Before I get started, I promised I would link to my thoughts after the official BLS job creation numbers were released. Of course I promised that before we all found out they were really job deletion numbers.
Anyway….
In the last 2 weeks, every schoolkid in the nation has brought home a packet of stuff from school that outlines the school rules, including dress code. This is over and above the fact that in our modern world, you could almost certainly find these rules on the school or school district website. Some of these rules are sufficiently important they warrant also being posted on a visible sign at the school; signs of this type are usually posted for rules aimed at visitors, or newly implemented rules.
If you think about it, within the last 2 weeks, you have passed (looked at, read, maybe forgotten) signs that say things like “No skateboards or rollerblades”; “No pets allowed except service animals”; “Please do not use your cell phone at the counter”; “No shoes, no shirt, no service”; “Signature gathering and passing out of literature by non-employees prohibited”; “No smoking within 50 feet”; “No solicitors”; “Hard hat zone, protective gear must be worn past this point”. The list goes on, but the point is that a certain behavior is either required or (more often) prohibited, so somebody put up a sign to let everyone know what the rule is.
And that brings me to yesterday’s story of the Southwest Airlines Fashion Police. Honestly, there are points on both sides of the issue that roughly boil down to “who wants to see that, and a business has a right to regulate itself” vs “why are you looking, she wasn’t breaking any laws, and who the heck is the employee to ruin somebody’s travel plans and cost them a lot of money.” Personally, I don’t have a problem with Southwest Airlines — or any other business — having a dress code, as long as it is clearly posted and can be known ahead of time. After all, many nice restaurants require gentlemen to wear at least a sportcoat, and most such restaurants will gladly rent you a sportcoat for the evening to help potential customers comply.
Standing in the airport terminal, with your baggage (and spare clothing) already on the plane, is the wrong time to find out that your clothing does not meet muster.
But why limit this posting requirement to Southwest Airlines? Let’s go elsewhere in the airport. The TSA could sure benefit from some signage, and so could the flying public. Imagine the capricious and arbitrary things that could be prevented if the “Things You Should Know” from their traveler’s page were a clearly posted series of signs near the entrance of the airport. These could be simplified down to a few numbered signs such as: “Things you must do” (take off your shoes, put your bags on the conveyor, etc.); “Things you must not do” (argue with the screener, joke about bombs); “Prohibited items”; “Exempted items” (medication, breastmilk, etc.); and “Your rights and responsibilities” (including and particularly your rights should you require special screening, specifically addressing the needs of the handicapped or children).
The ideal result would be that 9 out of 10 disputes at a TSA checkpoint should be reduced to one or the other party pointing to a sign and saying something like “Number 4”. I believe such signage would sharply curtail both actual abusive behavior by TSA officers, and the perception of such abuse in cases where the TSA is just doing its job.
Oh, and an official complaint form should be freely available in every terminal without having to ask an airport/airline employee, with an anonymous drop-box.
In closing: oh gee, maybe that crap we put in food after testing it on a bunch of inbred rodents isn’t so good for human children after all; sound familiar?; all this talk of reducing emissions within a few decades is great, but the Arctic icecap may not have more than a couple decades; Sen. Dr. Bill Frist actually doing something I can support (alert the media) but he shouldn’t forget the health of children in this country (you know, the one he’s licensed to practice medicine in?); Shine on you crazy tesseract, Madeleine L’Engle has passed away; the Financial Times is concerned about a possible “wave of evictions” in the United States; the Market Oracle argues the subprime problem is too big for a bailout, even if that were morally desirable; some Foolish advice for getting out of financial trouble; statistics, educational achievement, and the reality hiding underneath NCLB; and finally, way to kill another children’s franchise, G.I. Joe film in the works. Hopefully it won’t suck as badly as most people agree the Transformers film did.