TSA Screeners are now unionized
- Thread starter Xcaliber
- Start date
CirrusMonkey
No Real Usefulness
Great! Maybe they can finally take care of that under staffing problem?
CirrusMonkey
No Real Usefulness
And yes, that was sarcasm.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Lots of hate for people just doing their job.
Good for the screeners. I'm glad they finally have a CBA and arbitration rights for discipline. Labor rights should apply to everyone.
Good for the screeners. I'm glad they finally have a CBA and arbitration rights for discipline. Labor rights should apply to everyone.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
So should the 4th amendment.
To give a fair assessment, the vast majority of TSA screeners I've run across or dealt with have been pleasant, have been doing their job, and have been helpful. im sure there are bad apples, or even people who have a bad day; as I've heard and read the horror stories. But I believe that like anywhere, these people are few and far between. My beef is with the way TSA was foisted upon the public in the post-9/11 afraid-of-our-own-shadow way of thinking in this country. But that has nothing to do with the individual screeners who do the daily job.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Boarding a commercial airliner is not a right. Don't want to be searched? Don't buy an airline ticket. The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with it.
And, it's not like that's the only method of travel. People do have the option to drive or other means, in order to avoid any search prior to air travel.
Too, in regards to 4th Amendment; this is covered in case law of U.S. vs Davis, 482F 2nd 893 (1973) when it comes to airport searches in general; and further with U.S. vs Marquez, 6505 (2005).
Sometimes, public (government) interest in the right to security does indeed outweigh a personal right to be free from intrusion; in this case, public air travel. That intrusion has to, of course, be deemed reasonable.
Sometimes, public (government) interest in the right to security does indeed outweigh a personal right to be free from intrusion; in this case, public air travel. That intrusion has to, of course, be deemed reasonable.
Ok, so please explain a few things here.......
Supreme Court case (U.S. v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966)): "In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."
US Supreme Court case, Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) very strongly supports the right to travel.
49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace
Supreme Court case (U.S. v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966)): "In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."
US Supreme Court case, Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) very strongly supports the right to travel.
"'The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.' United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 . This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of 'entering and abiding in any State in the Union,' Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39 , is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional [394 U.S. 618, 643] due process or equal protection standards. 1 '[T]he right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment.' United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. 2 As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. 3 Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 , it is a virtually unconditional personal right, 4guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."
49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792)
before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure
that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of
commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792)
before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure
that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of
commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.
Since those cases, new case law has amended those for air travel. Granted, the rulings have been at the circuit court level in the 1973, 1986, and 2005 cases; but they don't seem to have been challenged higher yet.
thevideographer
Well-Known Member
The "oh, they're just doing their jobs" argument doesn't really work for me. Almost all of the problems I've had with the TSA were because of agents not knowing the rules or just being terrible at their jobs. Some are nice and some are rude, but almost none of actually know what is allowed through security and what is not. I'm not sure if it is the training or the fact that the TSA hires mostly people who just got furloughed from McDonalds, but it seems like such an important position (protecting us from terorrists, you know) should warrant some skilled labor.
I think it's obvious that we need some security on airliners and you can't write it all off due to the 4th amendment, but when the security gets so tight that it prevents people from traveling we've gone too far. And it sure seems strange that in a country that is all about freedom you have to be groped by another man to fly somewhere.
I think it's obvious that we need some security on airliners and you can't write it all off due to the 4th amendment, but when the security gets so tight that it prevents people from traveling we've gone too far. And it sure seems strange that in a country that is all about freedom you have to be groped by another man to fly somewhere.
I think a big part of the initial few years was getting the agency started, as well as what the standards were supposed to be for airport inspections...ie- no standardization. Creating the agency was a very rushed job.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
The freedom to travel by air is not the same as the freedom to travel.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Did you actually read those cases? It's clear that they don't support your argument. U.S. v Guest and Shapiro v Thompson both reiterate that you have a right to freely move about the country, but that has nothing to do with the method of conveyance. You can walk wherever you want, but you don't have a right to drive unless you submit to driver's licensing testing and obey the driving laws. Similarly, you have no right to access to commercial air transportation unless you're willing to abide by the rules associated with it.
49 U.S.C. 40103 doesn't support your argument at all, and in fact refutes it, as it goes on to give the government regulatory authority related to security of both the airspace and the people on the ground.
Bigey
Well-Known Member
Heres my issue though. It starts with air travel, what does it end up with though? Ships? Cars? Walking? When one form of travel is sacrificed, whats to say another wont be included at a later time.
Furthermore, I don't have a problem with going through some security at the airport. The second you want to see me naked is where I have a problem. Even a detainment by a Law Enforcement Officer the cop can't ask you to strip or see you naked. They can perform a search only if there is probable cause pertaining to the search. I didn't know that because some terrorists attempted terrorist attacks that the basis for a search is waved.
I know, someone is going to point out its an administrative search and yada yada. I haven't seen these naked machines in court houses yet and those are administrative deemed too (and generally performed by LEO's).
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Security under the TSA is vastly improved compared to pre-9/11. Most of the screeners in MIA where I was based pre-9/11 didn't even speak English at the time. Are there standardization problems? Absolutely. But that's not the fault of the laborers, it's the fault of the administrators. And yes, it needs to be addressed.
