to do, and went about the procedure exactly by the book. I can't really begrudge them for doing their job, but I can find the job itself objectionable.
The sad thing is that in many airports you have the choice between putting yourself in a useless, but possibly carcinogenic x-ray device, or being groped. It's really infuriating that elevators are subject to stricter inspections than these backscatter machines are. Would anyone know if it was throwing out 1000x the usual dose of radiation? Probably not.
I've had it a dozen times. I opt-out of the naked scanner every time I fly. As you say, I've never been harassed by the gropers. And if everybody in line opted out, they'd be overwhelmed and forced to change their policies.
I've flown quite a few times in the last few months and have never had a TSA agent overstep their boundaries when doing a pat-down. I've had nothing but pleasant experiences going through security.
That depends on what you define as "their boundaries". If you define it as staying within TSA guidelines, yeah, they're good about that. But TSA guidelines are far over what I would consider reasonable boundaries.
I've never had an experience with a TSA agent that registered one iota of anger or frustration in my mind. However, the long-ish lines do get to me sometimes.
Anecdote: I'm white, speak English as a first language, and smile and look everybody in the eye. I also go through TSA Precheck. My experiences have been generally excellent.
i agree - the only time i see an issue with other travelers is when they are being assholes and then the TSA does seem to go on a power trip. its hilarious people still dont know what to take off in those lines, i dont blame them for getting pissed.
> its hilarious people still dont know what to take off in those lines, i dont blame them for getting pissed.
Why is that hilarious? The simplest explanation is that they simply don't know; why do the people running the show get to be angry? Because they know something experienced travelers don't? Isn't informing people of the crazy rules part of the TSA's job? Maybe they should do it professionally?
The next simplest explanation is that the arbitrary security rules are unimportant to those travelers. Which makes sense, because they are unimportant. Again, I'm not sure what's funny or angering here.
"The simplest explanation is that they simply don't know"
come on now ....
1) There are videos and signs everywhere saying what is and is not allowed
2) TSA officers are verbally telling you what is and is not allowed
3) You need to walk through a metal detector, so figuring that out requires zero intelligence
4) If you cant get 1-3, watch the person ahead of you take off his/her shoes, watch, belt etc. and do the same thing.
In my experience, the people running the show (TSA) get angry when they tell the "inexperienced travelers" they are not following procedures, after which the traveler becomes rude.
It sounds like I am defending the TSA here, but that is not what I am trying to do. I am just saying that I can see how they could get frustrated with the public.
Nobody wants you in the way of their plane ticket. Everyone wants special exceptions because they are late. Loads of people (myself included) view you as an agent of tyranny, and visibly control themselves from snarling at you as you ask for Photo ID.
Get paid like you are working at McDonald's, deal with annoying people, and abuse administrative search everyday.
I too understand why the TSA workers could get frustrated. The very existance of the TSA is frustrating and creates frustrating situations. Anti-TSA folks are frustrated by the TSA, Pro-TSA folks are frustrated by the anti-TSA folks. It's a perfect circle of abuse.
The last time I went through TSA (three days ago, Sunday afternoon), I got barked at for having my boarding pass in my pocket. That was a new one for me.
Presumably the hope is that it will make their job more uncomfortable for them.
Its a small gesture that has the potential to lower their job satisfaction. If it became a trend for passengers to do anything reasonably within their power to make the lives of TSA agents more uncomfortable, we could hopefully influence the TSAs retention rates.
It's a long shot, but in the individual case at least you get the momentary satisfaction of making them squirm. (And they do.)
Yep, I do the same. Always opt-out of the naked scanner. If everybody in line opted out, they would be overwhelmed and forced to change their policies. It's really not even that bad, I've never had a negative experience opting out.
Make their job miserable enough and the bar for "better job" becomes lower. Right now their jobs are pretty cushy; they get to sit around in AC, are not held accountable for how they treat "customers", and get to steal cool gadgets on the side. However we have a limited ability to give their jobs more downsides. I assert that we should exercise that ability where possible.
It absolutely is a long shot of course. The personal satisfaction is sufficient though.
I've been flying dozens of times over the last few years. Never groped. Never patted down in some molesting way. Never been a victim of all of these overblown statistically small events being made into huge life changing altercations. Every interaction I've had with everyone has been normal. Even the few times I've forgotten and left a full can of spray deodorant or liquid in my bag, they've pulled me to the side, opened my luggage in front of me, asked if I'd like to check my bag or toss the item and that is that. No harassment of any kind.
Acting like a dick to TSA employees just makes them treat you with even more contempt, thus the vicious cycle continues since they now have disdain for you as a customer.
Do you treat all car salesmen like crap, or people at the BMV, just because they have a general "bad" reputation?
Also do you object to a pat down when you go to a sporting event or concert? What about a courthouse?
You have a high tolerance and have not had unusually bad experiences. Congratulations?
You might as well tell me that your Ford Pinto never caught fire. What is your point?
Your post isn't even self-consistent. Right after you get done telling me that they are perfect gentlemen you tell me that they have disdain for me as a customer and that by making them feel uncomfortable as they grope me, I am making it worse? Huh? I thought they were perfect gentlemen...
Actually I've never been groped or had any of these supposedly horrible experiences. I'm stating that I've treated all of the TSA employees with respect, and I've received it in return. I've had no reason to treat them otherwise since they were always just doing their jobs and not these outlandish horrible people that keeps being portrayed as the norm. These stories are outliers.
If you are going to approach them out of the gate and treat them like shit, well guess what, expect to not be treated with a warm fuzzy. It's human nature.
I absolutely dig all the people in this thread trying to discredit the problems other people have had with the TSA by saying "well they never groped me ..."
Do you doubt that they grope others? Do you think we're making this up?
The assertion is not that the TSA has treated you, res0nat0r, like shit. Telling us that you have not been treated like shit is a refutation of approximately fuck all.
I think my point is that: There is no doubt people have been groped or treated what they think is unfairly. Something like that happening is an emotional issue, and therefore I think these things are blown out of proportion in relation to their actual number of occurrences. So while this does happen I don't think it happens as much as you'd like it to believe statistically speaking. This type of harassment being a normal across the board policy of the TSA is what I take issue with because I don't believe it to be true.
I think we can all agree that we'd all like it to happen exactly 0 times. Statistically speaking.
Currently its way more than 0 times. It can only be made lower if people push to make it lower, rather than your stance of "its never happened to me".
PS: all my interactions with the TSA have been fine. There was a moment at LAX when I had to explain why there would be liquid inside my juggling balls..... but we got through it.
I'm with you. Every time I travel to the US it's like being in a strangely authoritarian regime - and I've been to several.
I make it a point to smile during my pat downs, ask if they'd like me to bend over, and shift my privates. When they invariably mention that they use the "back of their gloved hand". I ask if they wouldn't mind using the front of their hand - a shocking number of TSA agents are homophobic, and whilst straight, I play into that.
There's nothing I enjoy more than making agents of the security theatre uncomfortable. It brightens up the traveling experience.
Meh. To me this is like getting mad at a cop for writing a parking ticket, or harassing a hostess for long waits in a restaurant. Sure, they have power over you, and their actions are making your life inconvenient, but they are not the ones making the decision-- they're just doing their job. Be mad at the people that created the policies, not the people who are just following orders.
My last experience with a stadium was several years ago, 2006 or so. I managed to get a 6-pack through security by approaching security without it and having my back checked, then realizing I had to go to will-call (outside of security). On the way back in they recognized me and waved me through security with my ticket and "already checked" bag (now with beer). No idea how reproducible that is, and it was during a sports event instead of a concert (I think both probably contract the same venue security though?)
Yes, because if this happened in any other country you guys would have none of it and totally overthrow the government. But we Americans, we are just a bunch of pussies.
Whether or not another populace would allow it is entirely irrelevant, but just so that there's at least a native data point... yes, allowing our government to extend "reasonable search" provisions en masse to the fondling of our genitals makes us, in my opinion at least, a bunch of pussies.
It is relevant because the parent poster implied that in other/his/her countries, they wouldn't put up with it:
"It's amazing the kind of shit people put up with in the US."
My problem is whenever we have any issues with our government here in the states, you see all of these comments from other countries about how we are such pussies and that it would never fly in their countries. Yet whenever those same countries follow in the USs steps or the US totally shits on another countries rights (grounding planes, imposing their own laws, etc...) all they can do is bitch and moan about it on the internet.
It doesn't make any of us pussies, the people wanted security, and they got security. We let these NSA/TSA beasts grow to such ridiculous sizes. Now if we don't like it, we have to start taking steps to defund/remove all of these privacy invading programs. And from what I have seen in the last couple years, it really seems like we are slowly starting to get somewhere. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe this is the beginning of the Brave New World.
The reason I consider it irrelevant is that generally, the United States is so vastly different from any other country. I don't know of any other country in which I could be a citizen, oppose national health care, and consider myself right for doing so. In this unique land we hold though, that is exactly how I feel.
Aside from that, it should be second nature for us as Americans to forego being offended at insults levied out of others' national pride, and instead move straight away into doing exactly what you've suggested.
