Interview With TSA Screener Reveals 'Fatal Flaws' 582
OverTheGeicoE writes "Jonathan Corbett, creator of the video showing that TSA's body scanners can't see metal objects on our sides, has a new video out. This time he's interviewing an experienced TSA screener identified only as 'Jennifer,' and her allegations point to 'fatal flaws' in TSA and its procedures. Worse, TSA's screeners are well aware of these flaws. According to Jennifer, body scanners frequently fail to detect objects on passengers, and this flaw is well known to the screeners on the job. People with visible items in their pockets can pass through scanners without detection, even when the items are simulated weapons or explosives. Jennifer also alleges that training for screeners is severely lacking. Screeners are directed to operate body scanners, even the X-ray scanners, without any training whatsoever. The manual of standard operating procedures often can't be found at the checkpoints, let alone read. Jennifer was so alarmed by what she experienced that she wrote her congressional representative to complain. She was ultimately fired as a result, effective yesterday."
Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
How come people in the US can get fired for reasons other than incompetence or stealing? Why can a person get fired simply by raising an issue? I never hear about this here in Europe. It's in fact very difficult to fire a person here if he is a good worker.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the USA is run by Big Business, who can give unlimited money to candidates for office. You can be fired here for no stated reason at all.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, at lots of places the standard policy is to give no reason for the firing. If you don't give a reason, then that reason can't be used against you in court.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer the government treat me as an adult.
Here you go: "You're fired".
So in this case where the government behaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people. That is why the US has the second amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
The arms race (Score:5, Insightful)
the man with a pistol on his hip is not the one you need to worry about.
...spoken by a man with a pistol on his hip.
Re:So in this case where the government behaves (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the second amendment is to make it so that when the mentally handicapped republican 5-year-olds throw a temper tantrum, they can actually leave dead bodies in the process.
The larger problem today is that we haven't had adults in the Republican party in over 40 years, ever since they started running on the "Southern Strategy." Some of their stupider ideas are the kind of "omg brilliant" that only works with Enron Math.
Case in point: "balanced budget amendments" in republican states, that never, ever, every can possibly work unless they rely on Federal emergency funding to close the gaps on countercyclical needs like unemployment benefits, medicaid for the poor, and job search/training programs during an economic downturn... meanwhile they get to bitch about "we balanced our state budget why doesn't the federal government balance theirs."
Enron math, brought to you by the republican retard squad. And they're dumb enough to fall for it.
Re:So in this case where the government behaves (Score:4, Insightful)
The people who wrote the Second Amendment probably feared that it would be easy. Thank goodness it's difficult to get TSA employees to body scan Americans, or get law-enforcement officers to strip search their fellow citizens. Also, how morally difficult is it to kill people using Predator drones?
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer the government treat me as an adult.
It's not a matter of children vs. adults; it's a matter of individuals vs. employers, which sometimes are large corporations. Do you really think there can be a fair discussion between an employee and their employer? Do you really think the employer won't exploit the employee, particularly in times of high unemployment?
If your system is so great, how come it leads to so much social inequality?
Adults or not, there are still bullies in the world, and letting them go unchecked will only lead to trouble.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulation is likewise seen as a means for the government to stifle business or innovation. As the banking industry indicates, the regulations were in place for the good of society as a whole.
Both unions and regulation are necessary to keep capitalism in check. I am not a socialist, but 'pure' capitalism produces the inequality you speak of. As long as my government lets me unionize and properly regulates business, you can have your social equality, all without being treated like a child.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
no, that's not what life is about. i pity you for not understanding that.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what *LIFE* is about... but it is what *BUSINESS* is about.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what *LIFE* is about... but it is what *BUSINESS* is about.
... and going back to the story, you are now less safe flying in the US as a result. See why only thinking about profit gives you me, and everyone a bad outcome now?
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Interesting)
Firstly, the TSA is not a business.
Secondly, those involved in businesses may have an incentive to act this way, but it's not what an economy is about, or for, and businesses are just a legal/organizational tool to economic ends. An economy's correct purpose is to make economic decisions - what/how much to produce, how to produce it, who gets to consume it - so as to maximize its citizens welfare. (Simple to say, of course....limited rationality, the enormous potential for conflict between individuals and between equity and efficiency and the mixing in of politics makes it incredibly hard).
An economy can fail by producing too little or too much or dividing the work badly (and so the leisure/consumption balance is wrong). It can fail by degrading the environment its citizens experience without adequate associated benefits to them (eg, allowing poor quality building, or the destruction of parks). It can fail by producing something stupid, such as air passenger scans that cause harm and bring no benefits. It can fail by incurring costs such as the training of new staff in exchange for a smaller benefit to an individual in a powerful position, and with the result that poor economic decisions continue to be made because his mismanagement goes unchallenged.
So.....how do you think this particular government decision is doing when it comes to having a well functioning economy?
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain to me where "Jennifer" was obviously fired because she wasn't pulling her weight. She raised important flaws within the organisation which could consiquently be resolved. That sounds pretty fucking valuable to me.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain to me where "Jennifer" was obviously fired because she wasn't pulling her weight. She raised important flaws within the organisation which could consiquently be resolved. That sounds pretty fucking valuable to me.
... and this is where the argument for the free market breaks down. That is massively valuable, but a stupid boss won't see that. Pure free market business can work efficiently only with the assumption that people are well informed and make intelligent decisions. Many to most aren't and don't. This is why many business do many inefficient and unprofitable things. Sometimes they support this by legislating out competition, or bullying (patent trolling e.g.), or sometimes there just isn't an efficient competitor (finite people and resources). It is amazing that the myth of free market caught the religious fervour of anyone ...
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Insightful)
*In this case, however, it is not truly a free market, because the government has a monopoly on airport security, to some extent. Airports were supposed to have the right to opt out of TSA security and to hire private firms instead if they so chose, but IIRC, TSA has stopped allowing airports to do that. Even if that were not the case, it still would not truly be a free market since even the private security firms providing airport security still have to follow TSA guidelines (i.e., AIT scanners, pat-downs, etc.).
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Interesting)
Totally agree the specific case isn't free market. But interested in the wider debate. My experience is that the theory you state (and as I was taught), just doesn't appear to happen. From my working life, which I don't have any reason to believe has brought me in to contact with a particularly bad subset of people, poor performing people are often promoted, and massively inefficient business regularly carry on. Don't get me wrong I like the implied use of evolutionary theory, but I do not believe in the limited real world that it is the major factor. Many businesses work in isolated or limited gene pools, if i may abuse the metphor. Nor do I believe we should abbrogate responsibility for management of finite resources , or have the time (millions of generations) to allow such a crude tool to work.
Re: (Score:3)
So why in the real world are so many bad managers in business. Nice theory - doesn't relate in any way to my experience of businesses in US and Europe.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
No she didn't. She raised flaws that are directly opposed to the TSA revenue model. The TSA gets no benefit from operating well. It gets funded by lobbying and generating fear.
Re: (Score:3)
From a business perspective then, removing the scanners and the TSA involvement would be far cheaper (as no employees to pay, or machines to operate).
What you seem to be saying is that someone is unprofitable for pointing out where the employer could concentrate to actually deliver the service they're paid to deliver, and not be in breach of contract, rather than letting them go on obliviously.
This would give the employer an advantage on an open market (better service, better reputation), so the employee is
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's not an open market in this case, it's a monopoly where the vendors (various security contracting organizations) and the customers (elected officials) are basically a single group using the public's money. The objective of this group is to get as much money as they can while still giving a reasonable appearance of providing a service to the public. This particular employee tried to interfere with this relationship.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't say pulling their weight, he said profitable. It's not profitable to have the procedures manual at every TSA station. It's also not profitable to actually train the employees. "Jennifer" was being unprofitable by going to her congressman to ensure the TSA did these things.
As a side note, I do not agree with this outlook, just can understand it from a business perspective.
*CAPTCHA: untested
Ya. The TSA's "profit" is their funding from Congress. The employee was questioning the effectiveness of the organization, and thus jeopardizing its profits.
Congress wants the TSA to make Americans feel safe-ish without spending too much, that's their motivation, to look like they're doing a good enough job to get re-elected.
The US people might profit the most from the TSA if the organization protected life and property at a reasonable cost, but most people wouldn't understand this concept, so they settle for the illusion of "safety".
So that brings us right back to the problem of someone who breaks the illusion. The solution, as seen by the parties involved, is to get rid of the person pulling away the curtain.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because those visa seekers are willing to to the work for the wage offered. Same line as "If you think yu need more money, there are hundreds of people I could replace you with." Just drawing on a population outside of the country.
At this point, you have to argue about protectionism and what's fair to the person or country, not fair business. I don't think it's right, but it is fair business practice. As everyone has noted, business is not nice to people, especially if they agree to the terms.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indivuduals that are profitable to retain are retained, those that aren't are not - that's what business (and life) is about. This isn't about exploitation - if you think that any company is going to pay you 100 units of currency a day when they only scrape 50 off of your back, you are mistaken. If I hire a programmer at 60K per year, you can be certain that he's worth 75K to me, and I get to keep the 15K per year per programmer - I have enough of them that I can afford a pointy haired boss to keep them all going in the same general direction and still pocket a nice sum at the end of the year. Welcome to profitable business, where is it any different? There may be differences in title, but nothing else.
And thus we are reduced to "human resources". So you think paying someone worth $75k $60k isn't exploitation? It seems in Europe people believe the government has a place in encouraging a society that is dignified and equitable for the public at large. In America your worth and place in society is based on your value to someone else.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AC: First - I don't know anything about Jenny, didn't even read the article, I was replying to a specific anti-business thread. However, if one of my employees were to go to the newspapers or TV and complain about how I do business before discussing it with me, he'd be impacting my business in a negative w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it's easy to fire people in Europe--if you're in Greece and Germany *makes* you.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, Germany is making Greece fire people because Greece went just a little too far in the bread and circuses department and thought they could borrow their way to happiness. Now the Greeks are upset because their life has been radically altered, but was there any situation where that could have continued indefinitely?
Look, if you have the economy to support the massive jobs and social programs, and have a long term plan to deal with economic issues, go for it. If you don't, just say "no". Really. The thought behind it was a nice one, but really, do the math. Good times are usually followed by bad time in a cyclical way. The best things you can do, over all, are invest during the good times so that the bad times aren't has bad as they could be. If you are lucky, you even advance society that way.
As for the actual firing in the article, this is concerning, not because the screener was fired, but because she worked for a government agency and got fired, after happening to be a a whistleblower.
Of course, just because she's a whistleblower, doesn't mean she's a good employee. However, I'd say an automatic investigation is warranted to see what really happened. Big Business may, or may not be able to do certain things, but this isn't Big Business, it's the government. That means a lot of stuff should be applying to it that doesn't apply to the private sector.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me that next time you're arrested for crossing a perfectly ordinary road (even with zero traffic on it), or "failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign", or any of a thousand and one ridiculous notions of what adults shouldn't be allowed to do.
The US is really no better or worse than Europe. The biggest problem with the US is that they DON'T REALISE THIS.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I'd say the US has a pretty massive deficiency compared to the Europe - we have socialized healthcare, they have inhumanity.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
You are entirely out to lunch. Private medical insurance agencies have the JOB of protecting their bottom line OVER TOP of any motivation to protect your health. You are often disqualified for insane reasons and still end up paying out of pocket to be reimbursed later.
How's your car insurance agency treat you when you have a claim? The Health Insurers in the US run by the same playbook. Don't try to paint roses over a cemetery.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
You're being as hyperbolic as the GP is. The reality is somewhere in the middle. Most American's get pretty good health care and they pay a lot of money for it.
IMHO, the biggest problem with the system is the number of uninsured people. I think that kids especially should be guaranteed access to health care. I would enthusiastically support any politician that proposed a single-payer health care similar to but better than Canada's.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Informative)
> The US has, by a very significant margin, the best health care system in the world
News for you: Nope.
http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_37407_16502667_1_1_1_37407,00.html
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/58/49084319.pdf
http://www.rwjf.org/qualityequality/product.jsp?id=47508 (I like the part where they state "And while evidence base is incomplete and suffers from other limitations, it does not provide support for the oft-repeated claim that the “U.S. health care is the best in the world.” In fact, there is no hard evidence that identifies particular areas in which U.S. health care quality is truly exceptional."
Have a look at http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?theme=country and show me the "very significant margin".
>> "Europe is hardly in the forefront of pharmaceutical development"
Novartis etc. ?
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Informative)
Everything you said was false. US is ranked 38th in the world in healthcare. The ER is not socialized medicine. You get a bill. Our expensive healthcare goes to the pockets of rich people, its not an efficient or an ethical system. The drug companies exploit the American consumer on drug prices, we don't subsidize anything. The for profit system makes sure we pay the most the market will bear. The socialized system negotiates prices with drug companies. Stop making shit up.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything you said was false. US is ranked 38th in the world in healthcare. The ER is not socialized medicine. You get a bill. Our expensive healthcare goes to the pockets of rich people, its not an efficient or an ethical system. The drug companies exploit the American consumer on drug prices, we don't subsidize anything. The for profit system makes sure we pay the most the market will bear. The socialized system negotiates prices with drug companies. Stop making shit up.
oh for some mod points. I can only believe that those who didn't want it to be true modded this down. I'd suggest it is simpler - if you take profit from health, it costs more, and some priorities are taken from just health. Capital markets aren't more efficient, but they sure can pay for generations of advertising to claim it.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I have no insurance, go to an ER in the US because I got hit by a car. It's a hit and run, so there's no other person's insurance to cover it. I now have literally $20-30k in doctor's bills that will likely take the rest of my life to pay. And if I get sent to collections, good luck getting a decent paying job or any credit ever again. Yes, the top tiers of US health care are some of the best in the world. However it's paid for on the backs of those who can't really afford it.
Re: (Score:3)
Europeans thinks that because in the US one needs insurance, that people without will not get treatment. That is not true. A hospital that received a sick patent in an ER is required to treat that patient, insurance or not. ERs in the US equals socialized health care, it is just that nobody, Dem or Republican, will admit to that. Will they get the very best treatment, probably not, but they will get significantly better treatment than a European on a waiting list for an operation that may or may not come before he dies..
