So Much for Better Security
Apparently the government doesn't mind having high school drop-outs running our airport screening facilities. What a joke...I guess they think this is better than having to deal with a potential PR problem of shit-canning 7,000 (completely unqualified) people. Maybe "No GED? No Problem!" is our motto now. This is so pathetic....
The job should be done by military personnel, period. People who are trained to understand how the various screening devices work, and how to subdue any crazy POS who tried to smuggle in weapons or break through their barricades. We need MP's not rent-a-cop wannabe's.
If ever there was proof that politics is at play here rather than an over-arching concern for the public's well-being, this is it. Despite my pessimistic nature, I never thought all the speeches about beefing up airport security would turn out to be lip-service. The security companies who knowingly put unqualified, untrained (and apparently uneducated) losers at our security checkpoints ought to be run out of business and the management publicly shunned. Their actions were borderline treasonous IMO and they ought to be treated as such even if they can't be indicted as such.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/national/30AIRL.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/national/30AIRL.html</a>;
The job should be done by military personnel, period. People who are trained to understand how the various screening devices work, and how to subdue any crazy POS who tried to smuggle in weapons or break through their barricades. We need MP's not rent-a-cop wannabe's.
If ever there was proof that politics is at play here rather than an over-arching concern for the public's well-being, this is it. Despite my pessimistic nature, I never thought all the speeches about beefing up airport security would turn out to be lip-service. The security companies who knowingly put unqualified, untrained (and apparently uneducated) losers at our security checkpoints ought to be run out of business and the management publicly shunned. Their actions were borderline treasonous IMO and they ought to be treated as such even if they can't be indicted as such.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/national/30AIRL.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/national/30AIRL.html</a>;
Comments
I agree with the original resolution. Require a highschool education.
United States Port Guard!
Seriously though, this is a HUGE, important issue and should be treated as such. Half-assing it with unqualified numbskulls and $6/hour clockwatchers is only going to result in more bad stuff happening.
It amazes me that there's even a debate about this.
The first responsibilities of private companies are towards their stockholders. If they can fill those positions with minimum wage workers to keep the bottom-line as healthy as possible, then that is exactly what they are going to do. It is totally within their rights.
And it's perfectly within my rights to take a train or drive.
To Europe? :eek:
-Paul
The fact of the matter is that probably 20% of airport workers don't have high school diplomas. Say another 10% don't meet other new Federal guidlines. What happens when 20 to 30% of your workforce suddenly is gone with no replacements? What do you think these same people would do if they were told that they had to go as soon as there were replacements? Would you stay or just walk off the job that you were going to lose anyway? So as an employer which the Federal Government will be in this case - what would you do? I think you would probably do just what has been done. You can always let them go later for nonperformance.
<strong>
To Europe? :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
If I got a big enough head start, I think I could make that jump. I saw "Smokey and the Bandit" twice.
<strong>
The first responsibilities of private companies are towards their stockholders. If they can fill those positions with minimum wage workers to keep the bottom-line as healthy as possible, then that is exactly what they are going to do. It is totally within their rights.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You must work in Human Resources...just kidding.
My opinion? (uh, oh) They should all get canned and the government should replace them with federal officers (if anything, qualified people). Nuff said.
<strong>The first responsibilities of private companies are towards their stockholders. If they can fill those positions with minimum wage workers to keep the bottom-line as healthy as possible, then that is exactly what they are going to do. It is totally within their rights.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Congratulations, you just earned the label "corporate apologist." Perfectly within their rights?! Who said anything about rights?? They are irrelevant in this context; this isn't about corporate rights. The company would've also been perfectly within their rights to hire 16 year olds too, or maybe people who couldn't speak English, or maybe they should've tried to work some kind of prison furlough program to rehabilitate our criminal elements?
Wake up. They were negligent beyond belief and any lame-ass excuse to the contrary is just blind. These companies carry a huge burden of responsibility for what happened on 9-11. Maybe not all of it, the FAA and others certainly share in the blame. But in the end it was the security firms who decided to give out security passes and badges to people who aren't qualified to protect a White Hen pantry.
The people who knowingly made those decisions, and thus knowingly endangered thousands -- millions even -- of passengers ought to be canned and publicly scorned so they end up where they belong - MANAGING a White Hen.
One could make whatever lame arguments they wanted about "the airport authority said do this, the FAA said do that" but I'm willing to bet if the FAA told the company to hire chimps or lose their contract, they would've gone into some other line of security.
They had many choices available to them, they made VERY bad ones and we suffered as a nation because of it. Period. If they came to the conclusion that the only way to make airport safety profitable, was by endangering that security, they SHOULD'VE GOTTEN OUT OF THE BUSINESS. You don't put profits before people's lives, Samantha....
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
[QB]You don't put profits before people's lives, Samantha....<hr></blockquote>
Yes you do, if you want to be successful. That's that capitalism is all about, profit comes before all else. The way to get them to provide adequate security is not to get the government to step in, it's to stop them from making money. If their profits go down because people don't think they're doing their job well enough, they will be forced to do a better job. That's how the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately people are so used to whining to the government to solve all their problems they don't know how to do things for themselves anymore; that's the real problem here.
The industry has been fighting increased security standards for years. I don't think there was a single person in the country who didn't know what a sad, pathetic joke airline security was.
9-11 was a day waiting to happen. Everyone could see that terrorists could go through security if they wanted to. We as a nation, joked about how bad the situation was. (Take the SNL airport security screener skit for example)
I've lost count of the checkpoints I've been to where the security personel were standing in a group talking, while the baggage screener was turned around to face them.
U.S airport security has always been a fscking joke, is a fscking joke and apparently will be a fscking joke for a long time to come.
I'm staying off planes from now on. I don't have any reason to believe the retard squad will manage to keep terrorists from getting on a flight if they want to.
I could lay all the blame for the failure to prevent 9-11 on the CIA, FBI, INS, etc. But I won't. They had their problems and do share some of the responsibility, but it is my beleif that those charged with airport secuirty are to be blamed more than anyone. Not one, but 12 or so armed men managed to get on two planes at the same fscking airport at the same time!
I could go on, but I'm too damnd pissed off to type any more.
<strong>Yes you do, if you want to be successful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bullshit. Airline start-up Jet Blue is reporting profits this last quarter...why? Because not only did they offer cheaper rates but had new security implementations already in place before Sept. 11th. Such as titanium locks on cabin doors and better trained personnel in the air and on the ground. They are now recalling workers back, adding new routes and their stock is climbing. Whereas AA and United's stocks are dropping like rocks (-50%).
Want to make a profit? Give people good products and services. If one doesn't give that to me they'll lose my business. In these budget conscious times so are a lot more people.
Ok, maybe not federal officers, but goddammit hire someone with credentials. Security is a growing market and the qualified personnel is out there to hire. Let the former drop outs get a job at Burger King.
<strong> [Gross Exaggeration] Yes you do, if you want to be successful. That's that capitalism is all about, profit comes before all else. [/Gross Exaggeration] </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ever heard of business ethics? There are thousands of very successful companies that do a good business without bringing excessive risk or harm to their customers. If the choice is between eeking out a profit while endangering millions of lives, vs. getting into some other line of security or some other line of product, guess which choice is the acceptable one??
How anyone can apologize for these pricks is beyond belief. You'd think 9-11 would've been a wake up call for everyone in this country, but apparently some of us are still asleep.
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>