Donald Posted September 2, 2011 Author Share #51 Posted September 2, 2011 Well, now i feel a bit better. I thought maybe they were putting 3 names into a hat and the person pulled out is the one who got hired while the other 2 are rejected.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primomjr78 Posted September 2, 2011 Share #52 Posted September 2, 2011 Has nothing to do with a union...this is all civil service law Thanks subway guy for reiterating That this has to do with civil service law maybe mr condecending know it all Xentor will think before he types incorrect and erroneous information . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xentor Posted September 2, 2011 Share #53 Posted September 2, 2011 That guy(roadtimes)who got that 1 in 3 letter I referred him to a law firmthat handles labor and employment issues with the city. Whether or not he chooses to follow through I don't know. He did create a panic by saying that 1/3 of the 8006 list will be DQ'D solely on the 1 in 3 rule.:eek: **Be careful what you say to the doctors, this guy going through the medical for DSNY answered yes to a question about anxiety, he put down that he was taking Xanax occasionally, he had passed the medical twice before but they never reached his list number. This time around he answered yes to a question on the form and that is why he failed the medical, he spoke to 2 different lawyers who both said that his chances were slim to none. Don't even tell them you snore.** Oh yeah, I saw a few posts about that some time ago. He sorta medically incriminated himself sorta speak, am I right? A medical will help determine if you are physically able to perform job functions. If one fails a medical examination I dont think they have any grounds for legal action whatsoever, Im gonna go with straight common sense on that one. As you said, dont even tell them you snore and if you smoke say you have just quit cold turkey, no patches, no medicine. Dont go hiding medical conditions that they will easily reveal to be apparent upon examination either, that's retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xentor Posted September 2, 2011 Share #54 Posted September 2, 2011 Thanks subway guy for reiterating That this has to do with civil service law maybe mr condecending know it all Xentor will think before he types incorrect and erroneous information . . Dude I havent suggested absolutely anything at all that crosses the line into erroneous territory. If anything im partly correct if you been paying attention. Part of civil service law must appease union mandates or interference. You must think were already completely communist or something. I do suggest we quit calling each other names, we do not know each other personally and you do not work in court to be giving anyone authoritative comments on anything, for all you know I could become your best friend and laugh at this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted September 2, 2011 Share #55 Posted September 2, 2011 Dude I havent suggested absolutely anything at all that crosses the line into erroneous territory. If anything im partly correct if you been paying attention. Part of civil service law must appease union mandates or interference. You must think were already completely communist or something. I do suggest we quit calling each other names, we do not know each other personally and you do not work in court to be giving anyone authoritative comments on anything, for all you know I could become your best friend and laugh at this stuff. On the contrary...the creation of civil service law had nothing to do with unions. It began in post reconstruction America to combat the "spoils system" of politicians and other officials appointing people to publicly financed positions through cronyism, backslapping, rewarding friends, or rewarding others for political support. In other words if Jay Walder had a deadbeat druggie nephew, civil service law is what prevent Walder, any of his buddies in government, or even President Obama himself from putting that nephew into any civil service title. Civil service law is also what prevents any of them from arbitrarily terminating anyone in a civil service title so that there's a "space" for the imaginary deadbeat nephew. Consistent with the above, civil service law also sets out the legal hiring practices which dictate those used by Transit on competitive promotional and O/C exams. Transit is subject to be fully compliant with civil service law, which is monitored by DCAS (now that Transit administers their own exams). MaBSTOA is not subject to civil service law. They elect to follow something substantially similar but different in some key ways. So anyone on a MaBSTOA list, all the information I've posted about civil service law does not necessarily apply to you. Same goes for anyone on a TA list who accepts appointment to a MaBSTOA position. Because MaBSTOA is not subject to civil service law, the "way things are done" in that agency will benefit MaBSTOA, rest assured, not you. But employment is employment these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primomjr78 Posted September 2, 2011 Share #56 Posted September 2, 2011 On the contrary...the creation of civil service law had nothing to do with unions. It began in post reconstruction America to combat the "spoils system" of politicians and other officials appointing people to publicly financed positions through cronyism, backslapping, rewarding friends, or rewarding others for political support. In other words if Jay Walder had a deadbeat druggie nephew, civil service law is what prevent Walder, any of his buddies in government, or even President Obama himself from putting that nephew into any civil service title. Civil service law is also what prevents any of them from arbitrarily terminating anyone in a civil service title so that there's a "space" for the imaginary deadbeat nephew. Consistent with the above, civil service law also sets out the legal hiring practices which dictate those used by Transit on competitive promotional and O/C exams. Transit is subject to be fully compliant with civil service law, which is monitored by DCAS (now that Transit administers their own exams). MaBSTOA is not subject to civil service law. They elect to follow something substantially similar but different in some key ways. So anyone on a MaBSTOA list, all the information I've posted about civil service law does not necessarily apply to you. Same goes for anyone on a TA list who accepts appointment to a MaBSTOA position. Because MaBSTOA is not subject to civil service law, the "way things are done" in that agency will benefit MaBSTOA, rest assured, not you. But employment is employment these days... Exactly right . Civil service laws were created to basically give eveyone an equal chance to work for govt without that favoritism card being played . Our mayor bloomberg wants to overhaul this system Which would be a disaster. As it would create unfair advantages to the people in power to hire who ever they want . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayRat1978 Posted October 31, 2011 Share #57 Posted October 31, 2011 My blood pressure (with medication) fluctuates between 120/80 & 130/90. But mt EKGs come out normal anf my blood test showed no problems except for mildly elevated cholesterol I wonder if they would consider that to be unsafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediccjh Posted October 31, 2011 Share #58 Posted October 31, 2011 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locomotion69 Posted October 31, 2011 Share #59 Posted October 31, 2011 I don't see how you would be disqualified. Hypertension is defined as a resting blood pressure above 140/90; I don't know what the MTA standards are. As long its under 130/86 you should be fine for the MTA standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olegkha Posted November 2, 2011 Share #60 Posted November 2, 2011 As long its under 130/86 you should be fine for the MTA standards. 140/90 or down is ok with MTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acela Express Posted November 2, 2011 Share #61 Posted November 2, 2011 140/90 or down is ok with MTA They'll actually OK you with 150, but anything over is instant cutoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainGuy Posted October 16, 2013 Share #62 Posted October 16, 2013 If there is anyone that has experience with the medical exam portion of the hiring process that can please advise on the MTA will respond to somebody with Type II Diabetes that is in control with oral medication? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepurgameup Posted October 27, 2015 Share #63 Posted October 27, 2015 Does MTA inspect your credit history? Can they disqualify you because of your credit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.