I'd like so see you try to get a regular regimen of chemo treatments at an ER. Not all treatments are emergency one-offs and in most cases adequate care can prevent you ending up in the ER in the first place.
In the US, if you have insurance, which the vast majority of the US population actually does have, the treatment you will get is significantly better than in any country in the world.
That's false. The care is of the same standard, the difference is that in the US you can buy your way to the top of the list and that's why rich assholes from all over the world flock to you for their care.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, I love the ignorance of dumb Europeans. They (should be "we" since I live in Europe) think that our health care system is great and that the one in the US is really, really bad. Here is some interesting news for you: The US has, by a very significant margin, the best health care system in the world if you can afford it.
Europeans thinks that because in the US one needs insurance, that people without will not get treatment. That is not true. A hospital that received a sick patent in an ER is required to treat that patient, insurance or not and then dump them in the street with no follow-up care. ERs in the US equals socialized health care except that an ambulance ride alone will set you back $1,500, it is just that nobody, Dem or Republican, will admit to that. Will they get the very best treatment, no, but they will get significantly less treatment than a European on a waiting list for an operation that may or may not come before he dies, but of course that rarely happens, just as American surgeons rarely amputate the wrong limb.
In the US, if you have insurance, which the vast majority of the employed US population actually does have, the treatment you will get is significantly better than in any country in the world, unless you're poor. This--and the enormous profits of private health insurance companies--is a major reason that the US spends significantly more per person in health care than any other country. Well, that and the absurd amount of malpractice insurance American docs need to defend against frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasers.
Also, and very importantly, US citizens, through taxes and insurance, sponsors to a great degree health care in Europe. They do this by paying for medications developed by US companies in full, not at cut-rate prices, because European pharmaceutical companies are too busy working on cancer therapies to cure restless leg syndrome. In this way, the people in the US pays for development and testing, and advertising of often over-prescribed drugs that Europeans get access to. Europe is hardly in the forefront of perfunctory pharmaceutical development and outright abuse of patent laws to keep generics off the market.
FTFY
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Insightful)
Your fixing didn't go far enough...
In the US, if you have insurance, which the vast majority of the employed US population actually does have, the treatment you will get is significantly better than in any country in the world,
Actually, even that's rubbish. If you live an area with mediocre hospitals (I did, but was lucky in not needing them) then you get medicore treatment. If you live in an area with good hospitals, then you get good treatment. The USA is like everywhere else in this regard.
It's also important to emphasize the employed part even more.
If you are employed and get really ill, you tend to lose your job. And then your insurance with it. Then, no matter how careful you have been, unless you are amazingly rich then you are completely and utterly screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
Only ethical doctors who look out for their patient's best interests need fear the insurance provider.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Because the US is (mostly, there are obvious and absurd exceptions) governed in a way that assumes consenting adults can engage in mutually beneficial relationships without a nanny telling them what to do as if they were five year old children. In Europe most laws are written to the point where they assume the ordinary citizenry are mentally handicapped five year olds that needs to be monitored, watched and told what to do at all times by responsible adults.
I prefer the government treat me as an adult.
Are nanny analogies now the new car analogies on Slashdot?
Anyways, here's what's wrong with that picture:
Let's ignore the massive differential in power between a corporation/employer and an employee for a second and accept for the sake of argument that your assumption of both parties being consenting adults is valid. Of both parties in this case, only one acted responsibly, and that is the employee. The TSA chose to throw a tantrum worthy of a five year old and go "Lalala, I can't hear you!". At that point, I'd like to have a mechanism in place to make both parties behave responsibly. And that, pretty much, is the definition of a law (to lay down what "responsible behavior" is) and this subsequently implies it must be enforced by an impartial entity (judge, jury, whatever is customary in your local law system).
Isn't that the way it's supposed to work even in the USA? Why is everybody so afraid of laws and regulations when time and time again experience shows that especially those with a lot of power act like 5-year-olds any time they can get away with it?
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, nice. Latching on to the one thing I've neglected for the sake of argument, and for that sake only. Thanks for biting.
This is where the power differential kicks in. Your relationship with your employer is not symmetric. The potential impact on the employer is much lower than on the employee. That's why you need an impartial arbiter or a union (yeah, I know, good luck with that...)
And since you mention the word "friend" here, let me say that you'd be a pretty crappy friend who dumps someone you care about without trying to help him first, which is exactly what the agent tried to do in this case. Also, in this case, this is not only a matter between the employer and employee, because the safety of a third party is affected. As such, it becomes a matter of public safety and an ethical issue. Responsibility also means not just walking away from a bad situation.
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Insightful)
So, it's easy to get rid of the TSA?
Sweet! Tell us all how!
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Insightful)
If an employer was loading guns at random, and paying you to point them at people and pull the trigger, could you just walk away? Or would you feel a responsibility to stop them?
