Feel sorry for the guy,. but........

Sam Quentin

https://www.thejournal.ie/security-man-fired-flight-attendant-dublin-airport-wrc-4419224-Jan2019/

To be fair I actually think his sacking was harsh..
Relocation or retraining would have been a better outcome!?

Ten of Swords

He breached security procedures in an international airport

No, I think sacking was appropriate

TheValeyard

Think sacking was harsh. No one should ever be punched in the balls.

AndyBoBandy

Ten of Swords wrote: »

He breached security procedures in an international airport

No, I think sacking was appropriate

Never nice to see anyone lose their job, but I’d have to agree.

ikeano29

Maybe they need to train there staff better also in future.

Guy:Incognito

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

. No one should ever be punched in the balls.

Strongly disagree.

Ficheall

No good deed goes unpunished.

Masala

Bit harsh.... error was spotted anf flight attendant sent back through correct gates etc.

I would say that there are other breeches Of airport security every day (lost tools, no ID showing, liquids Getting thru etc) but no one getting fired.

hynesie08

Crew have their own fast lane at USPC anyway, so not like it was life or death. But bringing someone through a back door to avoid US customs? Shouldn't have gotten as far as court, sacking on the spot completely justified.

dan1895

Masala wrote: »

Bit harsh.... error was spotted anf flight attendant sent back through correct gates etc.

I would say that there are other breeches Of airport security every day (lost tools, no ID showing, liquids Getting thru etc) but no one getting fired.

Worked in the airport for 3 years back in the day and there were no exceptions made for forgetting your i.d. or bringing a bottle of water through.

uck51js9zml2yt

Apart from the breach. He didn't know her. She could have been anybody.

Bigger heads should have rolled for this one- the fact that it happened in the first place means someone on-high, didn't predict this could happen- lowest rank official takes the fall for some management mistake as usual.

Dave0301

Deleted User wrote: »

Bigger heads should have rolled for this one- the fact that it happened in the first place means someone on-high, didn't predict this could happen- lowest rank official takes the fall for some management mistake as usual.

Hardly.

It was part of his training on what the proper procedure was in this situation and he acknowledged it himself.

When the airhostess flagged up as having reached the gate she was sent back to go through pre clearance, which would suggest that there are systems in place, and as such it has been predicated it could happen.

Dave0301

Dave0301 wrote: »

Hardly.

It was part of his training on what the proper procedure was in this situation and he acknowledged it himself.

When the airhostess flagged up as having reached the gate she was sent back to go through pre clearance, which would suggest that there are systems in place, and as such it has been predicated it could happen.

He's a fall guy-plain and simple. It was accepted that there was no malice intended by all parties.

Change the process if such a thing happens- but sack someone for this? Please. :rolleyes:

MrMusician18

Kaliyah Tender Violet wrote: »

Apart from the breach. He didn't know her. She could have been anybody.

There was no risk to flight security, from the story, he only bypassed US Customs and Border Patrol. If it was regular airport security, I doubt this would have even have been disciplined, let alone fired.

The US border preclearance is the unique selling point of Dublin Airport (and Shannon), and DAA will do everything to keep the Americans happy, least they decide to end it. You can bet they had a good old whinge about it.

Therefore the draconian response to this breach.

Dave0301

Deleted User wrote: »

He's a fall guy-plain and simple. It was accepted that there was no malice intended by all parties.

Change the process if such a thing happens- but sack someone for this? Please. :rolleyes:

Irrespective of there being malice or not, his actions potentially led to a breach of US border control.

As another poster has pointed out, the US will not have been happy about this, and the heavy handed response is probably a result from pressure from them. I do agree that it is harsh, but it is also understandable.

Dave0301

Dave0301 wrote: »

Hardly.

Dave0301 wrote: »

Irrespective of there being malice or not, his actions potentially led to a breach of US border control.

As another poster has pointed out, the US will not have been happy about this, and the heavy handed response is probably a result from pressure from them. I do agree that it is harsh, but it is also understandable.

I never said it wasn't "understandable"- what I said was that bigger heads than his should have rolled as a result. He's taken a fall for something that was easily predicable. Simple entry/exit technology would have prevented this from happening.

