December 31, 2001

9:48 AM

No high school diploma or GED required for new aiport security screeners.The author of the bill, Senator Kay Bailey-Hutchison of Texas, "said Sunday she would prefer airport security screeners have at least a high school education, but it is a "judgment call." The DOT requirements page requires a h.s. diploma, ged, or "one year of any type of work experience that demonstrates the applicant's ability to perform the work of the position." In a rush to overhaul the system, are we setting our standards too low?
posted by Ufez Jones (18 comments total)

What about the people who were so excited to enter the airport security career track, that they left school early?

It's possible, that's what I did to become a vagrant. I mean animator.
posted by kevspace at 10:04 AM on December 31, 2001

standards too low?

Yes, we always do.
posted by tomplus2 at 10:04 AM on December 31, 2001

Wow, look at that Federal government go. What a great job they've done, I mean, the Aviation and Tranpsortation Security Act that they passed in November has done SO much to safeguard airline passengers.

This fantabulous law that they passed basically hands out money for research into security technology, and establishes an airline security czar working under the DOT. I have read most of it, and, as I pointed out in a paper I wrote for school about it, the law, in its 50+ pages, makes no stringent requirements regarding the quality of the employees. To everyone that has called to federalize airport security: your dream, and my nightmare, has come true.

To read up on the law Bush signed, go to the Library of Congress, where they list terror related laws, or just go straight to the PDF of the law.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:11 AM on December 31, 2001

I don't know, from my personal experience, you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference.
posted by Hima Otsubusu at 10:16 AM on December 31, 2001

(playing devil's advocate) What about the people who have been working as airport security for a year or two but don't have a GED? Aren't they more qualified to do the job than some guy off the street who got a mail-in GED?
posted by panopticon at 10:27 AM on December 31, 2001

I don't care if they have a GED or whatever, as long as they aren't so fucking snippy to everyone. Sorry your job sucks, but don't take it out on us. Unless we actually do have a goddamned knife or something on us.

And don't be so sanctimonious either. I was on a flight leaving out of Ft. Lauderdale, and the woman behind me was "randomly searched" before boarding. One of the guys tore open her disposable camera, and when she protested, he said (in all seriousness), "This is for national security, ma'am."
posted by zedzebedia at 10:36 AM on December 31, 2001

What about the people who have been working as airport security for a year or two but don't have a GED? Aren't they more qualified to do the job than some guy off the street who got a mail-in GED?

Recent history would prove otherwise. If that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:44 AM on December 31, 2001

I don't care if they have a GED or whatever, as long as they aren't so fucking snippy to everyone. Sorry your job sucks, but don't take it out on us.

This is, of course, the real issue at hand. Rudeness.
posted by Skot at 10:50 AM on December 31, 2001

GED? How about we make sure they're actually U.S. citizens first?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:09 AM on December 31, 2001

This is America. You get what you pay for.
posted by Postroad at 11:29 AM on December 31, 2001

What's wrong with non-citizens? Non citizens can serve in the United States military, why not airport bag checking? They do all sorts of jobs that have everything to do with safeguarding the public.

Obviously some jobs aren't suitable for non-citizens, like Secretary of Defense, but I don't think this is one of them. Unless that's our fantastic way to get out of the expense of checking the background of people who work in airport security.

I'm offended by the anti-foreigner sentiment that's going around. I'd have been much happier if the military tribunal thing applied to citizens and non-citizens alike. Why not? Not all large-scale terrorism against America will be committed by foreigners.
posted by Wood at 12:00 PM on December 31, 2001

Why not? Because even the Bush Administration realizes that they can't directly assault the bill of rights like that - hence the more subtle tactics they've used. Kangaroo courts shouldn't be wished on anyone, even to make an otherwise correct point.
posted by adamsc at 12:07 PM on December 31, 2001

Maybe I should have said "in the country legally". Better phrasing? I don't care if the guy driving the luggage truck is a quote-unquote citizen, I care that he got into the country legally and is a documented worker.

If that's "anti-foreigner bias", so be it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:07 PM on December 31, 2001

for Wood: I have no problem with non-citizens working if they have documentation that they are here legally. But I am old fashioned enough not to want to have security guards at airports if they are non-English speaking folks in this country illegally and who have no resume or background material to let hiring dudes know a bit about them, felons or not.
posted by Postroad at 12:55 PM on December 31, 2001

I dunno, I have a problem with the idea that some high school dropout has the authority to make me submit to a strip search at the airport.
posted by ilsa at 1:06 PM on December 31, 2001

Mr. Davis

Doh, I actually forgot to ask if you meant "illegal alien" (or whatever). Not exactly different phrasing, totally different thing. I mean, my mother has been in the country legally for 25+ years and works for the state of CA. She's not a citizen, though. I think our immigration laws are bogus, but I'd be the first to admit that if your documentation is fraudulent you really shouldn't be in the security industry.

I don't think your second comment implies an "anti-foreigner bias". Don't be so defensive, though, you're the one who said "citizen".
posted by Wood at 1:43 PM on December 31, 2001

I find it strange that we have a problem being screened by someone of modest education, while the nation's President can't even pronounce the word 'subliminal.' I guess we do indeed "get what we pay [or vote] for," both in business and in politics.
posted by sunsolid at 1:48 PM on December 31, 2001

Sweet. Now all the laid-off dot-commers can get jobs.
posted by camworld at 2:22 PM on December 31, 2001