Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by roadtimes

  1. Actually, unless you're buddies with the road dispatcher, you DO get in trouble for this. Road dispatchers have their own rules which are not the ones they teach you at Zerega. Actually, unless you're buddies with the road dispatcher, you DO get in trouble for this. Road dispatchers have their own rules which are not the ones they teach you at Zerega.
  2. PS: Just thought it might be a good idea for you and maybe some of the other guys that got hit with this rule to come down to the Dept of Labor with me on Dec. 28th. There's someone there that told me he's investigating this thing. I'll call him soon to see what he thinks.
  3. It's what I suspected, Locomotion. :tup: Just got through reviewing the the posts from list 5025 and 8006. Looks like they did not use the 1 in 3 rule at all for list 5025 and the start of list 8006 (numbers 1 through 400's). My number was 119 but I declined and was put back in late July or August (they were up to list #800's and 900's then) and that's when they came out with that rule. It looks like they kicked out a lot of drivers with the rule and gave it a rest sometime around late October if I'm not mistaken. I have a funny feeling they just wanted to get me (it's a long story) but they had to take a whole lot of other guys to make it look fair or routine.:confused: Locomotion, as far as I know and the lawyer told me what the TA did was totally legal. Don't forget your dealing with an agency with tremendous power that can shape the laws in their favor. Where I think we have a chance is that they are not using the law uniformly. It's like (for example) only applying the anti-homicide laws to one group of people instead of the whole population. That, I believe is illegal. By the way, today I e-mailed the Inspector General - MTA/NYCTA to see if I can get all this stuff in document form under the freedom of information act. Have a meeting with someone in the Dept of Labor in a couple of weeks. Will keep you posted.:cool:
  4. Just want to add something else to my question, guys. ;)Was anyone from list 8006 with numbers 1 thru 119 disqualified because of the 1 in 3 rule????? Bear with me, I have a reason for asking these questions.:tup::cool:
  5. Sealteam1962, how's everything? Haven't your response about the petition thing on the 1 in 3 rule, anyway here's one thing we can do first. Write to the NYCTA and ask them to restore your name to the list. It's an option and it's mentioned in the 1 in 3 rejection letter we got.


    We got to move on this. Something doesn't look right. Did you notice that in all the years we were monitoring people on the list before ours, what was going on at Livingston Street, and DCAS we never heard anybody mention this 1 in 3 rule then all of a sudden here it is???? I don't get it.



  6. Sealteam: Last we communicated you said you had been let go because of the 1 in 3 rule. Just want to check with you to see how far into the hiring process you were just before you got the 1 in 3 letter. As far as me, I'm looking into consulting a lawyer about this.