That is what happened in this case. The TSA is NOT making sure everyone who goes onto a plane is not a terrorist, resulting in plane-guns that are randomly loaded, or not, with terrorists.
You want to just walk away and ignore the situation entirely.
It's the same as the facebook password issue... (Score:4, Interesting)
And yes, European countries do protect workers more, but much of this protection is negotiated by free marked powers (ie. unions and employers).
IMO the system of "consenting mutually beneficial relationships" without powerful unions fails to benefit the small man.
Especially, when big (greedy) business is involved.
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer the government treat me as an adult.
I always thought that one of the necessary parts of being adult is recognizing one's own limited power and ability. In this sense, it's Europe that is more mature because people in Europe don't delude themselves into thinking they're being treated as equals when they're really being used as nothing more than expendable serfs by the rich and powerful.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the USA is run by Big Business
Nope. Because the US is (mostly, there are obvious and absurd exceptions) governed in a way that assumes consenting adults can engage in mutually beneficial relationships without a nanny telling them what to do as if they were five year old children. In Europe most laws are written to the point where they assume the ordinary citizenry are mentally handicapped five year olds that needs to be monitored, watched and told what to do at all times by responsible adults.
I prefer the government treat me as an adult.
This ignores the fact that most people are powerless against their employers. That is why laws exist in Europe. There used to be laws like that in the US too, but they have changed over time.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, who could forget when hundreds of thousands of professionals, all wearing their big-boy pants, marched on Washington and demanded the right to be fired for no reason. Corporate bigwigs, reluctant to let their little darlings flee the coop, were nevertheless powerless to stop this people-powered onslaught, and they shed a collective tear as they realized that the American Worker was all grown up now and ready to go out and start making minimum wage.
The minimum wage is next! Power to the grown-ups!
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
An alternate interpretation here: Europeans understand that the relationship between an employer and employee are inherently unequal. An employer without a particular worker can usually get along just fine for a while until a replacement is found. A worker without a particular job can often last only a few weeks without a paycheck. While a worker is working for an employer, they have to follow orders from the employer or expect to be fired.
Some of the effects of that relationship in the US:
* In any area with "at-will" employment (like most of the US) people regularly go in for work and discover they no longer have a job, while there's still an expectation that employees give at least 2 weeks notice before leaving a position.
* Employees are willing to put up with pay cuts, wage theft, unpaid overtime, workplace violence, sexual harassment, and other illegal activities by employers.
* Unions are a non-factor in most sectors of the economy, in large part because those trying to form unions tend to get fired. The employer will come up with alleged unrelated reasons for the firing to get around the labor laws that specifically say you can't do that.
* If you are fired, you're eligible for public assistance in the form of unemployment insurance, but if you quit, you are not.
If you're somebody who (like me) has a high-paying white-collar job and a couple years' expenses in the bank, it's much easier to stand up to your employer and treat it as a relationship between equals, because you can in fact leave when you want to with reasonable certainty that you'll be OK until you find another job. If you're like a majority of Americans and living on 0 or negative savings, then it's basically impossible to do so.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Interesting)
Horse$#!t.
Go spend some time in Europe. My experience in Germany and Austria has been that that the government produces regulations that assume you can make your own decisions and be responsible for your own actions. If you screw up, you pay the price. Slip on a puddle and hit your head at the water park? Your fault - everyone knows water parks have slippery spots. Be more careful next time. A lawsuit is out of the question.
My experience was that day-to-day rules and regulations are mostly self-enforced: Occasionally an inspector will come around and if you are caught in violation, you will be fined. And you know what? It works. The government doesn't want to pay someone to poke into your life all the time, so they don't.
In comparison, the US (and England, in my experience) is practically a surveillance state. Every level of government assumes that you won't possibly comply unless someone is actually watching you. The government assumes you are an idiot and can't be trusted to walk onto a subway car without someone watching you. If you could make the US police and security industries as efficient as the ones I say in Europe, you'd make a good start on cutting the cost of government. Let's not even get started about the US policies about air travel.
The reason people in the US hate regulation is because the federal, state, and local governments have proved so bad at implementing them.
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason the people in the US hate regulation is because it is imposed by a government at a level that people in Europe only come into contact when they start dealing with the EU as a whole.
Let's be clear, government closer to the local level is government that will generally work better. What Europeans don't understand is that the vaunted regulations and policies that they have are created by governments that are the size of a mid to large sized US state government. Even the EU apparatus has almost nothing on the monstrosity that which is the US Federal Government.
When people in the US are talking about the election to the presidency, they're talking about a level of government that Europe would have last seen under Caesar Augustus, or maybe Napoleon or Hitler. What states rights activists want is actually more locally responsible government that has a better chance at creating workable laws and programs... like in Europe.
I keep hearing about the great socialized medicine in countries that have a fifth or less of the population of the US. Sure it works better... its probably not snowed under with rampant bureaucracy and power brokers three steps removed from their constituents.
