PDA

View Full Version : The poor TSA airport screeners


Farrell
25th Feb 2005, 10:20
The suitcase rolling toward airport screener Bridget Cotton on the knee-high conveyor belt at Louisville International last July looked like it would weigh 35 pounds. But as she scooped it up, pain shot through her, and she found out it was a 75-pounder.


"It was like somebody took a knife and jabbed it right into my lower back," says Cotton, 36, one of 45,000 federal screeners who check airline passengers and their luggage for weapons and explosives. The bag didn't contain anything threatening - but it caused plenty of harm to Cotton, who has been on workers' compensation for seven months with a lower back sprain.


"Ninety-eight percent of the time, I'm in pain," Cotton says. "I can't sit for very long. I can't stand for very long. I can't even walk my dog."


Cotton and her colleagues are on the front lines of the nation's effort to protect air travel. They're also at the forefront of one of the USA's worst occupational hazards. Security screeners at airports have one of the highest injury rates in the nation - mostly because of strains, sprains and spasms from struggling with luggage at poorly designed checkpoints, according to a USA TODAY review of federal labor and homeland security records.


Injured workers at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), more than two-thirds of whom are screeners, missed nearly a quarter-million days of work last year. The lost job time has contributed to a staffing shortage that has strained checkpoint security and lengthened lines at airports.


TSA employees injured on the job missed work in 2004 at five times the rate of the rest of the federal workforce. They were injured four times as often as construction-industry workers and seven times as often as miners.


That absenteeism rate raises new worries about aviation security.


"If a number of them are sick or disabled, you've got even fewer people to do the same work," says Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., a veteran member of the House aviation subcommittee. "There's more pressure on the remaining employees to put people through more quickly. It potentially jeopardizes security because of the rush."


Among the problems caused by the staffing shortages:


• Repeated violations of a post-9/11 law requiring all checked luggage to be screened with bomb-detection machines - often because workers weren't available to operate the devices.


• Missed training for screeners, which the former Homeland Security Department inspector general blames for recent failures to detect weapons and explosives.


• Extensive overtime that TSA chief David Stone has said increases fatigue and turnover.


• A $67 million cost to taxpayers from July 2002 to June 2004 to cover wages and medical expenses for injured screeners.


Injuries and security


John Moran, chief of staff at the TSA division in charge of worker safety, says the injuries haven't weakened security. Airport security directors, he says, compensate for absences either by having screeners work overtime or by closing screening checkpoints.


But Moran acknowledges problems. The culture at TSA "may be a detriment in safety" to screeners, he says. "We have a culture right now that seems to be very focused on moving people, and (screeners) not necessarily asking for the help they might need" when lifting heavy bags.


The TSA also may have hired screeners unable to handle the heavier bags, Moran says.


And in a rush to meet a post-9/11 deadline to screen all luggage, bulky explosives-detection machines were placed wherever they would fit in airports - often in spots that contribute to injuries. Screeners are often forced to lift bags from awkward positions and haul them significant distances, Moran says.

Moran says the TSA is looking at improving the layout of checkpoints and may also require job applicants to meet stricter strength standards. When workers are absent because of injury, medical specialists would check on them to make sure they get back to work in a timely fashion, Moran says.

The changes probably would be put into place sometime this year.

Lost days pile up

TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark says the number of injuries declined each month from July to November of 2004 as safety teams at every airport made improvements, such as providing luggage carts to make it easier to move bags.

But the figures TSA provided show an injury rate - the number of injuries per 100 employees - of about 26% in the second half of 2004. That compares with 5% in the private sector in 2003, the most recent year for which figures are available.

TSA's annual injury rate soared from 19% in fiscal year 2003 to 29% in 2004, according to the government's count of workers' compensation claims that have been approved. Those figures include all injuries, whether or not an employee missed work.

The rate of injuries that forced TSA employees to miss work jumped from 9% to 12%. In the private sector, the rate was 1.5%.

At San Diego International Airport, 140 of roughly 480 screeners were injured last year, missing a total of 1,887 days. That's the equivalent of losing five screeners a day. Injured screeners were put on light duty or other restrictions for an additional 6,133 days - the equivalent of about 17 screeners a day.

"Nobody is brought in to replace them," says San Diego screener Cris Soulia, an officer in the American Federation of Government Employees, a federal workers' labor union that has tried to represent screeners. "We run short-handed."

Most screeners work an 81/2-hour day with a half-hour meal break and two other 15-minute rests. Some screeners work four 101/2-hour days a week with the same breaks. The bulk of the injuries reported are to luggage screeners, who often work in basements or other locations that keep them out of public view.

Federal safety investigators began looking into complaints about TSA workplace hazards in January 2003. That was two months after the TSA finished hiring screeners to replace private security guards at all 429 U.S. commercial airports.

Since then, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (news - web sites) has cited TSA workstations around the country for 75 workplace-safety violations. Ten violations were for previously cited conditions. Thirty-two were "serious," indicating a "substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result, and the employer knew or should have known of the hazard."

At Buffalo Niagara International Airport, TSA officials ignored screeners who complained that management had covered four of seven emergency stop buttons on each of five luggage-scanning machines in an effort to stop accidental shut-offs, says screener Gil Harris, a member of the airport safety team.

TSA managers left the covers in place, Harris says, until OSHA inspected the airport in November 2003 and issued TSA a serious violation because machines "could not be reliably shut off quickly."

"A lot of our safety concerns fall on deaf ears," Harris says.

Following an inspection at Portland (Ore.) International Airport in November 2003, OSHA cited the local TSA for five workplace safety violations. The agency also issued an "ergonomic hazard letter" advising TSA's local director to improve a half-dozen conditions causing screeners to have muscle problems, tendonitis and hernias.

OSHA inspectors who returned a year later saw some improvements, such as carts being used to move luggage. But airport security director Robert Jackson was "constrained by his headquarters and lack of funding," according to an OSHA report.

Three pages of hazards

Another OSHA report in December listed three pages of "recognized hazards" at Portland, which has identical machines and similar conditions to those at other airports.

The report found that screeners were lifting luggage as quickly as one bag every seven seconds during rush periods and bending sharply to hoist them from the floor or conveyor belts.

The bags often were heavy - more than 70% on one shift weighed 50 pounds or more. Bags that were over airline weight limits were not marked as such, as they should have been, the report said. It added that having screeners work long hours was "a very stressful policy."

The report offered 27 potential solutions, such as giving screeners sticks to use to push down bags on conveyor belts instead of leaning on them.

Screener injuries - like those that have given airline baggage handlers one of the highest injury rates in the private sector - sometimes leave employees out for long periods. Six airport injury reports show that the average screener who misses work is out for 43 days.

Bomb screening lags

The Government Accountability Office reported a year ago that "a number of airports" were not screening all luggage with machines that detect explosives - required by post-Sept. 11 law - but were using options such as bomb-sniffing dogs and hand searches.

The GAO said this "was primarily due to shortages of trained staff" that result from hiring difficulties, a staffing limit imposed by Congress and screener absences.

The GAO also said that at five of 15 large airports, staffing shortages left screeners "unable to attend all required training."

And when then-Homeland Security inspector general Clark Kent Ervin reported last fall that screeners missed explosives and weapons in undercover tests in the second half of 2003, he said, "The lack of recurrent training led to many of the failures." Undercover agents have smuggled guns, dynamite and bombs past screeners.

Also, the agency shifted screeners between airports last year to minimize vacancies, but the GAO said "it is too soon to tell" if that will help screeners get the required three hours a week of training.

Airport security directors decide how to deal with injury-related absences. They have two choices, says Randall Walker, director of Las Vegas' McCarran International Airport: "Sometimes you pay overtime. Sometimes you just don't have as many people, and things back up."

Work conditions have also increased screener turnover. Injured screeners have left for new jobs. Stone cites overtime to explain why the TSA's attrition rate rose to 22% last fall from 15% in 2003.

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, high turnover was blamed for many of the failings of private guards who screened air travelers and lacked experience at detecting weapons on passengers and in bags.

A herniated disc prompted Michael Jasilewicz, 50, to quit his screening job last year at Boston's Logan International Airport. Jasilewicz says he needed surgery after lifting bags as heavy as 100 pounds day after day.

