Remove Advertisements

$10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Sabindeus » Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:44 pm

Fivelives wrote:You'd be surprised. There are some correlations between uterine cancer and severe headaches. It has to do with the screwballing of certain hormone production.

And yeah, women go through the "turn your head and cough" bit. It's rare (that a doc will check it without a specific reason), but women can get hernias just the same as men can - that's what the whole test is for.


But from what I understand they don't test for inguinal hernias by examining a woman's crotch, or am I wrong? (that's what I was getting at...)
Image
Turn In, an NPC interaction automator - http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addo ... rn-in.aspx
User avatar
Sabindeus
Moderator
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Fivelives » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:20 pm

What they're checking for is in the perineum, and last I checked, women and men both have those. The difference is that it's incredibly rare that a woman will have one. S'why it's not a part of a routine checkup like it is for men.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:13 pm

Shoju wrote:The problem is, that there isn't a lot of "on the job training" that is happening. people ARE experiencing different rules/regulations in the same airport on different days. If there is training, it isn't standardized.

Again, that's bad performance by the "college educated" folks. You don't go to college to learn how to be a TSA screener, that's just unnecessary, and there's probably not much in the way of other formal training either, save for some specialized equipment. On the job training for this type of thing of thing is quite reasonable, and if that's not occurring that's a problem with the system. The job requirements are simply not the problem here.

If people aren't performing or following their training, you replace them.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9640
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Passionario » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:31 am

Image
Image
Image
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Fivelives » Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:38 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Shoju wrote:The problem is, that there isn't a lot of "on the job training" that is happening. people ARE experiencing different rules/regulations in the same airport on different days. If there is training, it isn't standardized.

Again, that's bad performance by the "college educated" folks. You don't go to college to learn how to be a TSA screener, that's just unnecessary, and there's probably not much in the way of other formal training either, save for some specialized equipment. On the job training for this type of thing of thing is quite reasonable, and if that's not occurring that's a problem with the system. The job requirements are simply not the problem here.

If people aren't performing or following their training, you replace them.


TSA Union wrote:A high turnover rate means a less-skilled, unstable workforce, which undermines – not improves – the safety of the flying public.

http://afge-tsa.blogspot.com/2008/06/hi ... aunch.html
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:55 am

Fivelives wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:
Shoju wrote:The problem is, that there isn't a lot of "on the job training" that is happening. people ARE experiencing different rules/regulations in the same airport on different days. If there is training, it isn't standardized.

Again, that's bad performance by the "college educated" folks. You don't go to college to learn how to be a TSA screener, that's just unnecessary, and there's probably not much in the way of other formal training either, save for some specialized equipment. On the job training for this type of thing of thing is quite reasonable, and if that's not occurring that's a problem with the system. The job requirements are simply not the problem here.

If people aren't performing or following their training, you replace them.


TSA Union wrote:A high turnover rate means a less-skilled, unstable workforce, which undermines – not improves – the safety of the flying public.

http://afge-tsa.blogspot.com/2008/06/hi ... aunch.html

Exactly, but that proves my point and not yours! Unless you suggesting that high turnover is because these folks don't have a college degree? High turnover usually means the job sucks, and based on how badly it's run and the public perception, how could it not for front line guys. Again, everything you guys are pointing at, is at levels above the front line guys. You could much more easily make the case that the job should pay more instead of having higher requirements.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9640
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Korola » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:12 am

Image
Image
User avatar
Korola
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:57 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Shoju » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:50 am

Fridmarr wrote:Exactly, but that proves my point and not yours! Unless you suggesting that high turnover is because these folks don't have a college degree? High turnover usually means the job sucks, and based on how badly it's run and the public perception, how could it not for front line guys. Again, everything you guys are pointing at, is at levels above the front line guys. You could much more easily make the case that the job should pay more instead of having higher requirements.



It should be both. Why is it, that to be a police officer, I need to have gone through Peace Officer's Training (Police Academy) AND passed a civil Service test, when the cop "technically" isn't working to keep me safe from terrorist threats (they do, but that is not the whole of their job), while the guy at the airport whose job description basically boils down to

"I will not let a terrorist destroy a plane. I will not let a terrorist get nasty items on the plane"

can be a high school dropout bully with only on the job training?

Police don't get the Peace Officer's training on the job, and the cops don't float the bill. You float the bill, you pay the training, you make the grades. If you don't, you don't get the job. Not so with the TSA. The TSA trains you on the job, meaning you get less adequate training than those who attend P.O.T..

I'm sorry, I have no respect for the TSA as a whole. That goes from the screeners, to their supervisors, to their supervisors, and so on and so forth. The agency was a knee jerk reaction to a horrible moment in the history of the United States. They have yet to foil a terrorist plot (Trust me, with all the bad press it gets, that would be frontline, lead story on the nightly news), They miserably fail their own tests (Denver screeners allowed 90% of the IED's through in a test), and are consistently in the news for the ineptitude, poor behavior, violence, and criminal activity of their employees.

Make the TSA a Law Enforcement quality position in Pay and Job requirements, and I guarantee you that things improve in a measured manner over the first 24 months.