The reason I consider us pussies isn't because we let the government fondle our privates, but because depending on the poll, more than half the population considers that to be just fine. While each of us as individuals might not be pussies, collectively, we tend to be.
And yes, obviously, I do sincerely hope that we are making progress, and I don't disagree that we are at least getting more people to give a damn. And yes, that is a good thing. But that we've had such draconian policies in place for so long, and been so content to let it be that way? There's the problem, exactly.
Any time I check a bag, something is stolen from it. I guess I'm supposed to be thankful the TSA has the consideration to leave one of those little "TSA went through your bag" memos with a disconnected phone number to call to report the missing items.
Apparently they did hire 3,200 more people as well. Although it does look like the percent increase in misconduct is greater than the percent increase in employees, new employees are often more trouble at the start and hiring quickly often forces you to lower your standards.
I actually left a laptop in a stacked security tray a while back and the TSA called me asking about returning it the next day and kept it at their offices for me for the month it took me to get back from Asia for it. So there's definitely some good people manning the line as well. I didn't expect to get back something I made the mistake of forgetting.
I've been explaining the declining TSA situation in terms of the broken windows theory. Once an organization hits a tipping point where it is universally despised and its primary purpose annoys people, good people will leave and only undesirables will apply. This creates a feedback loop.
Respectfully, I disagree. The socioeconomic status of the sorts of people that tend to despise the TSA, and the SES of the sorts of people that tend to be front-line TSA agents are very, very different. Those self-same TSA agents rarely fly (and thus bear no inconvenience), and are unlikely to have had the benefit of the sort of education that leads one to (a) despise incursions against civil liberties and (b) open opportunities for employment above that of a TSA agent.
I agree that there is not a good overlap between people employed by the TSA and people subjected to the policies of the TSA. I'm less convinced that there is a huge socioeconomic gulf between those groups. The cost of airfare relative to overall cost of living has substantially declined in my lifetime. I would agree with your assertion if the passengers of airlines were like they were 20 years ago. But my contemporary experiences suggest that anyone who has a salary of a TSA employee can afford to fly somewhere. I fly out of Orlando, Florida and I don't see a huge difference between the clientele of Southwest and the clientele of Walmart.
Just to clear up a misconception I'm seeing, the TSA does not use X-rays anymore, except maybe at very small airports (although I haven't seen one in years).
The backscatter machines were replaced with millimeter wave scanners, which are far safer and less intrusive than x-rays.
Take a gun with you. Seriously. [1] If you check a firearm (whether a "real" gun like a 9mm or a flare pistol), you have to check your bags. The interesting point is that once you do this, you are required to use a lock the TSA does not have a key for. There is also an increased standard of accountability & custody, as your bag will only be moved by a supervisor.
I realize this is a duplicate of what someone else posted above [1], but:
Be very careful that it is legal to carry/transport/own/etc that firearm at your destination!
For example, New York. Don't bring one there. (I appreciate the tips from other HNers in that regard, I had no idea.) I'm not sure exactly what it is that is illegal in NY, in fact -- is it specifically airport related, or is it general ownership/carry/transport?
It's possession of a pistol without an NYC pistol permit (costs about $340, takes quite an effort to acquire, etc).
Theoretically there is a federal protection for possessing an unloaded weapon locked in a case (with the ammunition in a separate locked case), provided that you are simply passing through a place where it would be illegal (e.g. flying from Seattle through NYC to Vermont, for instance) but the local respect for that protection may vary. New Jersey, for instance, completely ignores it (you will get arrested and charged, but that works as a defense to the charge).
"[...] an NYC pistol permit [which] takes quite an effort to acquire"
As in, you won't get one without political pull. There are 50-60 thousand currently outstanding, in a city of 8 million. Long gun possession licenses are similarly restricted, or at least roughly as rare.
The Firearms Owner's Protection Act of '86 protections for interstate travel are pretty much written with car travel in mind, and you can't really observe all of them while carrying guns in luggage. And it was always an affirmative defense (something you could only bring up while at court), but indeed New Jersey was particularly obnoxious about it.
General ownership without a permit, at least for handguns, all for NYC. Also true in Illinois and Massachusetts, perhaps elsewhere. New Jersey's firearms legal regime (e.g. if you're diverted to Newark) is extremely dangerous, basically everything is illegal unless you manage to stay inside the complicated, enumerated exceptions.
And there's a big problem if there's any chance your plane will be diverted to "denied territory" as I like to call it: if the system doesn't put your bags in another plane but demands you take possession of them until you can get a flight or whatever, you're screwed if you have to continue by plane. When you go to the counter to check in again, and declare your gun(s), surprise! you aren't legally possessing them. I don't see much choice but to never take possession, or use some less searched method of ground or rail transportation to get back to the real USA while crossing your fingers.