He's not sure what specifically caused the injury - "but I know I was fine when I started there."

Now he works as a maintenance man.

PAXboy
25th Feb 2005, 10:28
[list=1]
Was the owner of the bag charged for the overweight bag by the carrier?
Was the owner of the bag charged a penalty for being so far over the limit by TSA or airport?
Did the carrier get fined for accepting the bag?
Will carriers refuse bag of this weight in the future? (One can only hope so)
[/list=1]
The Americans are usually very good at framing such penalities. This is certainly a clear pointer to ensuring the max weight of a bag. As I understand it, the max weight is 32Kg per item?

UnderneathTheRadar
25th Feb 2005, 10:55
PAXboy:

32kg is 70 pounds, give or take - a '75-pounder' is not THAT far over the limit.

UTR

OldAg84
25th Feb 2005, 12:20
Perhaps if they hired people who met a physical criteria for the job- there would be fewer injuries. In my travels, I've been impressed by very few of the screeners physiques.

I've seen a lot older, out-of-shape, overweight screeners everywhere I travel.

To be fair, the job lends itself to these types of injuries- perhaps approaching every bag as if it weighs 70 pounds would be a safer bet.

I guess it's just the way it is.

Onan the Clumsy
25th Feb 2005, 12:24
I've seen quite a few foxy ones, but it might just be the uniform. ;)

Sensible shoes, tight fitting black troousers, thong, and a stiffly starched, amply filled white shirt...with badges too! :E

I can't take it anymore :zzz:

airship
25th Feb 2005, 12:39
What a load of bollocks! If the baggage-screening process hadn't been just another knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 like a lot of other stuff :rolleyes: ...and some thought had been applied: Instead of having to physically lift-off bags for inspection, they might have considered raising the level of the conveyor belts and installing a push-button operated gate in order to divert the baggage for inspection?! But no, let's not bother. That way, when the next airplane falls out of the sky because of a bomb, we'll know it'll probably be a disgruntled ex. TSA screener who had a grudge... :}

Loose rivets
26th Feb 2005, 04:30
Am I on a different planet?

Years of commuting to the US from the UK never, ever, not once, not even a little bit, has anyone lifted any hold baggage but me...or Mrs Rivets of course. Not until it has disappeared into the abyss anyway.

On arrival in the US it is now a nightmare of hauling my borderline-heavy cases off, on, off, on–on off .... "turn your laptop on please" ----- "but I'm busy lifting" well you get the picture.

If this girl really has nakkered her back, I'm truly sorry ‘cos there's a real chance that it will never get better. There has to be a better way if we want this industry to be a pleasurable experience to it's clientele ever again.

Baggage is now a significant item on two counts.

Our customers are now far more likely to be living from these cases for long periods as opposed to short business or vacation trips of past decades. They need the bag capacity.

The importance of examining the bags thoroughly has never been greater than since 9/11, so a good part of this could be done hours before the flight. E.g. I would be delighted to see the last of my bags on arrival at the hotel airport. Security could then spread the work load over much longer periods. Obviously there will be folk who will still need the existing system. Fine, that's part of the load sharing. (I am aware of a service offered to the lucky few at this time)

It is even conceivable that there could be centralised collections from most large towns. Bagless travel. Total heaven...I could even use a train...whatever that is.

Far fetched? This is one of the biggest industries in the world: I bet that if such a system made a profit, it would all be in place next week

Bags would be out of travelers possession for longer! Well, this is perhaps the biggest issue, but I can see a time when EVERY bag will have to be OPENED, this will be part of new aviation. Hours of queuing is totally futile...the final testing rushed. Without question, this is going to change. Why not build a system now that is to everyone's advantage?

Arrival? This has to be improved. I protested long and loud when my bags were given to me at a hub, taken back, then flown the next leg without me. How safe is that?

The health of the passengers is without doubt at risk. A lot of old folk hauling bags at the beginning of their holls. What are we selling our customers right now? Stress, back injury, insults and more stress.

If we can build an aircraft that can carry >800 people, then we can do almost anything, certainly develop a way to deliver and secure bags without this miserable hauling and waiting.

BEagle
26th Feb 2005, 08:26
Why not put a 'HEAVY' tag on any item of luggage over a certain weight to alert the screeners?

