Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

Fri, Feb 25th 2011 3:06pm — Mike Masnick

Apparently, a Seattle area restaurant (right near the airport) has announced that it's refusing to serve TSA agents in protest of the way the TSA treats passengers who wish to fly. While I think the whole TSA security setup is terrible, an invasion of privacy and does little if anything to actually stop terrorism, I do think this is a bad move. The restaurant, obviously, is free to refuse service to whomever they choose (within the law, of course), but the TSA agents aren't the ones making the policies here. I'm really not sure what kind of statement this really makes. We've already seen that many TSA agents themselves are fed up with the new rules and are upset at the way people treat them. I'm not sure that treating those agents worse is really any form of a solution. The problem is the folks at the top.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: frustration, restaurants, tsa

90 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Brendan (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 2:27pm

No way to affect the top
So you have to work on the base.

If it is made increasingly uncomfortable/undesirable to work for the TSA, to the point where it becomes difficult to hire people, then perhaps the "Top" will realize something needs to change.

I've begun to take the same attitude with Bell in Canada. The employees need to be treated like outcasts from society until they quit, forcing Bell to cahnge tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HrilL, 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:18pm
  
  Re: No way to affect the top
  This was my thought exactly. While It sucks for the people that work for the TSA if they don't like the way they are being treated then find a new job. As far as I'm concerned if everyone quit then the top would have no other choice but to change their policies. The top doesn't care already so its time to work from the bottom up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:28pm
    
    Re: Re: No way to affect the top
    Shunning is an effective form of social discipline.
    
    On top of that, I'd be more inclined to eat at an establishment that had that as a stated policy. Even if I wasn't actually hungry at the time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
      Shunning just means that on their next trip, the employees of the restaurant might be enjoying the rubber glove treatment, and perhaps a full and complete background check as a result of that weird stuff found in their bag (you know, clothes).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - GeneralEmergency (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        AnnoBiscuit...
        
        If you're -this- pissed off at the TSA, then you stopped flying last year.
        
        I applaud this move by citizens who have -had enough-.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 5:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        So..... only slightly worse than most people are treated now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 5:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        Well, them the TSA agents could find themselves eating shit literally the next time they go to the restaurant, TSA agents could find themselves troubled by mysterious utilities troubles, sudden mechanic problems, they are not the only ones who can play hardball.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Phillip Vector (profile), 26 Feb 2011 @ 10:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        I am reminded of the great words of Tyler Durden...
        
        "Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dave Uh... Smith (profile), 26 Feb 2011 @ 5:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        Not true. At least not for the average TSA person who checks you out and looks through your suitcases. They have no control over who gets put on the enhanced list. If they recognized an employee of the restaurant who won't let TSA eat there, then they can individually give them a harder time going through security. And based on some of the TSA staff I worked with, I would imagine that will happen. Tit for tat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - CommonSense (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        Yeah, something tells me that they really don't fly enough to worry about that...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Justin Alan Ryan, 21 Dec 2012 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        I'm sure the restaurant employees are common travelers..
        
        Frankly, I'm with the folks that say, maybe it would just be more pleasant to eat somewhere near the airport that doesn't have TSA agents sitting near you. They should have a private cafeteria.
        
        No terrorists in their cafeteria, noone profiting off the dissolution of our civil liberties in our restaurants..
        
        .. except for cops, of course, who will get a discount.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PRMan, 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
      Makes me want to fly^h^h^h drive up to Seattle just to eat there...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tom Landry (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re: No way to affect the top
  yes, because its easy to demand OTHERS change by sacrificing their ability to feed their families as you sit comfortably in the glow of your monitor.
  
  You know full well a large government agency isn't going to give a shit about its employees or their perception in the public eye. If they did their reprehensible policies would've changed a year ago. Taking it out on the people caught in the middle is cowardly and smacks self congratulatory ego stroking public grandstanding. How about taking time out of work to go down to TSA headquarters and picket the ones who are to blame?
  
  Oh wait, you've gotta feed YOUR familes....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - el_segfaulto (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:05pm
    
    Re: Re: No way to affect the top
    Relying on performing a vile act to feed your families does not change the fact that you're performing a vile act. Most of the TSA agents I've met have no humor and treat passengers like cattle. Maybe they've been treated badly, and maybe there's an innate part of human nature that doesn't like to be treated the way the TSA treats all passengers and responds to the bullies in kind.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brendan (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:09pm
    
    Re: Re: No way to affect the top
    They don't need to give a shit about their employees.
    
    If it really gets so bad that your hyperbolic "ability to feed their families" begins to be affected, they leave the job for another.
    
    If it becomes too difficult for TSA to hire/retain employees, they will be forced to change policy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:13pm
    
    Re: Re: No way to affect the top
    So we should have left the Nazis alone because they were just doing what Hitler told them to, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
      Hey, think about the Nazi children.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
      For once, a *meaningful* invocation of Godwin's law. Well done.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        I'm rather proud of it myself. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tom Landry (profile), 27 Feb 2011 @ 9:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
      The fact that you bring up a Nazi analogy completely negates any credibility you may have had. Congrats, stupid.
      
      I'm saying that most of you are attempting to paint TSA agents with a single broad brush as if they have a say in the final outcome of the law. Should they simply just up and leave their jobs? How about a TSA officer with 12 years into a 20 year career after which he draws a pension? Also, sorry about "feeding their families" bit, what was a I thinking? a man should just up and leave his job based on a law that isn't exactly directing people into a fucking gas chamber and hope that his rent, utilities, kids college tuition, etc will come from some vague benefactor. Because God knows that the law can't be tweaked to be less invasive, that'll never happen. Best quit now to appease the rich suburban white-breads who have time to monday-morning quarterback.
      
      This whole thread reminds me of the level discourse you'll see on a youtube video comment thread when a cop does something construed as invading someones rights. Suddenly the entire profession of law enforcement are filled with overcompensating jack-booted racist thugs who should locked up. For site that usually has reasonable intelligent people frequenting the comments, some of you seem to lose all sense of logic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2011 @ 5:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        The fact that you bring up a Nazi analogy completely negates any credibility you may have had. Congrats, stupid.
        
        Heh, Nazi types hate to have people reminded of their past.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2011 @ 5:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        Should they simply just up and leave their jobs? How about a TSA officer with 12 years into a 20 year career after which he draws a pension?
        
        He must have gotten a really early start: The TSA is only 9 years old.
        
        Also, sorry about "feeding their families" bit, what was a I thinking?
        
        You were probably thinking about all the career criminals that are also just "feeding their families".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - chris, 27 Feb 2011 @ 10:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        Oh really? I've never heard of this "Nazi analogy logical fallacy" you speak of.
        
        I recall something that goes like "those who fail to learn from history...".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - HrilL, 28 Feb 2011 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        You sir are delusional. If the TSA agents all quit we wouldn't have this problem and the law would have to be changed. Even if they strike for a day a week or so the law will be changed. It comes down to economics. If no one could fly the economy would start to drop and the impact could be far reaching. Comparing them to Nazi's while at face value seems harsh I find it completely appropriate. If you were a Nazi you'd be shot or put in jail and the public backlash against someone at that time for not supporting the war effort would have been extremely large. This is different because they're currently getting public backlash for not standing up for our human rights. Its a job that they can quit at any time and should.
        
        While feeding your family is important it doesn't take precedence over the fundamental human rights every person deserves to be respected. They have a moral responsibility that they are not upholding. If they wanted to keep their jobs and all stood united against taking away our rights the law would be force to be changed. The TSA can't fire everyone. If even a 3rd of their workforce stood up for our rights the TSA would be crippled and a statement as such would have profound meaning.
        
        Our founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves at what we Americans are forced to endure in our modern lives.
        
        "Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 8:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        The fact that you bring up a Nazi analogy completely negates any credibility you may have had.
        
        Yes, because no one can ever be like Nazis, ever. /sarcasm
        
        Congrats, stupid.
        
        The fact that you called me stupid for making a particularly apt analogy completely negates any chance you had at gaining credibility.
        
        I'm saying that most of you are attempting to paint TSA agents with a single broad brush as if they have a say in the final outcome of the law.
        
        We're not discussing the law. We're discussing TSA policies.
        
        Should they simply just up and leave their jobs?
        
        That's one option. Striking is another. If most TSA agents refused to complete unconstitutional searches for a day, that would pretty much lay this shit to bed right there.
        
        How about a TSA officer with 12 years into a 20 year career after which he draws a pension?
        
        What about a career soldier with no other marketable skills or options? Should he have refused to loan Jews onto trains? I mean, it's not exactly directing people into fucking gas chambers and, dammit, a man needs to feed his family! /sarcasm
        
        Best quit now to appease the rich suburban white-breads who have time to monday-morning quarterback.
        
        Wow, so you're upset that I made a Nazi analogy and yet you think it's okay to spew racism and classicism all over the thread? What was that you said about credibility earlier?
        
        This whole thread reminds me of the level discourse you'll see on a youtube video comment thread when a cop does something construed as invading someones rights.
        
        Yes, your comment is reminiscent of that level of discourse.
        
        For site that usually has reasonable intelligent people frequenting the comments, some of you seem to lose all sense of logic.
        
        It's not logical to ask that TSA workers - who hate these policies just as much as we do - fucking do something? When they're in the best position to effect a change? Seriously?
        
        And you think I'm stupid? Wow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris Forsyth, 17 Dec 2012 @ 7:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        Actuially, I think you're pretty clueless myself--if nothing else, you seem to think the *entire* German Army was involved in the concentration camps, and that there were none of them who *were* simply doing their jobs as plain foot soldiers, MPs, and the like, with no connection to the atrocities being carried out. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if other contries of the world had the same view of the US Armed Forces these days, given some of the foreign occupations the government has them involved in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - CommonSense (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        The agents don't need to quit, they could strike, stage a walk-out, any number of things that show their discontent and don't involve quitting. Sure, they may sacrifice their paycheck temporarily, but maybe they should look for other jobs instead of just quitting and sitting around waiting for that benefactor you mention who will never come. The fact that you can't see the clear connection between this situation and the Nazi analogy, well, completely negates any credibility YOU may have had.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 5:31pm
    
    Re: Re: No way to affect the top
    Your argument also works to exempt Hitler's army from any retaliatory action. "I had to torture people to feed my family", "I had to kill jews to feed my family", etc.
    
    You might think this is falling down the slippery slope, but there's no reason your argument should be applied to TSA agents and not to Hitler's army. Your argument puts no limit on how unethical an action can be before feeding your family fails to justify it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FuzzyDuck, 26 Feb 2011 @ 6:51am
    
    Re: Re: No way to affect the top
    I agree, it's easy for people to sit on the side-lines and ask others to give up their jobs. It's like those SS officers, they had to feed their children too, was it their fault that it was their job to throw in the Zyklon-B?
    
    Seriously man, if your job involves violating other people's fundamental rights or human dignity you should quit.
    
    For instance all the guards involved in the current mistreatment of Private Bradley Manning are morally guilty of complicity in Human Rights violations. If they don't care that their job is to mentally destroy this person, then they're a bunch of sick f*cks, no better than the Nazi prison guards were.
    
    One must know when to say "no". The current trend of obeying orders can only lead to one thing: fascism.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jose_X, 26 Feb 2011 @ 7:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
      From a taste of the experience, I think that if you are accustomed to being around people (or even books, TV, etc) so that those experiences form a significant part of your reality, it can be mentally very unstabling to have that "reality" become a fiction because no one answers any more.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2011 @ 7:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
      The SS officers are even less guilty IMO. No one is threatening the TSA agents with death if decide to quit their jobs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tom Landry (profile), 27 Feb 2011 @ 9:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
      Its amazing you guys who keep falling back on the Nazi analogy as if pre-flight body searches are in-line with Nazi Germany. Truly rational.
      
      wow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2011 @ 10:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        I think you missed the analogy; no one said that. This is about whether low level TSA agents can be blamed for following bad policies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rose M. Welch (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 1:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
        Its amazing you guys who keep falling back on the Nazi analogy as if pre-flight body searches are in-line with Nazi Germany. Truly rational.
        
        No, it's amazing that no matter how often it's explained, you still don't get the analogy.
        
        TSA agents are just following orders, even though those orders are unlawful and contribute to a police state.
        
        Nazis were just following orders, even thought those orders were unlawful and contributed to a police state.
        
        If you still don't understand how TSA agents are like Nazis, then you need to sign up for literacy classes.
        
        wow.
        
        My sentiments exactly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 5:44pm
  
  Re: No way to affect the top
  And that observation will come when and if they found themselves in a position where it is difficult to find people to work for them.
  
  This reminds me of the BP spind doctors using the gasoline stations owner as folder, showing how it affected them because they were chained to a 10 year contract and couldn't just drop BP.
  
  At the time my thought was "why do those people keep signing exclusive contracts for 10 years?".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nastybutler77 (profile), 28 Feb 2011 @ 2:17pm
    
    Re: Re: No way to affect the top
    This reminds me of the BP spind doctors using the gasoline stations owner as folder, showing how it affected them because they were chained to a 10 year contract and couldn't just drop BP.
    
    At the time my thought was "why do those people keep signing exclusive contracts for 10 years?".
    
    I'd say it's a calculated risk. You get a franchise license to sell one of the largest oil producers in the world's fuel, and hope that the oil producer doesn't have a PR catastrophy in that time period. Usually it works out for you, but every now and then you roll snake eyes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Kohne, 25 Feb 2011 @ 6:42pm
  
  Re: No way to affect the top
  Unfortunately, treating the guys at the bottom of the tree badly will NOT ever have any impact on the TSA (or Bell Canada) brass. In a small town of a few hundred people, you could possibly make this strategy work. In a nationwide setting (especially in a recession) there's far too many people who are perfectly willing to take ANY job, just to have one.
  
  Abusing the low end guys isn't going to fix anything.
  
  I'm sad about this, because I really LIKE the idea of abusing the low end guys as a way to fix things (after all, they are the ones abusing us!), but it's NOT going to change anything! All it's going to do is make the TSA guys at the gate even grumpier and less helpful than they were to start with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2011 @ 1:54am
    
    Re: Re: No way to affect the top
    ...there's far too many people who are perfectly willing to take ANY job, just to have one.
    
    Yeah, some people will do anything for money: Lie, cheat, steal, sell drugs, torture, kill, even work for the TSA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2011 @ 7:35pm
  
  Re: No way to affect the top
  I agree. It is difficult enough to inspire change without artificially limiting yourself to "official" channels. When you want a change in policy, you don't just right a kindly worded letter to the person in charge. You boycott, protest, rip them apart through the media, make it so they can't ignore you. Otherwise they will.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:16pm

I don't like the idea of refusing service to anybody outside of the drunk and belligerent. A good compromise is to have a giant radiation machine and an artist whose job it is to draw TSA agents naked. Make them take off their shoes before they enter the restaurant and make sure to rummage through all of their purses/European man-bags before they're allowed entry. Who can blame the restaurant owner for screening for terrorists. What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Long (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:56pm
  
  Re:
  Just require a full-body pat down on entry AND exit. Got to make sure they're not pilfering the silverware.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 5:20pm
  
  Re:
  hahaha! but fitting! :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jose_X, 25 Feb 2011 @ 8:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Pat them down when they are done ordering to make sure they brought enough tip, and serve the water in papercloth wrappings.. shaped for 1oz fill.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jose_X, 25 Feb 2011 @ 8:56pm
  
  Re:
  And make sure to sell them the tickets with the fine print right as they walk in.
  
  When their table is ready, show them instead to the radiation room. The bypass option is that the head cook prods their loins with his special cutlery.
  
  "MARVIN! We have a good one!"
  
  Inevitably, they will strip to undergarment in order to be escorted out properly by the 70 or so ex green barets.
  
  And that's when you hit them with the $10K charge clearly marked in their entrance ticket!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:21pm

We could have a discussion of business models, say like Radiohead's choices with their new albums. Instead we get a sort meaningless poke at the TSA, almost astroturfing.

Impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:36pm
  
  Re:
  The frak?
  
  Feel free to talk to yourself. I'll try to scare up an old cell phone so you don't look quite as crazy as you are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:37pm
  
  Re:
  You visit Techdirt. You comment on Techdirt. Techdirt supports piracy, ergo, you support piracy.
  
  Why do you hate artists so much?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cynic (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:02pm
  
  Re:
  "We could have a discussion of business models, say like Radiohead's choices with their new albums. Instead we get a sort meaningless poke at the TSA, almost astroturfing."
  
  I rather think this is exactly a business model analysis (well, maybe not an analysis, but certainly a discussion). Here we have a monopoly, much like the old telephone and electric utilities with which a statistically large number of [flying] consumers must interact on a regular basis without a competitive option or alternative, other than to not fly. Management does not take into account customer satisfaction or treatment, which by significant accounts, is pretty awful.
  
  So now the question becomes what tools at hand does the consumer possess to effect change or bring in competition besides finding an alternative mode of transportation or not traveling (not practical for many)? Although I tend to believe exploding bags of itching powder would prove personally satisfying, social ostrasization and thus employee exodus seems like a viable (but not likely widely adopted) tactic and thus worthy of discussion as a consumer tool. If it actually works (and I don't believe it will), *that* would be impressive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Umm, not flying?
    
    The rest of it is petty and childish.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2011 @ 8:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, really??!!!?!?!?!
      
      I had no idea there were other modes of travel.
      
      Hey, everybody, this guy figured it out. He figured out how to get places without going through the TSA!!!
      
      Speaking of petty and childish, I think that pretty much sums up your entire presence here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Talmadge, 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:37pm

I actually support this action by this restaurant. Every business has the right to refuse to serve or do business with anyone they don't wish to.

This happens everyday where businesses refuse who do business with people. Where is the outrage where it concerns normal citizens? The only reason everyone is outraged is because this time Federal employees are being targeted.

The TSA is going to be forced to change its policies when more businesses start acting this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:50pm

Thats it, make the people who have to carry out their superiors idiotic rule-set suffer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brendan (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:12pm
  
  Re:
  So then refuse to carry out the stupid rules. Nobody is forcing them to abide.
  
  If your employer told you to go sneak into womens changerooms, would you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 5:12pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, exactly. When they've had enough, they can strike. One day of a TSA strike should result in some damned changes. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dennis S. (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:04pm

This may actually be a hoax but it still hasn't been confirmed one way or another.
Getting back at TSA
http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/02/23/getting-back-at-tsa/

Where�s the cafe that refuses to serve the TSA?
http://www.elliott.org/blog/wheres-the-cafe-that-refuses-to-serve-the-tsa/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Gisleson (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:11pm

I've worked with TSA agents
Before giving up my resume business (burn out brought about by Bush-Cheney anti-merit hiring policies) I did some work for TSA agents seeking promotions in the Twin Cities region. Both clients were highly qualified but both ended up quitting the TSA because the promotions went to agents who belonged to the same church as the administrator charged with selecting the new supervisors.

TSA agents behave like asses because they report to asses who were hired by asses. That restaurant has every right to refuse service to the people who've made air travel intolerable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jose_X, 26 Feb 2011 @ 7:47am
  
  Re: I've worked with TSA agents
  >> Both clients were highly qualified but both ended up quitting the TSA because the promotions went to agents who belonged to the same church as the administrator charged with selecting the new supervisors.
  
  >> TSA agents behave like asses because they report to asses who were hired by asses.
  
  "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power." - David Brin
  
  http://abazoo.angelfire.com/quotes32.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 26 Feb 2011 @ 7:49am
  
  Re: I've worked with TSA agents
  Asses, all the way up
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
xman2, 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:17pm

No way to affect the top
This is how a "free economy" is supposed to work.

apart from monopolistic practices, Fascism, and bad laws to protect the big guys only from competition.

we have the right to disagree... we have just been spoon feed for so long we tend to forget at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:25pm

big whoop
They should backscatter the TSA employees on the way in and out. Don't like it? What, are you a terrorist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:49pm

