13 ms·

Hundreds of TSA screeners, working without pay, calling out sick at airports

62 points by smacktoward 8y ago

chrisseaton 8y ago
Why are they going in to work at all if they aren't being paid? Are they covered by some kind of special security law that means they need to keep working in the shutdown?
- owyn 8y ago
  I don't often do this, but it's literally the first line of the article: "Hundreds of Transportation Security Administration officers, who are required to work without paychecks through the partial government shutdown..." Edit to add info, answer the followup question and less snark... Yes, they're considered to be essential but they aren't getting paid because the 2019 TSA budget wasn't approved yet. Some other dept's were approved already and do have budget, etc. As usual with a big org like that, it depends. But the original article sure doesn't explain why. "Excepted employees include employees who are performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property or performing certain other types of excepted work." https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough...
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Yeah I read the same article as you but what requires them? People asking them? Or some sort of actual law? Or just they'll be fired if they don't? Can they quit or not?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - amyjess 8y ago
    Please define "required". Are FBI agents actually going to drag them out of their homes and have them arraigned on criminal charges if they don't show up for work, or will they just be fired/reprimanded/put on a PIP?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - owyn 8y ago
      There's a government document for that too! https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations/training/presentationaddressingawol.pdf https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations... But the short answer seems to be (from a cursory skim) that they are considered AWOL and that this is a reprimand/PIP/firing kind of situation. Same thing as just not showing up for work. They're not allowed to use previously accrued sick days or leave during a special situation like this. Obviously if it happens at a large enough scale, they probably won't just fire everyone, but there's a certain amount of game theory going on here to be sure. If SOME people don't show up, maybe management will let it slide, if LOTS of people don't show up, who gets in trouble?
- labster 8y ago
  Because they will be paid, eventually, for this work, once the government is funded. But since Trump said today that he's willing to keep the shutdown going for years, maybe it's time for these people to search for a paying job.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Trump can't keep the shutdown going for years. He's not an Emperor, and even if he were, he'd wind up like Caesar long before then.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      I assume you mean Gaius Caeser.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deong 8y ago
      Which 20 Republican senators do you imagine are going to stop him?
      - krapp 8y ago
        Any, if they feel the political cost of following Trump isn't worth the benefit. They'll make a stubborn show of defiance but in due course some deal will be struck and some defections will occur because holding the government hostage to fund a wall to keep the Mexicans out is insane. Trump may be willing to fight to the bitter end for that but I guarantee no career Republican politician is.
  - lamarpye 8y ago
    Good point, someone with their qualifications would have no trouble finding a top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries
    - 8y ago
- bdwalter 8y ago
  Most of the government employees I know feel it's an honor to serve their country and do so with loyalty and pride. In past shutdowns, they've all gotten paid retroactivly. It's not always about money.
  - normal_man 8y ago
    I think you are giving way too much credit to your average TSA agent.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > Most of the government employees I know feel it's an honor to serve their country and do so with loyalty and pride. It's not really up to them, though. Folks deemed "essential" like security screeners, the Coast Guard, etc. are expected to still come to work. Non-essential employees are furloughed, and it's actually illegal for them to volunteer their time. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/23/government-shutdown-furloughs-exempt/2855461/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/23/gove... > Natter noted that the Anti-Deficiency Act, the 129-year-old law that forces the government to shut down without an appropriation from Congress, also makes it illegal for furloughed workers to volunteer — even though many end up getting paid whether they work for not. "It really ought to be rewritten to be more relevant for the 21st century," he said.
  - excalibur 8y ago