Educate the work force on the what they can and can't do based on the civil rights of the citizens of the United States and hold them to it, and you would be making headway at this point.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Fivelives » Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:56 am

Fridmarr wrote:Exactly, but that proves my point and not yours! Unless you suggesting that high turnover is because these folks don't have a college degree? High turnover usually means the job sucks, and based on how badly it's run and the public perception, how could it not for front line guys. Again, everything you guys are pointing at, is at levels above the front line guys. You could much more easily make the case that the job should pay more instead of having higher requirements.


Low skilled, low wage jobs always have higher turnover than high skilled, high wage jobs. It's a matter of investment. No matter how bad the job sucks, if you have to have a college degree to get that job, you've already invested 4 years (give or take) into just qualifying for the job, making it far less likely for you to quit or do something to get fired.

To further illustrate, let's compare some examples at extreme ends of the spectrum:
McDonald's turnover rate in 2007 (New York Tribune): 130%
Doctors that got complained about in 2007 (New York Office of Professional Medical Conduct): 8,222
(I tried to find license revocations, but I don't think those are published anywhere except on an individual basis. That's how rare it is)

McJob workers have zero investment in their jobs. It's a minimum wage job with "on the job training" and low or no qualifications. Compared to doctors, who have 8 years of schooling followed by 2 years of "on the job training" (residency), it's pretty obvious what I'm talking about here.

Now let's go on the 20% turnover rate quoted by the TSA worker's union and compare it to a more reasonable example: police department turnover rates. They both do roughly equivalent jobs and rely on the same laws protecting them and their targets:

TSA turnover rates: 20%
Police department turnover rates: 13.2%

The difference is still there, although not as exaggerated as in the previous example.

"But the wages are the difference!" you might say. So let's compare police department entry level wages and TSA agent wages:

TSA agent wage average: $28.8k - $38.7k (including overtime and bonuses)
Police wage average: $52.8k (including overtime and averaged across the entire department from top to bottom)

Now at first glance it looks like that might be the case. But let's think about the scope of the job and the training involved, along with working conditions and it makes sense that police officers make a higher salary, doesn't it?

So then, the solution becomes better training and better pay for TSA agents. This will lower the turnover rate, raise the quality (and professionalism) of service at the checkpoints, and quite possibly provide more than just the illusion of safety and security.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby djlar » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:29 pm

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/

You can barely distinguish a body part on the scanners, just a blurry blob..

Pat downs in the other hand..
Image
djlar
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:30 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby d3licious » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:47 pm

Who fucking cares?
It's a pat down. They graze your crotch as they check your inner thigh. So what?
If anything you should be laughing at them for having to feel you up.
I feel sorry for them, and for anyone in this thread who is whining just to
whine.
User avatar
d3licious
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:13 am
Location: WA State

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Fivelives » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:49 pm

djlar wrote:http://gizmodo.com/5690749/

You can barely distinguish a body part on the scanners, just a blurry blob..

Pat downs in the other hand..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O1SeCgNs2E

Look at 2:08. You can clearly make out both nipples, shape and size of the breasts, and even the woman's bellybutton. And this technology is still new - imagine a couple of years down the line when the resolution gets even better. There was a TSA agent who went through one, and his coworkers could clearly make out the size of his package, too.

d3licious wrote:It's a pat down. They graze your crotch as they check your inner thigh. So what?


No, they don't just "graze your crotch". They GRAB your crotch and rub it specifically. Same with breasts on women. They call this an "enhanced patdown".
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby d3licious » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:19 pm

Fivelives wrote:
djlar wrote:http://gizmodo.com/5690749/


d3licious wrote:It's a pat down. They graze your crotch as they check your inner thigh. So what?


No, they don't just "graze your crotch". They GRAB your crotch and rub it specifically. Same with breasts on women. They call this an "enhanced patdown".


They grab your crotch and RUB it? lol. They aren't checking for testicular cancer, just an object lodged in your inner thigh, and by inner thigh I mean deep inner thigh. I am aware their hands will be placed on or against your crotch for a small amount of time, but by no means are they grabbing your crotch and rubbing it.

It is OK to fight the issue, just don't be childish about it. There are far better ways to dispute the topic. Examples of such, are pat downs of this type acceptable for children? How about victims of sexual abuse? Two easy examples that don't involve you not being able to handle someone "rubbing" your crotch.
User avatar
d3licious
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:13 am
Location: WA State

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Shoju » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:24 pm

d3licious wrote: Two easy examples that don't involve you not being able to handle someone "rubbing" your crotch.


I should never need to be "OK" with a stranger touching/rubbing/nudging/handling my crotch. PERIOD.

And we already said, the doctor is not a stranger. Go troll somewhere else, or start contributing to the conversation.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Dorvan » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:30 pm

Shoju wrote:I should never need to be "OK" with a stranger touching/rubbing/nudging/handling my crotch. PERIOD.


Exactly. These new security procedures are a perfectly example of what happens when you buy into the argument "privacy is something only criminals want".

The idea that my default position on having people touch my crotch should be "sure, that's fine" is just ludicrous. It's very personal and invasive, and people should not be faulted for having high standards about who they allow to touch them there...quite the contrary.
Image

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Moonlight Sonata Techno Remix
Scriggle - 85 Fire Mage
Fizzmore - 81 Mut Rogue
Adorania - 80 Disc Priest
User avatar
Dorvan
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8462
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest