What makes an "Untouchable" Touchable?

We all know how management likes to cover up for all those within their "inner" circle, but what has caused that to change? Is sweeping things under the rug no longer fashionable?

When events and misconduct are not kept "in house", CAS has no choice but to take it on the chin.

The suspension of Terminal Manager, Shelley Burrell, for professional misconduct is surely a gigantic black eye for the company. With CAS desperately trying to cling to the appearance of being a company beyond reproach, this incident will only prove to be detrimental to the company.

How the mighty have fallen!

Business As Usual!

It seems that CAS is at it again. Names are being circulated around concerning a position that has not yet been posted and for one that was recently announced.

From the information that was supplied to us, these people are on levels and are management favorites.

When, if ever, will CAS change their ways? We keep hoping that this company will start doing the right thing. But, it doesn't appear to be part of the corporate culture. The sad thing is that it starts at the top.

A Word from One of Our Readers Part 2

As promised, here is part 2 from yesterday's impassioned letter from a co-worker and reader of the blog.

The Growing Divide between The Hard Workers and “The Wall Flowers”

          by IronSublimation

In most other places to work, the trend is often this: the more you do, the better the rewards.  With CAS, that trend is the opposite.  The more you do, the more chances you have of making a mistake, thus, potential termination.  

It has been my constant observation that there are two types of TSOs: the ones that work hard and go beyond their call of duty and the ones that do the bare minimum.  I think that last sentence is pretty self-explanatory.  

You have the ones that walk away when they hear “[gender] assists” and the ones that actively listen for these calls.  You have the ones that hang around the supervisor podium or office, chomping it up with a terminal manager (Shelley Burrell) or other supervisors and the ones that remain on the floor working their posterior off until their next break.  Need I go further? 

Anyway, the real issue is the growing divide between the two groups.  This divide happens at the officer level, the lead level, and supervisor/management level.  At the officer level, the hard working group observes the actions (or lack thereof) of the wallflowers.  We see it as unfair that we are doing all of the work and that they are doing the bare minimum.  But do we complain on the floor?  No, because we have a job to do.

At the lead level, leads are responsible for rotations and delegation of duties.  A good lead will enforce their authority to delegate and be as fair as possible.  A bad lead will take the path of least resistance, which is to delegate the work to a hard working officer who will most likely not resist the request.  The wallflowers will resist or will use their friendship with the lead (if they have one) not to do any work or be called out.  How many times have you seen hard workers tapped out of a position to get an “assist” and see on the other side of the checkpoint several officers of the same gender as you, doing nothing? 

At the supervisor level, when faced with the duty of delegating officer work, the supervisor falls into the same boat as leads: taking the path of least resistance.  But a far more sinister path of least resistance lies within the enforcement of rules and actual supervisory work.  

I’ve lost count how many times I have seen a supervisor critique or chastise an officer that was chewing gum, talking on an x-ray, or missing a step in a procedure.  I applaud that move because at the very least, they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is supervising.  Perhaps a little more tact in delivering the critique may be in line for some, however, I am sure they mean well.  

The issue with certain supervisors is when the critiques become selective to those who offer little resistance.  How many times have you been chastised for talking on the x-ray, even if for a tiny period?  And how many times have you seen others, who have the reputation of being a resistor or wallflower, continue to talk and talk without receiving any reprimand?  I bet you’ve lost count… if you’re a hard worker. 

Finally, to complete this divide, we must look to the management level.  After all that I’ve said above, we hard workers, not wall flowers, continually observe the actions of our fellow officers, leads, and supervisors.  We grow progressively frustrated with all that we see around us.  To see this divide promoted by the management, perhaps inadvertently, makes matters even worse.  While we are working hard on the floor, we see certain wallflowers cozy it up with the managers, conversing and laughing.  While I have no problem with conversations and laughter, it’s the timing of it and the people involved.  

It is always the same people who are “hanging out” with the terminal manager;  the same people who talk to no end while running the x-ray without getting reprimanded.  It is the same people who stand along the wall barely doing anything and walking away when an “assist” is called.  We hard working officers are not stupid and we see all of this.  A particular example of a terminal manager that does this, quite openly it seems, is Shelley Burrell; unprofessional and unacceptable.  It is about time that we take action.

Solutions:  Promote officers that value hard work and fairness.  Force management to maintain professionalism and to limit fraternization with subordinates.  Prevent supervisors from having to complete the bureaucratic processes of TSA (read: paperwork) and keep them on the floor, monitoring the checkpoint actively instead of passively.  Educate the leadership on the need for them to maintain a professional and fair attitude, keep personal relationships outside of the work environment, and perform their duties objectively, not subjectively.  A possible problem with the last solution is the fact that the problem persists at the top, who would need to be the ones to enact such solutions.

A Word from One of Our Readers Part 1

We recently received a well thought-out letter from one of our co-workers and a reader of the blog. We thought that we should share part one of his/her letter with you all.

Politics, Politics, Politics…

          by IronSublimation

It is my hope that everyone knows how political the promotional process is here at Covenant Aviation Security.  I feel like I can count the number of questionable promotions that have been made on more than the number of fingers I have.

Call me naïve, but in the beginning I was a bright-eyed, motivated individual with hopes for a promotion down the line.  After seeing how the company promotes and what one needs to do to move ahead, it has been progressively difficult for me (and for many others, I imagine) to remain motivated.  

My first chance at promotion, albeit lateral, came when there was an opening to become a Dual Function Officer.  While the requisition stated that one must have been employed at CAS for six months, that “requirement” is merely a “soft” one.  

The timing of the requisition was almost impeccable. I was two weeks away from my six-month mark.  After providing my supervisor with my necessary paperwork, my STSO gave it to terminal manager Russell Mackey. Mackey subsequently denied the request, citing the fact that I have not been with the company for six months.  Feeling dejected and not yet knowing exactly how the company ran and the exceptions that could be made, I understood the reasoning for denial and moved on.  

Later on, I found out that someone from my class was promoted to DFO during the same time that I applied.  This is when I found out that the requirement for promotion was a “soft” one and that even Mackey has overlooked it in the past.  So why would he deny me and approve others?  Is it due to his personal rapport or relationship with others?  I confronted him on this issue some time later. He denied any wrongdoing, saying that he “didn’t know” that he could “overlook the requirement,” which is a lie as his promoting history dictates.  What I find particularly disturbing about this case is the fact that I cannot even trust my own manager.  He knew very well that he could have approved my request, and he knew very well that he has overlooked certain requirements in the past.

Strike two came when there was an opening for the class called “Protrack.”  If you don’t know, Protrack is a program that prepared officers for promotion into higher positions like lead or supervisor.  After initially applying, I made it to the first step of the process, which would be a prepared 5-minute presentation about leadership and what it meant to me.  On the day of my presentation, after much preparation time, I was told that my (and others’) presentation would be postponed indefinitely.  I never heard about it again despite repeated inquiries.  After working hard on the presentation and being left out in the cold, so to speak, I was amazed at how I had to find out through the grapevine that they had scrapped Protrack altogether.  Surely this would show me exactly how the company ran, right?  Well, I forged on, with hope for bigger and better things.

The third strike, which ironically was not the last considering the rules of baseball and the laws of California, came during the promotional process for Behavioral Detection Officers.  This time, the requirement for one to become a BDO was one year.  I found out the hard way that this requirement was actually a “hard” requirement rather than a “soft” one that I have explained previously.  After the interview process, which I thought went extremely well, I was kept in the dark about who did and did not make it.  After I found out whom they selected (through the grapevine), which, at the time, initially included someone from my class (déjà vu, right?), I was told that I was not selected because I have not been with the company for a full year. It was two weeks away from my one-year anniversary.  While the other person from my hiring class was eventually told that he or she would not be able to join due to his or her tenure and that it was a mistake on their part, just the sequence of events was enough to frustrate me even further. Not only did they waste time for the both of us, their vetting of candidates, or lack thereof, was apparently inefficient.

The final strike comes during the process for a promotion to supervisor.  Luckily for me (or not), I was granted an interview where I would be asked questions in front of three terminal managers and one human resources representative.  

During the interview process, I will admit that I wasn’t at my best, however, the look on managements’ faces and body language was discouraging from the moment I walked in there.  After knowing a bit about the way promotions were handled at CAS and observing the body language of the three managers, I already felt that they had an idea for whom they would promote and that the interview process was simply for show.  I knew of others who I felt would be great supervisors and yet, they were snubbed.  

There were four people who were selected, and of particular focus are the following three: Matt Davis, Ismael Rodriguez, and Robert Reclus. Do you see any particular issue that might call for an investigation?  Here’s the info:  Matt Davis is married to another supervisor, Melissa Davis.  Ismael Rodriguez used to work for SFPD.  And where did Mindy Pingel work before coming to CAS?  Robert Reclus is the twin brother of former Dual Function Supervisor James Reclus. 

See the connections there?  Oh wait, there’s more…

Recently, a certain officer was promoted to lead.  It’s no secret that this officer is the boyfriend to a certain Floor Supervisor from the mornings. I have also observed this officer in the past having quite a cozy relationship with Shelley Burrell.  Coincidence?  That’s what they will tell you.

And on a side note, can someone please explain to me why that Floor Supervisor was working in the same checkpoint, let alone, same terminal, with her boyfriend?  Conflict of interest much?   

So I presented a problem and here is a solution:  Promote on a meritocratic basis; judge an employee and their potential for leadership not just by an interview but by their history and workmanship on the floor, and finally, enforce anti-fraternization policies upon CAS management.

Stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow.

The Wicked

There once was an evil, nasty witch of the west. This witch eventually found herself in a pickle with a girl named Dorothy. Oh sorry, we got a little confused there for a second. We thought we were telling the story of Terminal Manager Shelley Burrell! Our bad!

But since we mentioned her, we can't help share a story that was sent in to us recently. It turns out that a short while back, a new hire was brought to tears over the way Burrell and STSO Linda Whidden talked to their employees at a guard mount.

Apparently Burrell was under a lot of pressure. And we all know that Whidden cracks at the first hint of pressure as well. You see, Burrell had TSA on her back. And as she explained to the TSOs, "I'm not going to lose my f-ing job because of the f-ing way you do yours!" This is just a small sample of the profanity laced tirade that transpired.

Being new, this new hire was not familiar with Burrell's and Whidden's lack of professionalism. This event was so traumatic to the new hire that the TSO almost quit. The TSO was talked out of this decision by someone else. This other person decided to relay this story to his "boss".

This "boss" now had to deal with the situation. Ultimately the incident got reported to HR and fell on Larry Perkins' lap. We have to give it to Burrell. When Perkins called her to inform her that he was starting an investigation on her, Burrell openly admitted to the obscene language.

Perkins, in his estimable self, called the new TSO to his office to discuss this incident. When the TSO arrived at the EAC, the TSO was presented with Burrell and Whidden standing outside his office with the most unpleasant of attitudes visible. The TSO was flabbergasted. The TSO immediately picked up on the intimidation factor and instinctively wanted to turn around and leave.  The TSO ultimately decided against it.

Once inside Perkins' office, he proceeded to explain to this new TSO that the individual needed to understand that Burrell is under a great deal of stress and pressure. He kept trying to convince the TSO that it was ok. After much insistence on Perkins' part, the TSO just said, "Are we done?" Clearly wanting to leave his office, the meeting was adjourned.

So what came of this incident? Well, Burrell and Whidden were terminated. Oh dammit! There we go again with the fairy tale! Of course nothing came of it. Just like nothing came of Dena Crawford or Anthony Nguyen or Gerardo Sanchez. These managers are simply untouchable.

All of this comes down to the question that we still don't have an answer to: What do managers have to do in order to be terminated? It's a simple question. Now where's the answer?!