It's interesting to note how much more 'human' the security screeners usually are at smaller airports. In Germany, for example, I've found the FRA screeners to be rather brusque and those at MUC to be coldly efficient. But those at BRE, HAM, FDH, DUS and CGN have always been much friendlier.

Globaliser
26th Feb 2005, 12:16
UnderneathTheRadar: 32kg is 70 pounds, give or take - a '75-pounder' is not THAT far over the limit.No, when PAXboy says that 32 kg is a limit, it's a limit. The position is supposed to be that at 32.1 kg, the bag must be refused. That is what is being done here at LHR (seen it happen myself) and elsewhere.

"... not THAT far over the limit ..." is just not an acceptable position.

UniFoxOs
26th Feb 2005, 12:28
BEagle - my GF does not "travel light". The last three flights that I can remember her case got a big Dayglo "HEAVY" tag on it.

BEagle
26th Feb 2005, 12:52
My GF is only 47Kg perched prettily on the scales in the altogether. So why on earth anyone needs to transport 75% of their own body weight when they travel for a long weekend is one of the mysteries of the feminine gender, I guess....

I once saw (at LHR) some American lard-arse upon whose bulging posterior someone had managed to attach a 'HEAVY' sticker. Made Oi larf, that did... :ok:

Flip Flop Flyer
27th Feb 2005, 10:27
The 32kg limit does not mean that a bag weighing 32.1kg should be rejected, merely that the passenger will be billed for the excess weight - and it's quite a hefty penalty. However, it is up to the person in check-in to determine whether or not an overweight charge should be enforced, and they are encouraged (in most places) to adopt common sense. Being 2.2kg over the limit is borderline, and circumstances might very well dictate that an overweight penalty will not be enforced, i.e. if the passenger has "Gold" or similar FF status.

I've been slightly over the 30kg limit (which is standard outside the US for C-class or "Gold" card holders) on a few occasions and never been fined. Yes, "Gold" status has it's perks whether we like it or not.

The correct procedure, as BEagle pointed out, is to attach a HEA lable to the bag. However, in most places HEA tags are only required for bags exceeding 50kg in weight. Any sensible person working with bags will never assume a bag to be either light or heavy; they'll give it a small yank to test the waters. Using full force to lift a 5kg bag will have the same detrimental effect as using too little force in lifting a 35kg ditto - a damaged back.

In the end, the lady in question screwed up - but I'm sure she'll find a way to sue somebody for her incompetence.

PAXBoy

1: Makes no difference
2: No such thing as a "TSA" limit. Carriers set the limits, as described above
3: No such thing
4: Not unless they want to loose money; carriers make a quite nice profit from carrying excess-weight baggage.

surely not
27th Feb 2005, 11:44
Flip Flop Flyer I think you'll find things have changed. The limit for the weight of any single bag is 32kgs. If the bag weighs more than 32kgs then the passenger is asked either to take items out until the bag is at or below 32kgs, or to purchase another bag so that sufficient items can be re located to bring the original bag to 32 kgs.

The charging for excess is a totally seperate issue.

Globaliser
27th Feb 2005, 12:01
Flip Flop Flyer: The 32kg limit does not mean that a bag weighing 32.1kg should be rejected, merely that the passenger will be billed for the excess weight - and it's quite a hefty penalty. However, it is up to the person in check-in to determine whether or not an overweight charge should be enforced, and they are encouraged (in most places) to adopt common sense. Being 2.2kg over the limit is borderline, and circumstances might very well dictate that an overweight penalty will not be enforced, i.e. if the passenger has "Gold" or similar FF status.
...
The correct procedure, as BEagle pointed out, is to attach a HEA lable to the bag. However, in most places HEA tags are only required for bags exceeding 50kg in weight. Any sensible person working with bags will never assume a bag to be either light or heavy; they'll give it a small yank to test the waters. Using full force to lift a 5kg bag will have the same detrimental effect as using too little force in lifting a 35kg ditto - a damaged back.As surely not rightly confirms, things have changed. Any individual bag that is over 32 kg will now be rejected as overweight. This is a health and safety limitation, for exactly the reason that the OP demonstrates. There is no discretion on this. The old practices have gone; this is no longer a question of charging for excess over the free allowance.