TSA agents really have no complaint here.
They CHOSE to work for the TSA. They CHOSE to invade the privacy of their fellow citizens. They CHOSE to violate their Constitutional rights. They CHOSE to make travel less secure. They CHOSE to implement policies that anyone with any intelligence whatsoever knows are completely braindead. They CHOSE to humiliate the public.
To quote an articulate character, "What you want is irrelevant, what you have chosen is at hand."
It'd be great to see every restaurant, every shop, in every airport follow suit. Maybe then it would dawn on them that "just following orders" hasn't been considered a valid excuse for a long, long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 5:04pm

Even if one is not responsible for creating a bad policy, I do think there is a degree of moral culpability in following it regularly. It's for that reason I despise TSA agents. If they don't believe their actions are just, they should quit, and if they do, they deserve my scorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Money, 25 Feb 2011 @ 6:13pm

Someone has probably said this already, but...
Since I'm on my phone and Brad Paisley is about to take the stage, I'll risk a potential repost.

The proper thing to do to send the right message is to refuse service to every congressman and senator who voted for either the TSA regulations, or in a broader sense, the Patriot Act in general, since only via the suspension of all rights via the Patriot Act is any of this even possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 6:19pm

The issue is getting press. Isn't that the purpose of a statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Bishop, 25 Feb 2011 @ 6:23pm

Their defence
'Ve ver onli following orders.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 7:02pm

So will the restaurant later change its mind under the pretext that it was just a paperwork problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 9:05pm

THIS needs to be extended to every person who has a hand in the problem... Stop serving the corrupt politicians and stop serving the government employees... Let them all starve naked in the streets!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 9:14pm

I await the "performance art"
Where someone uses biometrics + credit cards + the consumer databases to deny 'the right of commerce' to a class of people.

Buy some veggies at the wholesaler, set up at a farmers market in New York near Wall Street and don't sell to people in, say banking or with a net worth over X million.

Oh the youtube views of such 'art'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 9:20pm

unintended consequences
Ground-level TSA agents have two choices: A) acknowledge that these scans and searches are a pointless indignity, and feel deep embarrassment, or B) convince themselves that they are the Good Guys protecting the people, and that those who disagree are Bad Guys.

The second option is stupid, but much more comfortable, very appealing to idiots, bullies and would-be police.

Do we really want to torment the A group and provoke the B group until the checkpoints are staffed by nothing but hardened B's?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2011 @ 2:09am
  
  Re: unintended consequences
  Ground-level TSA agents have two choices: A) acknowledge that these scans and searches are a pointless indignity, and feel deep embarrassment, or B) convince themselves that they are the Good Guys protecting the people, and that those who disagree are Bad Guys.
  
  Third choice: Go on strike.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 10:41pm

Re: following orders
Some members of the military in Lybia have been joining those seeking to overthrow the government, while others have opened fire on civilians.

Kind of shines a different light on the poor helpless TSA workers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), 26 Feb 2011 @ 12:13am

Nero Wolfe was careful who he broke bread with....
This is perfectly understandable and also eminently reasonable.

Just because it is done legally, these so-called screening procedures constitute assault. Before or after having to be "pornscanned" or grope searched by TSA officers, I certainly wouldn't want to eat with them.

For much the same reason, executioners used to wear hoods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
el_porko (profile), 26 Feb 2011 @ 1:18am

They are trialling these vile backscatter machines here in New Zealand. I've already given up flying to the US. If they use them for all international flights I'll have to give up holidaying overseas.

But then again I'll have lots of spare money to frequent restaurants that don't serve our Airport security staff.

Buildings can be toppled when pushed from the outside, but if the base/foundation has rot too they will collapse so much faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CF Oxtrot, 26 Feb 2011 @ 7:45am

Nice misread of human nature/psychology, Tech Dorks
If you're "fed up with the rules" but keeping your job with TSA, you're a freakin' hypocrite.

Either live out your values, or don't have values. It's really quite simple.

Why are tech-geeks so incredibly stupid about everything outside the world of "technology"? Especially human nature and psychology... ATTENTION GEEKS: simulated emotional responses due to the quasi-orgasm you feel at spying the latest iTampon or iCondom, that's not understanding human interpersonal exchange.