    > Most of the government employees I know feel it's an honor to serve their country and do so with loyalty and pride. That's strange, most of the ones I know do so with frustration and resentment. Perhaps you're referring to a different, more amicable government?
    - bdwalter 8y ago
      I used to think that until I went on a multi week trip where I had lost my ID. I went through TSA without any ID about 7 times and developed a strong respect for the agents I encountered along the way. I was a difficult case and they treated me with respect and worked hard to get me through the process. I've never been a big fan of the government, and the TSA has flaws no doubt (I hate security theatre) but I think the vast majority of the agents are good apples. They chose to serve in an "essential" service, so that was a choice. Government shutdown's aren't a new thing anymore and they still choose to serve with honor and dignity to their role. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
- excalibur 8y ago
  Supposedly they will receive back pay if and when government funding is approved. Historically they have.
- huebnerob 8y ago
  They get back-paid eventually, whenever the shutdown ends. But many are probably living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to wait. The article posits that at least some are calling out to work other jobs that can actually give them a timely paycheck.
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    well I guess that would also be fraud wouldn't it. because the government will give them back pay because I guess they still get paid when sick. So then they have gotten paid on their second job and their sick days.
    - perfmode 8y ago
      Words have power. If we are going to speak of fraud, let's focus on those who are playing games in Washington. Let’s not use criminalizing language to describe the behavior of people who are getting the short end of the stick and attempting to make ends meet by whatever means necessary. Living paycheck to paycheck is difficult and anxiety-inducing. It's awful how the livelihoods of people all over the country are subject to the whims of elected officials. Edited: for clarity
      - yorwba 8y ago
        Being a pickpocket is also difficult and anxiety-inducing, and I have a lot of sympathy for everyone for whom that is the only way to make ends meet. That doesn't mean I think theft should be legal. In particular, if a TSA worker successfully finds another job to replace the income they can't get from the TSA, they should quit, rather than misrepresent their situation to later cash in on paid sick leave. EDIT: reworded triple negative
        bryanrasmussen 8y ago
        The problem as I understand it though is that they aren't allowed to quit in the current situation. So if they take a second job to make ends meet they would be forced into fraud (a crime) or admit they didn't work when legally required to (a crime)[1]. Of course maybe the work they are taking is under the table, which I didn't think of till now. 1: Note not a lawyer, and just assuming these would be criminal actions. on edit: made text italic on accident, removed formatting.
akulbe 8y ago
Maybe airports will go back to how they were before 9/11, and we'll realize that it (the TSA) is unnecessary and ineffective, and flying will go back to being a joy again?
- rjplatte 8y ago
  God, I hope so. If only every flight was like being pre-checked. It's really a joy to not have to deal with security theater.
  - gnarcoregrizz 8y ago
    It's not completely theater. I've had friends caught with ammo and knives (which they left in their luggage by accident). In every case they simply confiscated it and let them go, so it makes me feel alright that they have at least caught stuff. I find the liquids stuff annoying, but hey. It's probably in airlines best interests to have security anyway - after all of the high profile (but extraordinarily rare) terror attacks, people are probably more apt to fly with some type of security.
    - knodi123 8y ago
      your anecdote supports "the TSA are not just pretending to do their jobs". But that's not what we mean by theater- we're saying that them doing their jobs, doesn't effectively reduce the likelihood of airplane terrorism. Especially considering the multi-billion-dollar price tag.
    - saurik 8y ago
      We also know (from actual tests of the system even, not just from people like me claiming it) that people get through with stuff also. So now you are saying we have a system where sometimes they catch you and they just take the stuff as part of a system where sometimes you just get through with your stuff... so there is no penalty to having some people try over and over again... if the goal is to actually stop stuff getting through then this is all pointless.
    - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
d33 8y ago
I'm starting to like this shutdown. Having TSA choked sounds like a great win to me.
- ssully 8y ago
  I hate the TSA, but this shutdown affects things like ATCs who actually provide value for air transportation or you know, many of the other government agencies hit by this shutdown.
  - SomeHacker44 8y ago
    I hate to disagree about ATC with someone named Sully but I do believe the FAA has its own funding/appropriations bill(s) and revenue sources and is not tied into this general omnibus funding shutdown going on now.
    - ssully 8y ago
      While some parts might (I am do not work for FAA so I do not know), ATCs are not covered. This article [1] covers it better then I will. I will only add that I do have multiple friends who are ATCs who are currently planning to not get their next pay check (the 14th) due to how things are going. They aren't hurting yet, but it's definitely stressful for them. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/aviation-system-begins-to-feel-stress-from-the-shutdown-union-leaders-say/2019/01/03/468d86ea-0f7f-11e9-84fc-d58c33d6c8c7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/avi...
- antisthenes 8y ago
  Unfortunately, the TSA is a fairly small part of the US government. So cheering for the shutdown specifically to choke TSA is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
danieltillett 8y ago
Maybe something good will come from this gov shut down and we will be able to get rid of the security theatre for good.
vuln 8y ago
It's the just price of "Security Theater".
ProAm 8y ago
> The mass call outs could inevitably mean air travel is less secure This line is hilarious...
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  because of 'could inevitably' or just because the idea that TSA makes people more secure?
  - rjplatte 8y ago
    Yes.
rhn_mk1 8y ago
I'm eagerly waiting to see an analysis comparing the number of incidents on flights within the "lower security" understaffed period and regular "high security" time. That kind of an experiment would have no chance being performed under normal circumstances.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  It's hard to compare with 0, unfortunately. Also, if someone's goal was to inflict maximal damage on the US, striking whenever there was less effort put into security would be exactly what you'd want to do - regardless of whether the change actually affected security. So an increase in attacks might not actually reflect an increased vulnerability to attack, if that makes any sense.
DuskStar 8y ago
This is fantastic! The TSA is a cancer on the aviation industry in this country. If the default security experience was the one we get with Precheck, I imagine things would be a lot better - but reducing things further from that should be possible too. We spend far too much money, and far too many lives, on security theater. And the TSA is a major part of that. (IIRC there were two meaningful improvements in security following 9/11 - the introduction of reinforced cockpit doors, preventing aircraft takeover, and the knowledge of passengers that hijackings lead to death, not a free trip to Cuba, and so resisting is actually a good idea)
- SomeHacker44 8y ago
  Thank you. Nailed it.
Bhilai 8y ago
Very disappointing comments in this thread. We get it that you all hate TSA but come on, these screeners are working without pay and most of them probably have dependents and families to take care of. Not to mention they worked without pay over the holidays too. A little empathy would be pretty nice.
- amyjess 8y ago
  Honestly, I'm all out of empathy for people who grope crying, frightened children by their genitals, people who trigger sexual assault survivors, and people who treat transgender individuals as less than human. TSA agents do all of the above as a matter of course.
  - beat 8y ago
    Hate the game, not the player. None of them enjoy this stuff any more than you do - it's just their job. Let's instead look to the impact of our national policy of security theatre, where the illusion of activity (even when that activity is unpleasant, offensive, and arguably immoral) is preferable to just admitting there are some risks we can't prevent.
    - amyjess 8y ago
      "I was just following orders" is never a valid excuse. If a job is immoral, then it is immoral to perform the job. If someone gropes a frightened child's genitals, that is an act of evil even if they were ordered to do it by their boss.
      - meikos 8y ago
        Go take an undergrad philosophy course
        dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tj-teej 8y ago
I see all these comments about TSA being theater, and while I don't disagree, we should remember that these are real people with families to support. A Government job is historically seen as a "safe" income. These employees (whatever you think of their job's worth) are currently out of pay with no idea when they'll be paid again. Given how many American's live paycheck to paycheck, it's not a stretch to imagine that there's kids out there going hungry tonight because of this failure.
- antisthenes 8y ago