  7. My list number is 119. Was originally summoned to Livingston street in March but I postponed the appointment, got my name put back on the list and later in July took drug test and handed in application. Early this month got 1 in 3 rejection letter. I waited 3 years for this? :confused: Any ideas to fight this?
  8. Just want to correct myself. the figure 2,300 should be 1,300 (ball park figure). (33 percent of the original 4,000 test takers that passed). Whatever it is, it's a lot.:eek:
  9. I got a letter saying so. :mad: The letter (in MTA stationery) reads: "You were considered and not selected for Appointment in in accordance with Rule 4.7.1 . of the Rules and Regulations of the New York City Personnel Director." This link, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcas/html/resources/prr_rule4.shtml explains what that rule is, namely the "1 in 3 rule." The letter further says that my "ineligibility is only for [the MTA]. Therefore you can be recertified to [the MTA] only upon that agency's request." Good luck and thanks to all for your responses so far.
  10. Thanks, Primo. :cool: Before you ask, I was just hit with this rule. :confused: What I dont get is why don't I hear more people talking about this. It's a whopping 33 per cent (2,300 candidates) of everybody who took this test 8006 being disqualified!!! From what I see it's no being enforced consistently.:mad:
  11. This is for Sealteam or anyone out there. What do we know about the so called, "1 in 3 rule," and when does it kick in? After the drug test or before? Who knows anybody who has been denied appointment because of this rule? :confused: Thanx!
  12. Just learned something new:mad:--some of us have had to take the drug test more than once before getting called for the medical. Also that there's a class forming August 15th. I did the drug test back on July 7th. Any of you guys and gals that were there that day for drug test get called yet for the medical? :confused: Is the notice for medical a phone call or a letter?:cool::tup:
  13. Did the drug test back on July 7. It's been over 2 weeks but have not gotten the phone call for the medical yet. Is it in 4 weeks that they're supposed to call me? :(Would appreciate the answer. Thanks in advance.:tup:
  14. List #'s dont tell you much :tdown: because of all the "restoring names to the list" cases. For instance, I'm #119 and when I was called in to Livingston St. for the drug test back in March I declined. By the time I got back on the list (last week) I believe they were calling in the 400's. One guy told me he had to decline the first appointment because he was taking his vacation from his job at the time. Hope this helps. We should be getting called back for the medical around the 21. Keep in touch.:tup::cool:
  15. I'm on 8006 list, had declined when called in back in March. This week got letter to report to Livingston Street on July 7 for medical, etc. Was starting to wonder what was going on but DCAS had told me it would be more or less around this time:tup::tdown:. Also remember that they did stop calling for sometime waiting to have a large enough number of vacancies. I'm 119 but I've read they've gone over the 400 mark:tup:
  16. The back-story is that my list #119 and I was called to Livingston St back on 3/9. I skipped it and a week later wrote them to get my name back on the list. Waited over 30 days and not a peep. This morning went down to DCAS, filled out the form, supplied my ss# and list#. Clerk later appeared and told me that my name would be added to the next batch the TA requests for processing. Some posts on here clearly explain the reason they stopped calling people in which is that TA has to wait until there is a large enough number of vacancies before they turn to DCAS for more people. It makes sense to me. Some estimate that in about 3 weeks to a month the line will start moving again. Thanks to the all the posters, especially NYWBRR and FDBGuy.
  17. Thanks, specially AcelaExpress and Olegkha. :tup: I'm the guy from list 8006, list number low 100's who passed up the interview and medical appointment for 3/9. Sent my letter to be put back on the list around 3/17 so that means I'll be getting called back around mid April, give or take. We'll see. Process should move extra quick after that scandal with Operators who got caught holding licenses with different names. (I'm sorry for those guys, but stuff happens.) Only one thing concerns me, somebody mentioned about a BOSS exam. I've read blogs from other guys who have been down at Livingston Street and they dont mention anything about it. What's the deal?:confused:
  18. I have a low 100's list number off test 8006. Was called to report to Livingston St on March 9th. I wasn't ready so I sent the letter back and did not go. About a week later I wrote DCAS;) to put me back on the list. So far, have not gotten anything. Any advice, suggestions?
  19. I allways believed this was the way to the solution not blaming Walder, the TWU, the press, or the rich. From what I heard, Gillibranch and a second politician are submitting a 4 billion dollar federal bailout bill for Transit. It's the logical thing for a politician to do if they want to get elected and it will be approved, especially with the year end elections coming up. I suggest you all do like I've been doing which is to write these representatives in Albany and Washington, vote, and volunteer for candidates that support this bill.
  20. So "answer man" I got a question for you and for anyone out there. Incidentally, the answer may help to shrink the waiting time for some guys or gals. I understand test 8006 if for drivers to work in Brooklyn or Queens but let's say once hired a driver wants to transfer to Manhattan or the Bronx. Is it possible to transfer to a garage in the Bronx or Manhattan? From what I know, they were trying to unify the two divisions whereby one could do that. The answer to that question may guide my decision as to weather I want to take the job (I have a low number). I for one live a long way from Brooklyn and would not like to have to commute such a long distance or move there. Thanks, and good luck to all.
  21. I dont agree. Food and shelter cost money. In order to get money, I need to TRANSPORT myself to work (most people do not live within reasonable walking distance of their job site). In other words, if I can't TRANSPORT myself I wont get food or shelter.
  22. I agree, but remember they cannot cater to special intersts if they're not holding public office so the politicians first interest is holding on to their position in government. If they feel people are getting ready to vote them out, they will favor the people. Furthermore, transportation is not an abstract concept or a luxury, it's a basic human need. Policitians cannot bring out the smoke and mirrors as they do with other issues when they favor so called special interests. We have to first let them know we vote and second let them know that they must get to work on providing Transit officials with the needed funding. The sooner we get started, the sooner we'll be hired. You DO want to be hired soon, dont you?
  23. Good point. But you agree that's something for the government and Transit officials (NOT US) to worry about. Our mission should be to get those two parties to produce a revenue source, period. Using our vote as leverage I belive we can do that. I for one, emailed my State Senator Stewart-Cousins of the 35th Senate District in Yonkers and plan to call her on the phone. Ditto for our Governor.
  24. Guys (and gals) let's think out of the box. The reason the freeze is on is because of the State Senators. Let's get off our rear ends and start emailing and calling our State Senators to approve the funds New York City Transit needs to avoid implementing service cuts and layoffs and extended hiring freeze. The Transit executives have been very patient and understanding, but that will only go so far. We have to remind our Senators that Transit is too vital and big to fail and that we are voters and we need the jobs.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.