I still don't understand your "hardly" response to my original post.

spurious

Did she not also know she should have gone through security? Did she pipe up at any stage?

Dave0301

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said it wasn't "understandable"- what I said was that bigger heads than his should have rolled as a result. He's taken a fall for something that was easily predicable. Simple entry/exit technology would have prevented this from happening.

I still don't understand your "hardly" response to my original post.

Deleted User wrote: »

Bigger heads should have rolled for this one- the fact that it happened in the first place means someone on-high, didn't predict this could happen- lowest rank official takes the fall for some management mistake as usual.

The "hardly" part of my response was for the bolded bit above. It was made clear that what to do in this situation was part of his training, and this was confirmed in the investigation. I also pointed out that there appears to be procedures in place for when a person appears to have bypassed pre clearance.

Why should "bigger head" have to roll for what was the worker's own mistake?

As I have said, it is very harsh, and probably a result of some pressure from US Broder Control.

spurious

spurious wrote: »

Did she pipe up at any stage?

I'd say that's what he was looking for alright.

Dave0301

Dave0301 wrote: »

The "hardly" part of my response was for the bolded bit above. It was made clear that what to do in this situation was part of his training, and this was confirmed in the investigation. I also pointed out that there appears to be procedures in place for when a person appears to have bypassed pre clearance.

Why should "bigger head" have to roll for what was the worker's own mistake?

As I have said, it is very harsh, and probably a result of some pressure from US Broder Control.

If you "know" that X point can be by-passed, why leave it that way? Why not ensure X point can't be by-passed. Simple :-)

Reati

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There was no risk to flight security, from the story, he only bypassed US Customs and Border Patrol. If it was regular airport security, I doubt this would have even have been disciplined, let alone fired.

Yes, he only bypassed the US border in Dublin Airport with a stranger. Fired is more than justicified.

Dave0301

Deleted User wrote: »

If you "know" that X point can be by-passed, why leave it that way? Why not ensure X point can't be by-passed. Simple :-)

Is that not what his job was? To check that, or at least ask...like you know, he was trained to do? Simple.

Gerry T

Was she sacked, she would have known she had to go through the security check. She's as culpable as he is. Seems unfair or discriminatory treatment to me.

colm_mcm

Wow, that article says “Security Man” 11 Times.

Hoboo

Obviously a TNA required for all personnel, and continuous training provided. The quantity and quality of training should reflect the attention required to procedures and outcomes, and is clearly insufficient. Id be interested to hear what continuous training they receive.

Sirius Boner

Reati wrote: »

Yes, he only bypassed the US border in Dublin Airport with a stranger. Fired is more than justicified.

Maybe so......but was it justified?

MrMusician18

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said it wasn't "understandable"- what I said was that bigger heads than his should have rolled as a result. He's taken a fall for something that was easily predicable. Simple entry/exit technology would have prevented this from happening.

I still don't understand your "hardly" response to my original post.

Presumably the flight attendant was escorted through the code locked doors by the security man who would have "access all areas" clearance. This kind of clearance would presumably be required for him to carry out his duties. It would be hard to guard against this failure, but to force everyone, including staff to enter the secure area through the customs post.

Dave0301

Dave0301 wrote: »

Is that not what his job was? To check that, or at least ask...like you know, he was trained to do? Simple.

It's not the issue. Just because you're trained to do X doesn't mean Y won't happen. Simple :-)

MrMusician18

Reati wrote: »

Yes, he only bypassed the US border in Dublin Airport with a stranger. Fired is more than justicified.

Which is more serious? Bypassing physical security or bypassing a clerical check? I'd say the former is more serious than the latter, but because it's the Americans we're talking about, it's the latter that will get you fired.

To be quite honest, they shouldn't even be here.

Dave0301

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not the issue. Just because you're trained to do X doesn't mean Y won't happen. Simple :-)

And if you are trained so Y shouldn't happen, but you do let it happen you get fired :pac:

I think MrMusician18's post probably provides the reason for why he was fired. He enabled the flight attendant to get somewhere in the airport she should not have been able to get.