  I don't see why a government job should be any safer than a private sector job, unless we explicitly state that the government's job is explicitly to be the employer of last resort for people who can't find jobs otherwise. Is there something that makes a TSA employee different from, say, a food service sector employee? That's certainly not how I want my tax dollars to be spent and I'm not sure most people would either if the question was explicitly posed this way.
- leereeves 8y ago
  This would be a great time for them to find new jobs, with lots of new jobs being created and wages rising. The jobs they have now should be eliminated.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  I think you can acknowledge that TSA is theater while still having empathy for the people that work there. I would imagine most people don’t want to work there and they probably understand the faults in the system more than most.
rdtsc 8y ago
In most cases I imagine they just don't want to work without getting paid but I can also see the extra stress of not getting a paycheck also making people sick. Also wonder where this might lead? Will they be forced to get doctor's notices? What happens when airports are overflowing with passengers and they are late boarding, will airports / airlines move to "privatize" security: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tsa-understaffing-longer-security-lines-airports-private-security-screeners/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tsa-understaffing-longer-securi...
mesozoic 8y ago
They better be careful or we'll realize they do a pointless job and could just be gotten rid of completely.
elipsey 8y ago
Anyone know how to actually block autoplay video these days? I tried firefox's "media.autoplay.enabled;false","media.autoplay.ask-permission;true","media.autoplay.block-event.enabled;true" but none of this seems to work anymore. uBlock origin doesn't seem to do this in any super easy way (that I tried).
- knodi123 8y ago
  ha. even extensions can't manage it, at least in chrome. it's an arms race, and you're not on the team with the money. (I put a ton of effort into this about 6 months ago, and I managed to stop about a third of auto-playing videos)
  - elipsey 8y ago
    Thanks. What kind of effort? What did you learn? I put a small amount effort into this; digging around in the source of a few sites, reading event traces, trying to work out the relationships between elements and so on. I'm not really a front end guy so I'm not sure if i'm failing due to ineptitude, things being generated and deployed in a way that makes them hard to read, or if they're deliberately obfuscated. Sounds like you believe the latter. Securing video start metrics from user interference must be... ahem, pretty highly incentivized. EDIT: Firefox will add a permission popup, which is already in nightly. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/block-autoplay https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/block-autoplay
    - knodi123 8y ago
      a half a day of googling for people who have solved the problem, and experimenting with 3 different chrome extensions and some under the hood settings. i'm a back-end developer, but it seems like unless you're going to go as far as using the noscript extension, there's no way to stop the various video injection scripts. but I only used Chrome, so if Firefox is better I honestly might consider switching. I know Firefox has a mute-all-tabs-by-default setting/addon , which mitigates a lot of my problems with web video.
isis_bomber 8y ago
i dislike the TSA and i hate the Pornoscanner and i am enraged by America's invasions of dozens of middle east countries and endless wars, but sacking TSA is not a good thing. there are over 100,000 ISIS jihadis around the world. ISIS has invented new types of bombs targetted at air transport, as well as novel hacks of lithium ion batteries in phones and computers to turn them into invisible bombs. ISIS has already blown up one jet, from Cairo to Moscow, killing hundreds of innocent people. nobody should be cheering at the TSA being laid off. anything that removes layers of redundant security from our airport screening is a threat to all of us. this only makes things easier for ISIS. now ISIS knows they stand better odds at getting a bomb onboard a jet. this is all the Democrats fault. we the people voted for The Wall. the majority wants the wall. why can't the Democrats give us what we want? why will the Democrats play dice with ISIS like stubborn babies instead of just giving the voters what we want? if ISIS pulls off a second 9/11, it will all be blamed on the Democrats, who are weak on security and who want to surrender America over to foreign control.
ashelmire 8y ago
This will probably lead to more congested air travel, which may have some economic consequences. Little things like this all over the place will start to add up, and the blame will fall squarely wear it belongs - on Trump, who passed on his own party’s funding.