If there is one thing I hear Europeans bitch about consistently, it is certain EU regulations. If you want to compare the EU to the US, adopt a modern version of the US constitution and subordinate your countries to become constituent states of a very powerful federal EU government. Give it 50 years for the idealists to die off and then let's talk about why socialized medicine on a federal level is a scary prospect.
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Insightful)
Horse$#!t.
Go spend some time in Europe. My experience in Germany and Austria has been that that the government produces regulations that assume you can make your own decisions and be responsible for your own actions. If you screw up, you pay the price. Slip on a puddle and hit your head at the water park? Your fault - everyone knows water parks have slippery spots. Be more careful next time. A lawsuit is out of the question.
It is your fault. Of course you break your arm while doing it, you get free medical treatment - we all cock-up occasionally.
In the U.S. you'd be left with a 5 figure bill. Of course people will have to sue, otherwise they're selling their house.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Because the US is (mostly, there are obvious and absurd exceptions) governed in a way that assumes consenting adults can engage in mutually beneficial relationships without a nanny telling them what to do as if they were five year old children. In Europe most laws are written to the point where they assume the ordinary citizenry are mentally handicapped five year olds that needs to be monitored, watched and told what to do at all times by responsible adults.
I prefer the government treat me as an adult.
That's funny, because I have found the opposite. Moving from the US to Europe for me meant no more silly laws about wearing bike helmets, picking up dog poo, drinking in public, smoking pot, constantly having to show my ID for not having quite enough grey in my beard... Where I live, they have this concept of "personal responsibility" and have no need for stupid laws about what time you can go to a public park. Oh, and traffic laws? Those are more like suggestions; no macho asshole cop pulling you over for an "illegal lane change" and then searching your car for the fun of it. In fact, for just about anything short of a violent crime, the police treat you like a rational adult and politely ask you not to do it again... They have a phrase for that... Oh, "the benefit of the doubt," but that is clearly because mentally handicapped five year olds are always acting in good faith. However, unlike the parents of small children, who can lay down arbitrary laws like "bed time," employers here can't fire you without cause. (But they can still lay you off to save money.)
Maybe you just lived in a European country populated by mentally handicapped five year olds? Was it Belgium? That would explain why everyone makes fun of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The TSA is an employer like any other. Big Business has made the rules that apply to employers. The fact that the TSA is a quasi-government entity is not germane to the discussion at hand. But good job trying to muddy the waters and deflect focus from the real issue.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a government job. If it was private sector, there's whistleblower laws and the likes to make employers at least try to find another excuse to fire people. Many states are also at-will. The logic is if you can leave your employer without being required to give notice, then they should also be allowed to fire you without giving notice in spite of employees traditionally giving at least two weeks notice. The younger generations are less concerned about giving notice because "if they wouldn't give me an
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a government job. If it was private sector, there's whistleblower laws and the likes to make employers at least try to find another excuse to fire people.
AFAIK, "Whistleblower" laws apply to government jobs, and ESPECIALLY government contractor jobs, like most of the TSA worker jobs.
This person has a pretty good lawsuit against the fuckface contractor she worked for, employment-at-will or not.
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Informative)
How come people in the US can get fired for reasons other than incompetence or stealing? Why can a person get fired simply by raising an issue? I never hear about this here in Europe. It's in fact very difficult to fire a person here if he is a good worker.
Don't know what part of Europe you are in, but in Spain it's quite easy. Not free, but unless the worker belong to specially protected groups (such as pregnant women) you can fire anyone you want.
And since the conservatives are in power, termination fees halved. It's one of their first things they did.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Informative)
this is a good post. I am an american living/working in europe as well and went through trying to get somebody out of an EU position with cause. Even with a pretty good paper trail, we ended up having to pay him several months salary to go away or deal w/ unfair dismissal claims. terjeber put it well so I will only add my qualitative feeling.
In the US, i feel like the burden is on me to show my employer why i should receive a paycheck
in the EU, it feels like the burden is on my employer to show why I shouldn't receive a paycheck
it feels drastically different and alien to my US way of thinking. As terjeber points out, making it easy to fire someone makes it easier to hire someone and the 'creative destruction' is beneficial for an economy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And as usual in these situations, the ideological battle lines are drawn, yet the most ideal solution lies somewhere on that patch in the middle, obscured by smoke and impact debris.
The US solution places all the power in the hands of the employer, making employees little more than bitches, with the exception of those who are truly unique and gifted and can't be done without.
In the EU, depending on the country, it is extremely difficult to get rid of useless jackasses, hence demoralizing the other folks wor
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Bad decisions generally don't benefit the economy. It's certainly possible the elimination of your product line was a bad decision. However, companies must be free to make bad decisions so they are also free to make good decisions. It is also possible the decision to eliminate your product line was only bad from your point of view. If it generates a lot of sales, but has low profit margins, the company may indeed be better off getting
Re: (Score:3)
and how is that when you consider the EU? Also look at historical figures. US unemployment is very rarely above two figures. EU unemployment is rarely below.