If people don't live according to values and quit jobs where they are asked to do inhumane things, we become destructive robotic slaves.

I guess that's enticing to a tech geek though. Kinda sounds like a shitty Robert Sawyer novel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oz, 26 Feb 2011 @ 9:46am

Simple answer- Boycott the machine.
This new device is nothing more than an invasive abuse of our privacy. What is it meant to stop? Guns? Existing metal detectors get those. Knives or maybe scissors? Security inside the airplane makes a knife-armed takeover difficult, as do checks of suspicious persons. Bombs? Luggage x-ray is more important here, and the chemical sniffing machines that blow air on you are just as effective while being far less invasive. Furthermore, I suspect that checked luggage is the attack vector most likely to succeed.

So why do we have this damned machine? I blame the company, their lobbyists, and their semi-immoral connections among top decision makers within the TSA and other government departments. But that doesn't really help us- after all, there's a reason it's called "business as usual". And blaming the TSA employees doesn't help- they're hardly to the level of the SS, and probably feel pretty shitty. Plus, America's a pretty fat, ugly nation. For ever "7+" they end up inspecting, there are gonna be dozens of ugly guys and gals.

SO WHAT SHOULD WE DO? Simple. If everyone were to demand a full body check, the policy would have to be revisited within days. The airports don't have the number of staff on hand to perform full checks on every person, which means these checks are threat to keep us sheep in line. Call their bluff. Also, the machines are expensive. No one can justify buying one if it won't get used. So, take the pat-down option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dawger (profile), 26 Feb 2011 @ 10:54am

I suggest a full body search before and after the meal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lynne, 26 Feb 2011 @ 12:06pm

It's a Hoax
Paul Constant at the Stranger blog(Slog) got an e-mail reply from the supposed restaurant employee who started this story: "On mid winter break. Will be back next week". Coincidentally, the Seattle school district is on mid winter break this week. What does that tell you? Link to Slog - http://tinyurl.com/4cl6byd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2011 @ 4:32pm

Big rule of thumb Mike - 85% of people are stupid. These restaurant owners must be amongst that. I work in retail, and am amazed at the number of morons who go off at me over policies that I clearly didn't set myself and were set by head office in Sydney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2011 @ 5:56pm
  
  Re:
  I think you are among them also, because what people are doing is venting their frustration at the representative of the head office in Sydney.
  
  Or are you saying you don't represent the head office in Sydney?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2011 @ 12:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No their not just venting their frustration. They want me - ME - to change the policy and give them a refund for a product they bought that isn't faulty and that they don't have the receipt for; Give them a 25% discount because they're the son/daughter/mother/father/sister/brother/etc of a "very high level person within the company" but they have no ID; Or that I don't give them free home delivery; Why do you have chocolates in the checkout lanes; You should have public toilets; etc.
    
    What am I supposed to do? Complaining to me about the policy after I explain it to them it is policy is the most pointless thing on the planet, and all they're doing it making fools out of themselves. They go on and on and on. Yesterday some woman went on at me for 20 minutes about public toilets, then another 30 at the manager - To show her stupidity she was already finished shopping, so if she walked out of our store and about 10m in the centre she could have found public toilets. That was explained to her, but she wanted to use OUR toilets, not the centre ones.
    
    Anyone that thinks employees will put in a request for policy change for every idiot that comes to the counter is a moron, especially since the same 20-30 things are said about 100 times a week. In fact, it's company policy (and industry standard, not just us) that employees aren't permitted to go to head office with policy changes unless they believe there is a legal issue with the current policy.
    
    As our store manager says such a shame we can't ban people for being morons.
    
    If you want to complain about company policy then write to head office. Pretty simple. We have no power. Head Office can (and has before) changed policy from complaints from the public. Complaining to the employees in the store is idiotic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2011 @ 11:15pm

To show her stupidity she was already finished shopping, so if she walked out of our store and about 10m in the centre she could have found public toilets. That was explained to her, but she wanted to use OUR toilets, not the centre ones.

Did you ask why?
Could you have not accommodate that one lady? why not? every single customer of yours get in in your store and ask to use the toilet and don't want to use the public one?
Is the public one offered by the centre not clean? if not it is not in your interest to keep it clean so you don't have those kind of problems?