Every minute your checked bag is handled by the TSA there is record of it, hence the time stamps on the notice of inspection. When you call that number, they can request the footage and see whether or not anyone in the TSA did in fact steal from your bag.
Of course, the baggage handlers in the airlines along with your fellow passengers at the baggage claim are not as well documented.
I'd be curious how the misconduct numbers compare to other occupations granted special access, such as police. That would help me understand if the problem is specifically with the TSA or if the real issue is that granting anyone such deep and unchecked access leads to misconduct.
Right because near-impossibility of firing someone, and the magnified principal-agent problems of public sector managers negotiating with psu's don't influence behavior in any way.
Formal spec vs delivered software - there's a similar case here. In any real world organization, the formal written mission and rules are not exactly the ones that are in operation. Unionization especially public-sector unionization further disconnects employees from the rules and the techniques they are _supposed_ to follow. Now this could go either way, but considering the psychopaths and bums that the TSA hires, and the numerous cases we know of theft, I would say that unionization makes things worse with the rules and techniques.
I've never encountered a situation where I was annoyed at TSA because they didn't follow the "formal spec" properly, and wished they had followed it better. In fact, quite the contrary: I have, very occasionally, had places where the TSA let something slide that they officially shouldn't have, and made my life slightly easier as a result.
I don't know why you have such a hard time believing me on this....
In some industries, governments are monopolies or near-monopolies. Take education. In order to even the negotiation, labor is given a monopoly as well.
Not saying that it does more good than harm, just stating the reason.
Not to start a debate on public sector unionization here but the negotiations are not 'even' in public unions - the union holds all the power.
In a private enterprise the two sides are equal, if labor demands too much the business and shut its door and remove their capitol from the marketplace, alternatively if the business demands too much the union can take their labor out of the market (a strike) and the business will suffer. So they have some incentive to work together for a solution.
In public sector, there is no one representing the capital side of the equation. You can't just shut down or relocate the TSA because of union demands like you can close a business. We still have to fly, we still have to have police men on the streets and firemen responding to calls. The gvt can continue to spend recklessly and borrow to cover deficits. (See Detroit) while private sector business will eventually run out of money and both capital and labor will be reduced to 0. The union can spend a ton of money to get the people elected who will promise them the work-rules and benefits they want because the politician won't be around when the bills finally come due. Imagine if everyone in your company gave a few % of their salary to influence the hiring of your next CFO, or VP of HR and would only back candidates that would promise to increase pay. That is the power that the public sector unions have which leads to an imbalance in negotiations.
What's so difficult to understand? Governments "negotiate" with public sector unions and the taxpayers foot the bill. Public sector unions and union members then support the party of government (currently more the Democrats than Republicans, but that's subject to change) with money and legwork. It's a great game until the government runs out of money; see Detroit for the current stark object lesson in that.
As far as I can tell the only reason for TSA's existence is to give menial jobs to people who are out of whatever menial job they were doing before, likely because of automation or their services becoming unnecessary. Basically a gov's artificial attempt at creating jobs. Tbh I'd prefer if they were just given a stipend and allowed to stay at home, get their livelihood without having to harass and steal in exchange.
In Boston I forgot to take off my belt, so a) I got the pat-down, and b) my belt and keys had to ride through the machine. The guy who did the pat down was fine. The kid at the end of the conveyor had never heard the expression "perv scanner" (which I used in explaining to my wife why I was still waiting) but took no umbrage whatever.
It would be interesting seeing an experiment on how an increase in the media can affect the overall morale of a certain profession. I highly doubt this increase in misconduct has nothing to do with their negative attention over the past decade.
Note that this is overall misconduct, not misconduct per employee. What has happened to the TSA's budget (the majority of which is spent on staffing) over the past three years?
I had a large check from a client lifted from my bag at a TSA checkpoint at JFK. New York area airports have also been in the news for theft rings operating in the checked baggage areas.
They need to streamline the passenger security checks so that you can keep your bag under observation and reduce the time the TSA has access to it, and reduce the TSA workforce so they can implement higher standards.
I feel as if I can't walk through a security line without overhearing one of their staff berating some other traveler for offenses as minor as expressing a wish to walk through the X-Ray instead of the 3-d scanner, or for not taking their liquids out of a bag (a rule which is arbitrarily enforced at best).
I typically sympathize with positions and roles who are entrusted with security, and where success may be measured by a lone failure rather than otherwise sustained competency (much like a sysadmin). However, given what I perceive to be a pattern of escalating negative experiences this report does not surprise me in the slightest.