62 points by smacktoward 8y ago

Why are they going in to work at all if they aren't being paid? Are they covered by some kind of special security law that means they need to keep working in the shutdown?

owyn 8y ago
I don't often do this, but it's literally the first line of the article: "Hundreds of Transportation Security Administration officers, who are required to work without paychecks through the partial government shutdown..." Edit to add info, answer the followup question and less snark... Yes, they're considered to be essential but they aren't getting paid because the 2019 TSA budget wasn't approved yet. Some other dept's were approved already and do have budget, etc. As usual with a big org like that, it depends. But the original article sure doesn't explain why. "Excepted employees include employees who are performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property or performing certain other types of excepted work." https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough...
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  Yeah I read the same article as you but what requires them? People asking them? Or some sort of actual law? Or just they'll be fired if they don't? Can they quit or not?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- amyjess 8y ago
  Please define "required". Are FBI agents actually going to drag them out of their homes and have them arraigned on criminal charges if they don't show up for work, or will they just be fired/reprimanded/put on a PIP?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - owyn 8y ago
    There's a government document for that too! https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations/training/presentationaddressingawol.pdf https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations... But the short answer seems to be (from a cursory skim) that they are considered AWOL and that this is a reprimand/PIP/firing kind of situation. Same thing as just not showing up for work. They're not allowed to use previously accrued sick days or leave during a special situation like this. Obviously if it happens at a large enough scale, they probably won't just fire everyone, but there's a certain amount of game theory going on here to be sure. If SOME people don't show up, maybe management will let it slide, if LOTS of people don't show up, who gets in trouble?
labster 8y ago
Because they will be paid, eventually, for this work, once the government is funded. But since Trump said today that he's willing to keep the shutdown going for years, maybe it's time for these people to search for a paying job.
- krapp 8y ago
  Trump can't keep the shutdown going for years. He's not an Emperor, and even if he were, he'd wind up like Caesar long before then.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    I assume you mean Gaius Caeser.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deong 8y ago
    Which 20 Republican senators do you imagine are going to stop him?
    - krapp 8y ago
      Any, if they feel the political cost of following Trump isn't worth the benefit. They'll make a stubborn show of defiance but in due course some deal will be struck and some defections will occur because holding the government hostage to fund a wall to keep the Mexicans out is insane. Trump may be willing to fight to the bitter end for that but I guarantee no career Republican politician is.
- lamarpye 8y ago
  Good point, someone with their qualifications would have no trouble finding a top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries
  - 8y ago
bdwalter 8y ago
Most of the government employees I know feel it's an honor to serve their country and do so with loyalty and pride. In past shutdowns, they've all gotten paid retroactivly. It's not always about money.
- normal_man 8y ago
  I think you are giving way too much credit to your average TSA agent.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > Most of the government employees I know feel it's an honor to serve their country and do so with loyalty and pride. It's not really up to them, though. Folks deemed "essential" like security screeners, the Coast Guard, etc. are expected to still come to work. Non-essential employees are furloughed, and it's actually illegal for them to volunteer their time. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/23/government-shutdown-furloughs-exempt/2855461/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/23/gove... > Natter noted that the Anti-Deficiency Act, the 129-year-old law that forces the government to shut down without an appropriation from Congress, also makes it illegal for furloughed workers to volunteer — even though many end up getting paid whether they work for not. "It really ought to be rewritten to be more relevant for the 21st century," he said.
- excalibur 8y ago
  > Most of the government employees I know feel it's an honor to serve their country and do so with loyalty and pride. That's strange, most of the ones I know do so with frustration and resentment. Perhaps you're referring to a different, more amicable government?
  - bdwalter 8y ago
    I used to think that until I went on a multi week trip where I had lost my ID. I went through TSA without any ID about 7 times and developed a strong respect for the agents I encountered along the way. I was a difficult case and they treated me with respect and worked hard to get me through the process. I've never been a big fan of the government, and the TSA has flaws no doubt (I hate security theatre) but I think the vast majority of the agents are good apples. They chose to serve in an "essential" service, so that was a choice. Government shutdown's aren't a new thing anymore and they still choose to serve with honor and dignity to their role. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
excalibur 8y ago
Supposedly they will receive back pay if and when government funding is approved. Historically they have.
huebnerob 8y ago
They get back-paid eventually, whenever the shutdown ends. But many are probably living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to wait. The article posits that at least some are calling out to work other jobs that can actually give them a timely paycheck.
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  well I guess that would also be fraud wouldn't it. because the government will give them back pay because I guess they still get paid when sick. So then they have gotten paid on their second job and their sick days.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    Words have power. If we are going to speak of fraud, let's focus on those who are playing games in Washington. Let’s not use criminalizing language to describe the behavior of people who are getting the short end of the stick and attempting to make ends meet by whatever means necessary. Living paycheck to paycheck is difficult and anxiety-inducing. It's awful how the livelihoods of people all over the country are subject to the whims of elected officials. Edited: for clarity
    - yorwba 8y ago
      Being a pickpocket is also difficult and anxiety-inducing, and I have a lot of sympathy for everyone for whom that is the only way to make ends meet. That doesn't mean I think theft should be legal. In particular, if a TSA worker successfully finds another job to replace the income they can't get from the TSA, they should quit, rather than misrepresent their situation to later cash in on paid sick leave. EDIT: reworded triple negative
      - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
        The problem as I understand it though is that they aren't allowed to quit in the current situation. So if they take a second job to make ends meet they would be forced into fraud (a crime) or admit they didn't work when legally required to (a crime)[1]. Of course maybe the work they are taking is under the table, which I didn't think of till now. 1: Note not a lawyer, and just assuming these would be criminal actions. on edit: made text italic on accident, removed formatting.

akulbe 8y ago

Maybe airports will go back to how they were before 9/11, and we'll realize that it (the TSA) is unnecessary and ineffective, and flying will go back to being a joy again?