Heck once in my youth I remember going to a parlor just to use the bathroom that was nicer than the one I had at home LoL

If you want to complain about company policy then write to head office. Pretty simple. We have no power. Head Office can (and has before) changed policy from complaints from the public. Complaining to the employees in the store is idiotic.

And how would they do that? do you give a card or something, do you have complaint forms available? would you give them the head office email, fax or website?

What do you do to make that easier? it is not in your best interest to make it so? why?

Do you catalog and maintain a database of complaints to see which ones are most common and can be addressed?

I highly doubt every customer you have gets in the store and starts the high people places routine, beside those are not honest people, so to say that you are saying the majority of people are dishonest which I doubt it is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Becke, 27 Feb 2011 @ 11:47pm

I am going to commit the ultimate cardinal sin of Internet forums and compare TSA agents to guards at Nazi death camps.
It is extreme and unfair: but it clarifies the point: the guys at the bottom should not be able to say "I am just following orders" to absolve themselves from the sins of the guys at the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBT, 28 Feb 2011 @ 5:28am

I don't understand how the distinction that the folks at the top are the ones making the policy should matter. The people at the bottom are choosing to go along with it. Nobody is forcing them to work with a gun to their head. It is their free choice, and I fully support any efforts to punish them for making that choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon41, 28 Feb 2011 @ 3:08pm

TSA
I think this point has been made before. If TSA agents know that people don't appreciate their tasks, they themselves will communicate this with their supervisors, and thus change can happen.

If we do no form of criticism or protest, none of us wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
okwhen (profile), 28 Feb 2011 @ 4:55pm

Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents
The author Mike Masnick reminds me of the same people providing excuses for war crimes by stating, I was ordered to do it. My orders was to torture and kill the prisoners though I despised the acts. If no one is willing to abuse others for a price then the so called higher powers could not abuse others because they are gutless cowards. These self proclaimed people of God or ethical people preform screening or extra screening by groping adults as well as children. If anyone touched a child in this manor before 9/11 a prison sentence would soon follow. People with Mike's views is precisely what is wrong with America today. No one is willing to take a stand they merely irresponsibly transfer blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curtis Spang (profile), 28 Feb 2011 @ 5:30pm

Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents
I agree with you most of the time and think your analysis is spot on, however I think you are off base here. The restaurant owner will never ever get the opportunity to express his views to the tools at the top and if he did they would simply be ignored.

He is using his only tool to protest and make a difference. If EVERYONE would speak up and act up at every instance of fascism, America would be better.

People are timid, afraid and won't stand up unless everyone else does also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B, 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:37pm

I don't really have to deal with TSA, however whenever I read one of these topics it reminds me a lot about some of those Border Services Agents. I totally understand they are doing their jobs, and I get that they are following policies, but some of those guys just make it worse.

I remember one time I was crossing the border to pick up car parts, and the border agent asked me what I was picking up. Starting listing off... brake parts, clutch, flywheel, etc. and he asked me "No guns or anything like that?". I started laughing thinking he was joking... but the look he gave me... well I thought he was getting ready to arrest me.

If you ask me, although some of the policies are questionable, I'm sure some of the TSA agents make the situation worth. Its only a matter of time before more and more people start doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glenn Gould (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 10:44am

I would agree with you Mr. Masnick, but
I would agree with you Mr. Masnick, but you can't help get the impression that TSA agents, in general, enjoy making us do the obnoxious things we are forced to do (think power trip). Additionally, as a private business, the restaurant should be allowed to do legally whatever they want to do. That is America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 2:09pm

it all depends doesn't it i mean if your a prostitue its money over your so called civilrigts as to whitch all gov. feels if your to big to prosicute your an insider and the rest of you are dung so called public at large that acually think they have voice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faceless Minion, 19 Dec 2012 @ 3:25pm

Personally, I think that this is a wonderful idea. If the TSA agents don't like it, they can always quit. Sure, they won't find jobs that pay the same easily, but there's always openings at, say, McDonalds.

And at this point there's a lot more pride to be found in working at McD's then working for the TSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]