Above two figures would be at least 100%. Moving on...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When a businessman cannot hide behind a legal fiction to protect him from liability in tort and for debts, he is being treated like an "adult".
When the law does not arbitrarily assign monopolies on natural resources, ideas and expressions to particular men and then give them men in uniforms to protect these things, then they are being treated like "adults".
This is different from most countries in Europe, where the law basically assumes that the employer-employee is in a exploitative relationship with the employer exploiting the employee.
That's reality. Either it's a worker cooperative or, by definition, the employee is being exploited. Not saying whether it's right or wrong, functional o
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Informative)
France and Italy != "most of Europe"
Most European nations have decent laws around job safety. Firing employees is not usually a problem at all, unless:
- mass firings often require some form of "social plan" (i.e. help them a bit getting a new job)
- it's obviously abusive, as in this case
Also not entirely sure what you mean about innovation, development and other "important functions" not working well in Europe, as there are almost always European nations that perform better than the US around innovation, education, stability, credit ratings, GDP per capita, etc.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Insightful)
This is different from most countries in Europe, where the law basically assumes that the employer-employee is in a exploitative relationship with the employer exploiting the employee.
Or, in other words, like the way it really is...
I am with you that some laws in Europe are pretty silly (and, BTW, Europe certainly isn't alone in that regard. All one has to do is examine U.S. drug policy for some real knee-slappers); and that some of the European employee-protection law go a little far; but "employment at will", which ignores the inherent inequity of the employer-employee relationship, is certainly not grounded in "reality" or "adulthood" or even that illusory "freedom" we Americans used to be so proud of, either...
Re: (Score:3)
I'll second the "not shared" opinion, though perhaps not with such strong language.
At-will cuts both ways. I've been fired without notice, and I've quit without notice. On the one hand, it is unsettling to have absolutely no job security. I know I can be fired at any time. On the other hand, I know that I'm not losing anything if I quit. I can't be contractually obligated to give back anything but company property.
I've also worked under an employment contract, in a state without at-will laws. In that compan
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets back this up - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate [wikipedia.org]
It's very hard to fire a person in German and they've got one of the lowest unemployment rates (5.7%) in Europe. In Japan (4.7%) they tend not to fire people even if they are awful, they just get moved to another office. The USA and UK are both ranked at 8.3%. That's a whole country worth of people in the US without a job and no social system to fall back on - erghh. Does that mean the poorest country is inside the richest country? How do they pay rent?
Greece(21%) and Spain(23.6%) no longer have any jobs to be fired from, so it doesn't matter what the hiring laws are, you can't hire or fire a person for no job. I've lost the point to this. back to work...
Re: (Score:3)
She's missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:She's missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
TSA's real reasons for existence:
1) Get citizen accustomed to life without the fourth amendment.
2) Provide government union jobs to re-elect incumbents.
3) Preserve the culture of fear, again to re-elect incumbents.
4) Discourage would be rabble raisers form assembly; can't have more than just local Occupy protesters showing up wherever the G8 is being held.
Re:She's missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
TSA's root reason for existence :
0) Transfer power (in the form of money) into fewer hands
It's a service economy. Ever wonder why they are called "security services" now? Service economies are ideal for oligarchs, because they don't even involve the transfer of goods - your customers won't have anything to show for their money that they could trade elsewhere after they finish partaking of your service.
Heaven forbid that someone point out that the service being provided is essentially worthless. That threatens this particular segment of the economy.
Re:She's missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in other words. The terrorists were more successful than they ever could have dreamed.
Re:She's missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in other words. The terrorists were more successful than they ever could have dreamed.
Yes, and the terrorists aren't even who we've been told they are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you read that Obama is pushing a law to allow the IRS to restrict people from leaving the US if they suspect that they might owe taxes? There would be no need to actually accuse the person of owing taxes, or even going before a judge to show documentation for that suspicion, just the IRS saying that they suspect that this person owes back taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
No, because there is no such thing in progress.
There is a bill in the Senate that would revoke passports to those have a levy or lien filed against them by the IRS for more than $50,000 in back taxes which is not being repaid in a timely fashion.
Whose Security? (Score:5, Funny)
These scanners were intended to provide Michael Chertoff with job security. Any security gain for the traveling public is incidental at best and probably negligable in practice. But, from Chertoff's standpoint, I think they are working just fine.
A bad interview from a bad source (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I dislike the TSA as much as anybody, and I've complained about it to my representatives, and I hope it dies as quickly as possible, but everything about this story annoys me.
A guy with an obvious bias against an entity interviews a recently-fired employee, and uncovers terrible details about that entity! Oh no! Who could have guessed?
