How 2 M.T.A. Decisions Pushed the Subway Into Crisis

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, CenSin said:

правда ← no Russian language skills required to read

 

You can't expect much from someone that doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". 

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, I Run Trains said:

If you say so, But Dont assume when you don't know exactly what it is or know the job! 

That may be true, but if people look out the window (or across the platform) and always see people not doing anything, it kind of leaves an impression of workers not doing anything. Common folks may not know what exactly needs to be done, but it ain’t sitting there breathing air.

My boss will make a lot of passes around the area throughout the day checking up on employees working in different rooms. Sometimes she will see me on websites that are obviously not for work. Now, if she observes some kind of pattern—like visiting the site only around lunch time, it could be dismissed. But if her random sweeps catch me not working, statistically speaking, she can have very high confidence that I am probably doing more play than work throughout the day. Human minds are unreliable, and so impressions can be corrupted or altered by mere suggestion. My boss will occasionally go over my workload and responsibilities just to make sure things are alright and that her subjective impression isn’t fooling her.

Perhaps all of these inquiries and motions for accountability will dig up more. (It already has.) And there may be good reasons. But people are mentally tallying the number of time times they see workers taking breaks, and the break-to-work ratio is looking pretty high to most of us. Maybe the MTA should show the public why it does things the way it does (union rules, state laws, specific safety requirements and precedents, common sense specific to the construction field, etc.) and the court of public opinion may change.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 minutes ago, CenSin said:

That may be true, but if people look out the window (or across the platform) and always see people not doing anything, it kind of leaves an impression of workers not doing anything. Common folks may not know what exactly needs to be done, but it ain’t sitting there breathing air.

My boss will make a lot of passes around the area throughout the day checking up on employees working in different rooms. Sometimes she will see me on websites that are obviously not for work. Now, if she observes some kind of pattern—like visiting the site only around lunch time, it could be dismissed. But if her random sweeps catch me not working, statistically speaking, she can have very high confidence that I am probably doing more play than work throughout the day. Human minds are unreliable, and so impressions can be corrupted or altered by mere suggestion. My boss will occasionally go over my workload and responsibilities just to make sure things are alright and that her subjective impression isn’t fooling her.

Perhaps all of these inquiries and motions for accountability will dig up more. (It already has.) And there may be good reasons. But people are mentally tallying the number of time times they see workers taking breaks, and the break-to-work ratio is looking pretty high to most of us. Maybe the MTA should show the public why it does things the way it does (union rules, state laws, specific safety requirements and precedents common sense specific to the construction field, etc.) and the court of public opinion may change.

The riding public is not that stupid and none of the work being done is that complex, but they'll keep saying that over and over because they want us to believe the BS they're trying to pass. I agree though, if the  really wants perceptions to change, they'd be more forthcoming about how things are done.

[I Run Trains]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It's ok. I know the truth hurts. 

trust me! nothing coming from YOU hurts ME!

[RR503]

2 hours ago, I Run Trains said:

sorry pal... don't feel like reading you're essay.. its probably meaningless to me like most of you're post! lol

You know, he can be annoying, but I think he's right here. It's not just a truth of rider anecdotes that MTA contractors are frequently of questionable compotence -- I recall an article stating we hire corrupt ones intentionally a few months back. Some sort of rehab program. These contractors, many of whom are terrible at coordination create situations like those documented in this article, which not only unecessarily inconveniences riders in the immediate sense, but also leads to a need for more service changes down the road as lost productivity is made up for.

Even when we have compotent contractors doing things when they're supposed to, though, shit costs more. The MTA has all sorts of rules about minumum work crew size which inflates the tab that needs to be covered by the agency, has an extremely opaque service change review process that makes work scheduling unpredictable, and is seemingly unable to let contractors do their jobs, requiring a plethora of consultants and supervisors to be monitoring/(re)designing the work even after construction has started.

So I guess the point I'm getting at is that we really should be looking at more than just up-front cost when it comes to contractors. The MTA is more than just a profit machine, thus non-monetary metrics (for example, schedule track record with similar projects) should be looked at also. 

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

Until supervision starts cracking down on Track Workers who don't work, this will continue indefinitely. Going to McDonald's because things are slow that day? Some of these stories are unbelievable.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

18 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Until supervision starts cracking down on Track Workers who don't work, this will continue indefinitely. Going to McDonald's because things are slow that day? Some of these stories are unbelievable.

Why not?  They're on the clock, so they don't care. 

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

4 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Why not?  They're on the clock, so they don't care. 

In my opinion, if you were to knowingly desert your duties to escape working while being on the clock, you're not only sucking your employer dry, but you'd also be subject to a felony. I don't play games when it comes to this stuff. Finding a job is difficult enough, but when you have one with security, comprehensive health benefits all on top of an hourly-wage second to none for the title in question, you better guard it like a precious jewel.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

In my opinion, if you were to knowingly desert your duties to escape working while being on the clock, you're not only sucking your employer dry, but you'd also be subject to a felony. I don't play games when it comes to this stuff. Finding a job is difficult enough, but when you have one with security, comprehensive health benefits all on top of an hourly-wage second to none for the title in question, you better guard it like a precious jewel.

It's the job security that allows for such things to happen in the first place.  

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It's the job security that allows for such things to happen in the first place.  

I've been union. I and my folks may have hated the job, but we'd never pull this kind of stunt.

It's ethics - personal and organizational. People who want that paycheck will follow the rules to keep it. If they're pulling these kinds of stunts, it's because the management and c-levels pull these stunts.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I've been union. I and my folks may have hated the job, but we'd never pull this kind of stunt.

It's ethics - personal and organizational. People who want that paycheck will follow the rules to keep it. If they're pulling these kinds of stunts, it's because the management and c-levels pull these stunts.

Of course. My second summer interning at the  down at 330 Jay Street, I had a boss who did NOTHING.  He'd come out in the morning, maybe give us some work to do, then go back in his office and you wouldn't see him until either lunch or towards the end of the day. I have no idea what he did, but I can't recall ever seeing him do work.  My first boss by comparison was a bit more active work wise, but the way the  works is, nobody does more than the job requires. If you actually show that you give a damn, you'll quickly learn that none of that matters, so you do your job and nothing more.  That's exactly how it works, so why bother when no one is going to care anyway?  I learned that quickly and that was first office job at 15-16 years old.  That just leads to what we see now. People trying to do the least amount of work possible.  These contractors know the deal. Unless they're being watched like hawks, they take advantage, and who is going to stop them?