Hacker News Reader

Comment by apacheCamel | Hacker News Reader

But isn't this a problem with the actual TSA and its policies instead of the workers who just follow them? These are still real people who have to rely on their paychecks to live.

View on HN

You surely aren't suggesting that these employees have no say in which job they get, right? I mean, I personally don't have a job that requires me to grope and/or detain people. I personally wouldn't seek such a job. That raises the question: what kind of person would choose that job over any other, especially when government shutdowns and foregone wages are a known risk of employment?

Now I am unsure of what field you are in, but not everybody has the same flexibility in terms of job availability. I agree with you in saying that I would never choose such a job but when it may be one of the few options available, with good pay, how could you say no? If you have a family to provide for, then you need to do it. What if these workers don't agree with the policies and joined the TSA to try and change it for the better? You are talking down to an entire workforce as if they all are actively behind its policies and actions.

Just so I understand you right, you're saying it's okay to violate people's rights, so long as the pay is good, your family really needs the money, and you hold some kind of internal objection to your own work?

I never said that anywhere in my statement above, if it was implied, please tell me where. I am saying people can disagree with the policies of their employer and still stay at their job. Sometimes this forced through financial, geographic, maybe social reason. If the worker is actively disregarding human rights, then that is a single issue with that worker. If you think it is TSA enacting these human rights violations, then blame them, not the people just following what their bosses say.

Let's suppose I want to "blame them [the TSA]." Okay, who should I be complaining about? Which TSA employees is it okay to hold responsible for forcing my daughter to have a nude photo of herself taken?

Supposing that every person today who applies for a job today with the TSA knows about the body scanners and the pat-downs and the unexplained detentions, to what extent are new job applicants morally blameworthy for applying for a job that they already know involves all of these things?

At best, your argument covers people who applied for jobs with the TSA before anyone knew what the TSA was going to be doing at airports, and who have over the course of 18 years been unable to find work elsewhere. What share of TSA employees do you suppose that is? What's your guess?

The TSA is a federal agency so there are plenty of proper channels to complain through. My argument covers anybody that doesn't actively revel in these terrible things that the TSA does. There are TSA employees who never have to do or deal with these types of things. I can't give you a number, I don't even want to guess because that would be silly. You can complain to the woman/man at the desk who takes your ID all day long, but if they have never kept up with the latest TSA news then they are just showing up for a paycheck. I am saying it is extremely unfair to lump everybody into one category just because they work at a particular company/agency that you actively dislike. You don't know their thought process.

You can see how your argument might elicit a counterargument consistent with Godwin's law, right?

I am not familiar. From a quick search it seems like the longer a discussion happens, the probability increase. Other than just commenting again, I do not see how this relates to the discussion at all.

OK. Can you give some examples of jobs with good pay that you think should be turned down? Even if you have a family to provide for?

I can't think of any job in the US currently that would fall under that category. If you don't like the company, you have every right to quit, but if you do not have mobility like that, then some people just tend to endure it.

Can we at least agree that "just tend to" is much different from "has no ethical obligation to"?

People are allowed to leave a company they do not morally stand beside. I never said they couldn't. I am saying do not blame the people who live paycheck to paycheck and who can't skip a single paycheck to go job hunting for the company's misdeeds. Not everyone has the financial security to disrupt their career.

How many TSA employees do you think this describes? 5%? 10%? 85%?

What about sex trafficker, producer of child pornography, hit person, burglar (as an employee - not self-employed)?

Illegal "jobs" do not have any merit in this argument, you should know that.

Of course they do. Moral judgements can be made independently of legal ones. That's exactly the point of this discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com