Neither is the 32 kg limit arbitrary - a lot of research has been done to consider the effects of different weights being manipulated in different ways. But you have to trawl through a lot of Health and Safety Executive guidance to see all the research that led to the confirmation of 32 kg being an absolute upper limit.

See this BA page (http://tinyurl.com/6eoy6) for just one example of this new limit being notified.

bealine
27th Feb 2005, 12:05
The 32kg limit does not mean that a bag weighing 32.1kg should be rejected, merely that the passenger will be billed for the excess weight - and it's quite a hefty penalty.

In the UK it is now an offence at any BAA controlled airport for an airline to accept any single item over 32kg unless (a) the airline was pre-advised and made handling arrangements or (b) the item is carried as "cargo" where mechanical handling is the norm.

Indeed, as check-in staff, we can no longer accept a bag of over 32kg as the belt will cut out. All the baggage belts at LHR and LGW have been calibrated to cut out at 31.9kg (because baggage must be under 32kg - not 32kg or under (subtle difference)!!!
If an airline accepts a bag - even at 32.1kg - they risk a reprimand from the BAA and, ultimately, could be prosecuted under EC Health and Safety Laws.

Indeed, the 32kg maximum limit is a stepping stone - ultimately, the airline industry right across Europe will have to comply with the EC's maximum of 25kg for manual handling!!!

(But then, the USA never did give a stuff about the Health and Safety of its people - even now, Continental and NorthWest are still making their Gatwick agents clamber over baggage belts, lift bags over the scales to override the 32kg cut out, failing to security screen Business First passengers as it doesn't want to upset them (bless!!!) and still carrying bags across the Atlantic when the passengers aren't on board!)

Tallbloke
27th Feb 2005, 12:13
I have had to do the unload bags thing twice now, on both occasions I was told it was an H&S thing. It is the way of the world, whilst airlines make money from excess baggage, I think more and more they are also concerned about the costs incurred due to work related injuries. Don't forget, on most airlines, 32 kg is still 9 to 12 kg over the economy baggage limit, soi they can still have a go for excess baggage. It is just a case of diminishing returns and they have worked out that 32kg is the optimum limit.

Putting a HEAVY label on a case would not always have saved the woman mentioned in the (very long) article above. I have been through several US airports and Osaka where the baggage screening took place before the baggage was weighed.

surely not
27th Feb 2005, 12:23
Tallbloke read your post again and tell whether it doesn't sound faintly ridiculous!!

The only reason so many pax are bringing bags weighing over 32kgs to the airport is because thesedays all bags are wheeled so the owner doesn't ever have to lift them more than 6 inches. As such many people just keep on loading more and more and more into the case without any thought process at all!!

The primary concern being addressed is Health and Safety. The pax bags still receive a lot of manhandling after they have been checked in and injuries to staff are a major concern. It is totally unacceptable for you to suggest that this is linked to excess baggage.

Besides which your reasoning is flawed as nobody is saying that 57 kgs (or whatever weight you choose) cannot be carried, BUT if a passenger feels it necessary to carry over 32kgs it must be in more than 1 bag.

What is unreasonable about that?

Air-Geko
28th Feb 2005, 19:07
Two different items -- whether they're of any value or not remains to be seen....

I have been very happy to see skycaps return to my local airport. As someone who often carries moderately heavy equipment over the 70 pound max, I've found a twenty gets the baggage on without problem -- and far less than the airline would charge. Yes, I have emblazened the "Caution -- Heavy" stickers on each side to warn those who come in contact to take care.

Unfortunately, this hasn't worked for all. A very good friend in the Navy was transferred from Norfolk VA to Pearl Harbor in an "expedited manner." His wife was left with packing up the house, shipping off all she could, and then heading to the airport with their 2 year old daughter. Her daughter had no luggage whatsoever (packed within mom's suitcase) and each had their own ticketed seat. Mom's two bags totaled approximately 30 pounds overweight -- 100 pounds or so total. If the airline would "average" the luggage between mom and daughter they would be fine -- fourty pounds below the allowed weight. Did the airline? Heck, No. It cost them an additional $230 dollars. If I ever see that airline advertise that they support the military families I think I'll spit... They're definately not the ones who can afford the fees, and they're constantly uprooted as our country's needs/whims dictate ... nice support, indeed.