The ex-employee's letter to Congress was the reason she got fired - in a time span of one week. Right. I'm sure the Congressman has their interns sorting mail, looking for disgruntled employees, notifying the appropriate chain of supervisors, and working hard to get people fired - and they can get that done in under a week.
No SOP manual? Hey, at least you know one's been written somewhere. You could ask your supervisor, or move up the chain to their supervisor, and so on, until you find out where you can get one. There's no sign that that was attempted, just an "I don't know where it was" statement.
As much as I want to see the TSA dismantled, this interview isn't going to help. It sounds like a muckraker interviewing someone incapable of navigating office politics, who's skirting the system because she got fired, looking to become a martyr for self-justification. This isn't journalism.
"Jennifer" (Score:5, Insightful)
inb4 "Jennifer" is identified and prosecuted under the espionage act for blowing the whistle on national security matters that are to dangerous for us to know.
And depending on how we feel, throw Corbett in there too. At least ruin his life for daring to criticize authority.
Disclaimer: There would be a time where this joke would be obvious.
No flights for you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Since When were these scanners supposed to .... (Score:3)
....detect weapons and explosives? Weren't they designed just to radiate people to help cause cancer in a population reduction effort?
Fired for writing to her congressman? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could this actually be unrelated? I'd be more readily convinced that the sick leave was related. This would be a problem in itself perhaps but not a security problem.
Re: (Score:3)
How many people did they fire for the mistakes that allowed the 9/11 hijackings to occur?
Seen it first hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Security theatre? You bet. We need to do this like the Israelis do; they catch this kind of stuff in the parking lot before the culprits even get IN the terminal. But then again, they don't have the added burden of politcally correct calls against "racial profiling". But they also don't have long security lines...OR any security scares in their airports.
Theatre and Focus (Score:5, Informative)
It is all theatre.
The threat theatre cast by the politicos creates the market for the TSA theatre.
You are not likely to die by terrorist act. You are more likely to die by automobile accident, heart attack, stroke ......
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
* Heart disease: 599,413
* Cancer: 567,628
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
* Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
* Diabetes: 68,705
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
* Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
Official 911 death toll : 2,996 - and that does not happen every year.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf
The 15 leading causes of death in 2010 (Table B) were as follows:
1 Diseases of heart
2 Malignant neoplasms
3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4 Cerebrovascular diseases
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6 Alzheimer’s disease
7 Diabetes mellitus
8 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis
9 Influenza and pneumonia
10 Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11 Septicemia
12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13 Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
14 Parkinson’s disease
Re: (Score:3)
It is all theatre.
The threat theatre cast by the politicos creates the market for the TSA theatre.
You are not likely to die by terrorist act. You are more likely to die by automobile accident, heart attack, stroke ......
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm * Heart disease: 599,413
Bingo. Divide that heart disease number by 3000, and you've got two hundred 9/11s each year from just that one cause.
More Native American and Alaskan Native women died in land motor vehicle accidents in 2001 than total terror deaths for the entire population. More female Americans died of "pelvic inflammation" than terror in the worst year for terror ever.
Yet when we try to provide health care for all Americans to cut these deaths, it's "socialism". The reason we can spend an infinite amount of treasure, li
No surprise here (Score:3)
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Funny)
Shut up and do what you're told? You're trying to goad me into pulling a Godwin, right?
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Insightful)
I take it you've never been to Bush International Airport in Houston. Over the speakers they actually threaten arrest to anyone who criticizes or makes a joke about security.
Of course, we were so floored by that that we were making jokes about it until we left (as that's human nature for totally bizarre situations), but still. I'm saddened that whoever made that decision hasn't had a massive judicial slap down yet.
Re:Standard security (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll find that's true of pretty much any job that combines low pay with repetitive or tedious work. If there's no incentive to do a good job, then most people won't bother. This was one of the big issues with communism.
Re:Fired for speaking up? (Score:5, Interesting)
How the hell does that make sense, she finally spoke up that the system is broken and got fired?
The system is not really meant to work. Early on, plenty of people pointed out the following:
What the TSA is meant to do is give people the appearence of security, so that they will feel safe and keep flying, and so that they will think that the same people who supported Osama Bin Laden in the 1980s are now "doing something" to protect them. That goal was accomplished years ago, but getting rid of the TSA would undo all of that. Now that the TSA is here for good, corrupt politicians can use it to funnel money into the wallets of their friends -- the people who own high-tech scanner making businesses.
If a TSA employee says that the TSA's procedures are useless, they are threatening the appearance that the TSA is meant to foster, and worse still they are increasing the likelihood that the general population will wake up and realize how idiotic the TSA is.
Re:Personal experience with new scanners - crappy (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel safer because I know that if some asshole stands up with a knife he's going to get stomped to death by a dozen or so passengers. The TSA isn't one tenth as effective as an aircraft full of people who think they're all about to die.