rjplatte 8y ago
God, I hope so. If only every flight was like being pre-checked. It's really a joy to not have to deal with security theater.
- gnarcoregrizz 8y ago
  It's not completely theater. I've had friends caught with ammo and knives (which they left in their luggage by accident). In every case they simply confiscated it and let them go, so it makes me feel alright that they have at least caught stuff. I find the liquids stuff annoying, but hey. It's probably in airlines best interests to have security anyway - after all of the high profile (but extraordinarily rare) terror attacks, people are probably more apt to fly with some type of security.
  - knodi123 8y ago
    your anecdote supports "the TSA are not just pretending to do their jobs". But that's not what we mean by theater- we're saying that them doing their jobs, doesn't effectively reduce the likelihood of airplane terrorism. Especially considering the multi-billion-dollar price tag.
  - saurik 8y ago
    We also know (from actual tests of the system even, not just from people like me claiming it) that people get through with stuff also. So now you are saying we have a system where sometimes they catch you and they just take the stuff as part of a system where sometimes you just get through with your stuff... so there is no penalty to having some people try over and over again... if the goal is to actually stop stuff getting through then this is all pointless.
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago

d33 8y ago

I'm starting to like this shutdown. Having TSA choked sounds like a great win to me.

ssully 8y ago
I hate the TSA, but this shutdown affects things like ATCs who actually provide value for air transportation or you know, many of the other government agencies hit by this shutdown.
- SomeHacker44 8y ago
  I hate to disagree about ATC with someone named Sully but I do believe the FAA has its own funding/appropriations bill(s) and revenue sources and is not tied into this general omnibus funding shutdown going on now.
  - ssully 8y ago
    While some parts might (I am do not work for FAA so I do not know), ATCs are not covered. This article [1] covers it better then I will. I will only add that I do have multiple friends who are ATCs who are currently planning to not get their next pay check (the 14th) due to how things are going. They aren't hurting yet, but it's definitely stressful for them. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/aviation-system-begins-to-feel-stress-from-the-shutdown-union-leaders-say/2019/01/03/468d86ea-0f7f-11e9-84fc-d58c33d6c8c7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/avi...
antisthenes 8y ago
Unfortunately, the TSA is a fairly small part of the US government. So cheering for the shutdown specifically to choke TSA is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

danieltillett 8y ago

Maybe something good will come from this gov shut down and we will be able to get rid of the security theatre for good.

vuln 8y ago

It's the just price of "Security Theater".

ProAm 8y ago

> The mass call outs could inevitably mean air travel is less secure This line is hilarious...

bryanrasmussen 8y ago
because of 'could inevitably' or just because the idea that TSA makes people more secure?
- rjplatte 8y ago
  Yes.

rhn_mk1 8y ago

I'm eagerly waiting to see an analysis comparing the number of incidents on flights within the "lower security" understaffed period and regular "high security" time. That kind of an experiment would have no chance being performed under normal circumstances.

DuskStar 8y ago
It's hard to compare with 0, unfortunately. Also, if someone's goal was to inflict maximal damage on the US, striking whenever there was less effort put into security would be exactly what you'd want to do - regardless of whether the change actually affected security. So an increase in attacks might not actually reflect an increased vulnerability to attack, if that makes any sense.

DuskStar 8y ago

This is fantastic! The TSA is a cancer on the aviation industry in this country. If the default security experience was the one we get with Precheck, I imagine things would be a lot better - but reducing things further from that should be possible too. We spend far too much money, and far too many lives, on security theater. And the TSA is a major part of that. (IIRC there were two meaningful improvements in security following 9/11 - the introduction of reinforced cockpit doors, preventing aircraft takeover, and the knowledge of passengers that hijackings lead to death, not a free trip to Cuba, and so resisting is actually a good idea)

SomeHacker44 8y ago
Thank you. Nailed it.

Bhilai 8y ago

Very disappointing comments in this thread. We get it that you all hate TSA but come on, these screeners are working without pay and most of them probably have dependents and families to take care of. Not to mention they worked without pay over the holidays too. A little empathy would be pretty nice.

amyjess 8y ago
Honestly, I'm all out of empathy for people who grope crying, frightened children by their genitals, people who trigger sexual assault survivors, and people who treat transgender individuals as less than human. TSA agents do all of the above as a matter of course.
- beat 8y ago
  Hate the game, not the player. None of them enjoy this stuff any more than you do - it's just their job. Let's instead look to the impact of our national policy of security theatre, where the illusion of activity (even when that activity is unpleasant, offensive, and arguably immoral) is preferable to just admitting there are some risks we can't prevent.
  - amyjess 8y ago
    "I was just following orders" is never a valid excuse. If a job is immoral, then it is immoral to perform the job. If someone gropes a frightened child's genitals, that is an act of evil even if they were ordered to do it by their boss.
    - meikos 8y ago
      Go take an undergrad philosophy course
      - dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tj-teej 8y ago