Air-Geko.

Bumz_Rush
1st Mar 2005, 08:02
Perhaps BEagle would provide proof of the baggage closing system he advocates...all 47Kg.....

patdavies
1st Mar 2005, 10:35
The original post was about a TSA employee; so presumably this was in the US.

In the UK, regardless of airline baggage limits which are to preserve/generate revenue, H&S laws dictate maxima for manual lifting.

Single woman 16 Kgs
Single man 25 Kgs
Two men 32 Kgs

Any bag weighing over 25Kgs must be tagged 'Heavy' to indicate that a two man lift is required.

Any baggage over 32 Kgs requires mechanical handling, not manual lifting.

Globaliser
1st Mar 2005, 13:12
Air-Geko: His wife was left with packing up the house, shipping off all she could, and then heading to the airport with their 2 year old daughter. Her daughter had no luggage whatsoever (packed within mom's suitcase) and each had their own ticketed seat. Mom's two bags totaled approximately 30 pounds overweight -- 100 pounds or so total. If the airline would "average" the luggage between mom and daughter they would be fine -- fourty pounds below the allowed weight. Did the airline? Heck, No. It cost them an additional $230 dollars.Not quite sure I understand what's happened here - if the daughter had her only baggage allowance, why didn't they check one bag under each name?

bealine
1st Mar 2005, 15:48
Any bag weighing over 25Kgs must be tagged 'Heavy' to indicate that a two man lift is required.

It is also courteous (and helps avoid accidents) to apply a "Heavy" tag to any item that is heavy in relation to its size - eg a small 6"X6" box (okay, 150mm x 150mm) containing plumbing joints could weigh 15kgs or more - more than enough to put a guy's back out if it wasn't anticipated as heavy!!!

Air-Geko
2nd Mar 2005, 18:47
Global,

Had their been another bag to divy some of the other stuff into, it would have been fine. Unfortunately, it's rather tough to buy an additional suitcase in Cleveland at 5am... So, two checked bags (instead of up to four) and a nice dip into their bank account...

Air-Geko

Globaliser
3rd Mar 2005, 17:26
Air-Geko: Had their been another bag to divy some of the other stuff into, it would have been fine. Unfortunately, it's rather tough to buy an additional suitcase in Cleveland at 5am... So, two checked bags (instead of up to four) and a nice dip into their bank account... You say that there were two bags totalling 100 lbs, so Mother had to pay for 30 lbs excess. But if they'd been able to use both allowances they'd have been 40 lbs inside the allowance.

I therefore inferred that the limit was 70 lbs each, total 140 lbs.

So why didn't they put 50 lbs in one case, checked in mother's name, and 50 lbs in the other case, checked in daughter's name? Each of them 20 lbs under the limit, neither breaching the 50 lbs per bag limit (if applicable).

That's what I don't understand. Not having a go, just in complete confusion over what happened.

surely not
4th Mar 2005, 09:17
Global and Air Gecko, I think the reason is the daughters age. If she was under 3, and the flight was domestic, then she would probably have been ticketed as an infant and Infants are carried at 10% fare and do not have a baggage allowance.

Ckin Gal
8th Mar 2005, 11:07
with the airlines we handle:

max bag weight is 32kg
This is despite if it's one person or two travelling, yes we make the take out items til it is sufficently under the weight and they are sent to the out of size desk.

excess is charged if the weight exceeds the amount stated on booking sheet or tkt. if there's a couple then 40kgs (generally)

and excess varies remember paying £1.90 per kg with one airline does not mean you will pay the same with every airline. another we handle charges £5 a kg.
:ok:

Globaliser
8th Mar 2005, 19:44
surely not: Global and Air Gecko, I think the reason is the daughters age. If she was under 3, and the flight was domestic, then she would probably have been ticketed as an infant and Infants are carried at 10% fare and do not have a baggage allowance.Yes, that would make sense. However, that wouldn't be a question of the airline "averaging" the baggage across the two pax, but avoiding the charge through gaining an extra baggage allowance. :D