Peatys

Ah, the journal..

"In its submission, the security firm believed that the security man’s was so fundamental as to render the security man’s continued engagement as impossible."

Rubberchikken

an 'innocent motive to help' is a pitiful excuse.
i think he deserved to be fired. imagine the hand-wringing after the fact if something serious had happened.
would he have been so willing to let a male steward through? maybe he shoukd have been thinking with his brain and doing his job properly.

MrMusician18

Rubberchikken wrote: »

an 'innocent motive to help' is a pitiful excuse.
i think he deserved to be fired. imagine the hand-wringing after the fact if something serious had happened.
would he have been so willing to let a male steward through? maybe he shoukd have been thinking with his brain and doing his job properly.

What is the worst that could've happened? An illegal migrant enters the USA? Big deal.

Dave0301

Dave0301 wrote: »

And if you are trained so Y shouldn't happen, but you do let it happen you get fired :pac:

I think MrMusician18's post probably provides the reason for why he was fired. He enabled the flight attendant to get somewhere in the airport she should not have been able to get.

Have you ever done something in work other than that you were trained to do? Sometimes, circumstances happen.

So, if one genuine response to a situation that you may or may not have been trained to deal with, goes against process, does that mean you should get fired?

Hardly. If that was the case most people in Ireland would be out of a job.

Dave0301

Dave0301 wrote: »

He enabled the flight attendant to get somewhere in the airport she should not have been able to get.

And why might that be? Maybe because some management eejit further up the line didn't do their job properly.

Peatys

What's the point in arguing? Some think he should have been fired, some don't.. grand.

Dave0301

Deleted User wrote: »

And why might that be? Maybe because some management eejit further up the line didn't do their job properly.

So if he opened a door with an access code that she didn't have, it is management's fault?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree at this stage.

Dave0301

Dave0301 wrote: »

So if he opened a door with an access code that she didn't have, it is management's fault?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree at this stage.

Not that he opened that door-But that two people got through that door, under the one code.

I would have thought security was tighter at Dublin Airport- as I imagine the Americans did also. it's not rocket science. Just a simple electronic control.
Hence my comment that he's a fall guy for failures made much further up the line. QED really.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Not that he opened that door-But that two people got through that door, under the one code.

I would have thought security was tighter at Dublin Airport- as I imagine the Americans did also. it's not rocket science. Just a simple electronic control.
Hence my comment that he's a fall guy for failures made much further up the line. QED really.

The guy fired WAS security. He has access to doors that regular people dont. You seem unable to comprehend that.

martingriff

Deleted User wrote: »

Not that he opened that door-But that two people got through that door, under the one code.

I would have thought security was tighter at Dublin Airport- as I imagine the Americans did also. it's not rocket science. Just a simple electronic control.
Hence my comment that he's a fall guy for failures made much further up the line. QED really.

Sorry what he used a security code to get her through. Even if it was one at a time he could have given the security code to go herself. It was his job which he is trained in to make sure people do X and Y. If he does not do it its his fault not some managers fault. I bet you believe if some worker steals from a shop they should not be fired as management should be responsible for him stealing.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The guy fired WAS security. He has access to doors that regular people dont. You seem unable to comprehend that.

I comprehend that very well. You on the other hand, haven't comprehended my posts. But that doesn't surprise me.

martingriff

martingriff wrote: »

S I bet you believe if some worker steals from a shop they should not be fired as management should be responsible for him stealing.

What a totally stupid comment that has no bearing on the discussion to date.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I comprehend that very well. You on the other hand, haven't comprehended my posts. But that doesn't surprise me.

well your point seems to be that it is managements fault that he didnt do what he was trained to do. Which is a bit stupid.

martingriff

Deleted User wrote: »

What a totally stupid comment that has no bearing on the discussion to date.

Actually it does you are complaining that it was not his fault but managerial fault that he is able to do that so in my example the management would be at fault as they allowed him to be able to do it. How do you think management would be able to stop what happened here. Herd everyone into 1 corridor so everyone can only go 1 way