I see all these comments about TSA being theater, and while I don't disagree, we should remember that these are real people with families to support. A Government job is historically seen as a "safe" income. These employees (whatever you think of their job's worth) are currently out of pay with no idea when they'll be paid again. Given how many American's live paycheck to paycheck, it's not a stretch to imagine that there's kids out there going hungry tonight because of this failure.

antisthenes 8y ago
I don't see why a government job should be any safer than a private sector job, unless we explicitly state that the government's job is explicitly to be the employer of last resort for people who can't find jobs otherwise. Is there something that makes a TSA employee different from, say, a food service sector employee? That's certainly not how I want my tax dollars to be spent and I'm not sure most people would either if the question was explicitly posed this way.
leereeves 8y ago
This would be a great time for them to find new jobs, with lots of new jobs being created and wages rising. The jobs they have now should be eliminated.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
I think you can acknowledge that TSA is theater while still having empathy for the people that work there. I would imagine most people don’t want to work there and they probably understand the faults in the system more than most.

rdtsc 8y ago

In most cases I imagine they just don't want to work without getting paid but I can also see the extra stress of not getting a paycheck also making people sick. Also wonder where this might lead? Will they be forced to get doctor's notices? What happens when airports are overflowing with passengers and they are late boarding, will airports / airlines move to "privatize" security: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tsa-understaffing-longer-security-lines-airports-private-security-screeners/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tsa-understaffing-longer-securi...

mesozoic 8y ago

They better be careful or we'll realize they do a pointless job and could just be gotten rid of completely.

elipsey 8y ago

Anyone know how to actually block autoplay video these days? I tried firefox's "media.autoplay.enabled;false","media.autoplay.ask-permission;true","media.autoplay.block-event.enabled;true" but none of this seems to work anymore. uBlock origin doesn't seem to do this in any super easy way (that I tried).

knodi123 8y ago
ha. even extensions can't manage it, at least in chrome. it's an arms race, and you're not on the team with the money. (I put a ton of effort into this about 6 months ago, and I managed to stop about a third of auto-playing videos)
- elipsey 8y ago
  Thanks. What kind of effort? What did you learn? I put a small amount effort into this; digging around in the source of a few sites, reading event traces, trying to work out the relationships between elements and so on. I'm not really a front end guy so I'm not sure if i'm failing due to ineptitude, things being generated and deployed in a way that makes them hard to read, or if they're deliberately obfuscated. Sounds like you believe the latter. Securing video start metrics from user interference must be... ahem, pretty highly incentivized. EDIT: Firefox will add a permission popup, which is already in nightly. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/block-autoplay https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/block-autoplay
  - knodi123 8y ago
    a half a day of googling for people who have solved the problem, and experimenting with 3 different chrome extensions and some under the hood settings. i'm a back-end developer, but it seems like unless you're going to go as far as using the noscript extension, there's no way to stop the various video injection scripts. but I only used Chrome, so if Firefox is better I honestly might consider switching. I know Firefox has a mute-all-tabs-by-default setting/addon , which mitigates a lot of my problems with web video.

isis_bomber 8y ago

i dislike the TSA and i hate the Pornoscanner and i am enraged by America's invasions of dozens of middle east countries and endless wars, but sacking TSA is not a good thing. there are over 100,000 ISIS jihadis around the world. ISIS has invented new types of bombs targetted at air transport, as well as novel hacks of lithium ion batteries in phones and computers to turn them into invisible bombs. ISIS has already blown up one jet, from Cairo to Moscow, killing hundreds of innocent people. nobody should be cheering at the TSA being laid off. anything that removes layers of redundant security from our airport screening is a threat to all of us. this only makes things easier for ISIS. now ISIS knows they stand better odds at getting a bomb onboard a jet. this is all the Democrats fault. we the people voted for The Wall. the majority wants the wall. why can't the Democrats give us what we want? why will the Democrats play dice with ISIS like stubborn babies instead of just giving the voters what we want? if ISIS pulls off a second 9/11, it will all be blamed on the Democrats, who are weak on security and who want to surrender America over to foreign control.

ashelmire 8y ago

This will probably lead to more congested air travel, which may have some economic consequences. Little things like this all over the place will start to add up, and the blame will fall squarely wear it belongs - on Trump, who passed on his own party’s funding.