TSA pat downs: 'Horrible' screener job gets worse

reply to post by Raist


The "I'm just doing what I was told to do" argument is tired and has passed out on the runway. Someone call a whaaambulance.

/TOA

reply to post by trailertrash


Turning this argument into a libs vs. cons. is an foolish to say the least. As you certainly know as for this moment the libs. Are still in control and have been since from before these policies took place.

This is not a libs. Vs. cons. argument, they are different faces of the same coin. Please stop wasting your time hating on one group when both are the same. Neither of them has the best interests of the common worker in mind, but simply their own.

Raist

reply to post by nenothtu


My accepting that form of abuse yo allow it to happen.

The outrage at the TSA officer is misplaced and should be redirected at those truly responsible. Those responsible are the cooperate shills and the law makers that back them.

Raist

reply to post by nenothtu


I do agree that the random pat down is bad. I would rather it go away completely but the random part is the most irritating in my eyes. Again, maybe not against my principles but certainly an annoyance. I think only those who raise certain flags should get that sort of thing and the training needs to be increased tenfold at that.


As for the rest I cannot personally just up and leave a known income without another to fall on. I have a home that I need to pay for and I also need transportation as well. I am not saying you do not just that personally I see I need to stay at the very least close to where I am for my family. That is my comfort zone and I am sure many others have that same thing.

I have been in a situation where I suddenly lost my income and it was most worrisome to me because of the timing and it was the only time I have ever had that happen. That was at a time when jobs came easier though and I was only away from income for a month at most. I have to do my best now to try and make sure that does not happen again.

Raist

reply to post by sara123123


Actually, I have mentioned that in past posts, until I got to thinking about that many simply want to get home to their families with a paycheck.

I would hate for people to start punishing me for simply doing my job. It is no wonder the morale is low with these people. Sure some of them get off on this sort of power trip and all, but many others do not.

I am sure if the economy was booming and jobs were more available you would have those who really have people best interests at heart leaving. Then only those who enjoy treating others this way would stick around.

Raist

reply to post by The Old American


Some need a job to feed families. Until they find something else’s this might be their only chance to do so.

If they were truly hurting people or making them do something horrific, then yes I would call them bad people, but this is (overall) not as bad as the media is making it out to be. Sure there are a few cases out there but they are limited.

I seen in another thread where someone brought up a good point. Most of the time ATSers do not stand by the blind anger of the media so much as there is always some agenda behind it. With the media in such a frenzy though we are seeing many ATSers blindly jumping on the hate bandwagon with them. The public is being manipulated in this instance I fear. I think there is certainly another agenda ahead, this is nothing compared to what might be coming because people are just blindly following the anger.

Raist

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I do agree that the random pat down is bad. I would rather it go away completely but the random part is the most irritating in my eyes. Again, maybe not against my principles but certainly an annoyance. I think only those who raise certain flags should get that sort of thing and the training needs to be increased tenfold at that.

Agreed, and that's all I'm really trying to say about that. The random factor is what makes it unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. When people raise the flags, they SHOULD get the treatment, and almost always have it coming.

I've got no problem at all with searching them for cause.

As for the rest I cannot personally just up and leave a known income without another to fall on. I have a home that I need to pay for and I also need transportation as well. I am not saying you do not just that personally I see I need to stay at the very least close to where I am for my family. That is my comfort zone and I am sure many others have that same thing.

I can understand that. I just have a different perspective, from a different place, probably in an entirely different comfort zone. I don't have a home to pay for - never got myself locked in to that sort of thing, nor rent. I avoid most all forms of credit like the plague. It's a personal thing - I just don't want to put myself into a position where I'm beholden to any one. Likewise, I don't have the same form of transportation problems that you would likely encounter. I gave my driver's license back to the state several years ago, and told them I didn't want it any more. When my transportation means is down, I just find an alternate, which usually involves walking. I understand that's not for everyone, though. The job I quit with G4S/Wackenhut, I occasionally walked as much as 16 miles each way to get to when all else failed - but I got to it. It's not beyond my ken that most folks would just give in, turn on the TV, and not even start out, though.

No, it's not an easy way to live, but I do whatever is within my power to do the right thing as I see it. My current job is about 12 miles away, which I can make in around 3 or 4 hours if I have to go that route. Calling out is not an option to me, since I agreed to work when they agreed to pay me. It's a matter of keeping my word to me.

That is the perspective I come from when it appears that I have little sympathy for people who will do anything "just to keep a job". I'll go to great lengths, but I won't compromise my own set of principles. That's TOO great a length to me.

I have been in a situation where I suddenly lost my income and it was most worrisome to me because of the timing and it was the only time I have ever had that happen. That was at a time when jobs came easier though and I was only away from income for a month at most. I have to do my best now to try and make sure that does not happen again.

I've been in that situation as well, and you're right, it IS a downright worrisome feeling, to put it mildly. I didn't like the feeling at all, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat before I'd let my kids watch my soul being crushed. Now, the fact is, sudden job loss like you mention rarely ever results from soul-crushing attempts, since "quit" and "surprise job loss" aren't compatible. One should ALWAYS know if they are about to quit a job, so it's not a "surprise", but sometimes it does have to be done before safety net is in place.

Like when an employer puts new rules in place for immediate implementation which have you doing things you never agreed to do,and which you find wrong. Thankfully, I've only ran into that situation once.

The "sudden job loss" events (like, for example, a sudden corporate "downsizing") are just as problematic in regards to the safety net issue, but don't have you second-guessing your own motivations. They ARE pretty darn harsh, but it's easier to hit the ground running after one.

In any event, it seems to me that our main differences here stem from living in different comfort zones. Mine excludes me from compromising my own principles just to keep a job - even for a little bit. That would be outside my own comfort zone. On the other hand, it sometimes has me doing things that "normal" folks would find just as unfathomable as I find that to be. Not necessarily to keep a job (that's more incidental, I reckon) but to keep my word concerning that job.

No, I'm not pulling your leg about any of the above. There are folks around who can verify that I really AM that sort of crazy.