"Training Daze at The TSA"

Tuesday, December 7, 2004

Opinion
Training Daze at The TSA
By Ron Moore
The Washington (DC) Post


Recent news coverage regarding the new pat-down procedure used by passenger
screeners of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) focuses on two
primary issues: the embarrassment of passengers who feel uncomfortable going
through the procedure in public and reports of screeners performing the
procedure inconsistently. I am a federal security screener at
Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and I face the frustrations
experienced by the traveling public daily. 

But the media reports leave out one important element: training. It's not
surprising that travelers face apparently inconsistent searches by passenger
screeners when you consider the TSA's negligence in complying with the
congressional mandate that screeners receive three hours of training each
week. 
 
We are subjected to recertification testing, and screeners are dismissed if
they fail a computer test on TSA policies. We are also subjected to testing
on pat-downs by Lockheed Martin Corp. workers as a condition of keeping our
jobs. But it seems that the only time training is taken seriously is before
this testing. 

Before each shift, screeners attend a briefing, which is goes down in the
books as training time. In my case, on C Pier at BWI, 25 to 30 screeners
attend a briefing in a room that measures 12 by 14 feet; most are standing
and at least 10 of us have to listen from outside the door. Many trainers
seem unprepared for questions and appear to have no training experience.
Some are downright belligerent. Recently, when a screener complained that a
new procedure for detecting trace amounts of explosives put him at risk, he
was told that he took the job knowing that it involved risks and that if we
didn't follow each procedure to the letter, we could be terminated without
notice. Eventually the trainer burst into tears at screeners' continued
questioning. 

That is an extreme case, though. Typically we are told that trainers are
simply reading the briefing materials when they answer our questions,
indicating to me that they don't understand the information themselves. 

The TSA will not allow screeners time off from their checkpoints for
training because many airports are severely understaffed. The agency did not
plan properly for the loss, a little over a year ago, of nearly half its
screening workforce to the task of inspecting checked baggage. Moreover,
although our federal security director recently was awarded a $20,000 bonus,
the TSA apparently lost its training rooms at BWI because it was unable to
pay rent on them. Even the rooms where we take our breaks, which also serve
as training rooms, may soon be lost. At the TSA's headquarters, meanwhile,
workers enjoy the use of a private gym, so apparently money isn't scarce
everywhere. 

The new personnel system has caused an attrition rate of more than 20
percent this year, according to sources inside the agency. Who would want a
job in which you are told you have to be perfect every time or people may
die? Who would want a job in which passengers can be belligerent and at
times may physically assault screeners, while management appears to be
primarily concerned with passengers' customer service experience? 

We are not covered by most laws that protect the federal workforce. We are
not permitted collective bargaining rights, although the Transportation
Security Administration is officially neutral on private screeners' having
such rights. This leaves screeners vulnerable to cronyism, favoritism and
arbitrary disciplinary actions -- just the sort of abuses the civil service
system was created to prevent. Incredibly, the TSA's parent agency, the
Department of Homeland Security, is considering a similar personnel system. 

The problem is not a lack of technology, although technology should be
improved when possible. The problem is not a federalized workforce. The
problem is the personnel system. President Bush opposed the creation of the
TSA until a provision was written into the law creating an experimental
"merit"-based performance system. I am not aware of any screener who has
received a merit raise in the agency's brief history. 

It is time for Congress to step up and take its oversight role seriously. A
full investigation of the new personnel system should be conducted.
Screeners should be permitted to provide testimony without fear of
retribution. Are they receiving adequate training? Is the new personnel
system meeting the expectations of Congress? 

The next time you feel that a pat-down is intrusive or that a screener seems
frustrated or even unprofessional, let the supervisor know. But also let
Congress know that it is time to provide real oversight. 

The writer is a federal security screener working at Baltimore-Washington
International Airport and president of Local 1 of the American Federation of
Government Employees.

Attached Photo:

Tsa Workers Screen Passengers At Denver International Airport.

I41782-2004Dec06L.jpg