Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
The Arbitrators who handle the T are morons
I remember that Herald story a few years ago about all the wife-beaters, drunk drivers and other assorted jackasses ordered to be rehired. The whole thing is an embarrassment, and all the good law-abiding T employees should be ashamed of these fools.
Why do they have such morons handling the T in the first place?
The T has no business bringing so-called arbitrators to oversee cases like this. The driver in question had a record of violations, etc. that was at least a mile long (just a way of speaking, folks.) and they had the gall to hire him back, especially since he hit and almost killed somebody while driving an MBTA train? It makes me wonder where people's heads are really at, nowadays. That guy belongs behind bars, and permanently off the job.
This makes the arbitrator
This makes the arbitrator liable no?
FIRE THE ARBITRATOR
Let the arbitrator order the injured back to health. And now schools want kids to be taking MBTA transits to school? Buses constantly late, speeding, and refusing to pick up at multiple stops will result in late arrivals for many classrooms. BAD JOB MBTA!
School Department runs buses for schools
The school department (Boston) operates the buses transporting school kids, and that is under contract to be operated by Veolia Transportation. You may remember City Councilor Charles Yancey called for an investigation of Veolia's labor relations with its union not that long ago.
The problem with school buses being late is that the "new" system which uses geo-locating and routing via a computer program does not always follow human decision-making. Streets that buses used to take to make their routes work via knowledge of the city was taken out of the equation. The drivers now must follow the routes given to them or face penalties.
The MBTA still operates "school routes" but does not call them that. They cannot tag them as school buses because of contractual agreements between the MBTA, private carriers, and unions. However, the T does have morning and afternoon special routes that deviate from the norm and clearly accommodate school kids. For example, there is one that departs Latin, runs the 39 to Forest hills, then becomes a 32. Another starts at Cm (West Rox) and operates as a 36 till it gets to Roslindale Sq, then runs the 30 to Mattapan station. And at least one 16 runs Forest Hills to Uphams corner, then goes down Dudley St to Dudley station. These are clearly marked as "routes that do not operate when school is not in session."
Sending some kids on MBTA buses may alleviate some traffic in a few places. A lot already do that now, especially some kids that are in extended after school programming.
As to MBTA buses not picking up - I hear you on that one, but often it is because the bus is already at or over capacity and they cannot get more people on. There have been some experiments at some stations to move people part-way at rush hour. I have picked up a 34 at Forest Hills that was only going as far as Roslindale Sq then coming back to relieve the crowd.
I don't think opening the T
I don't think opening the T school runs to the public was a labor contract issue. I think it was a requirement for federal funding.
What's so wrong about kids taking the MBTA to school?
Granted, there are things wrong with the MBTA's policies that're badly in need of changing, but, from what I remember, prior to mandatory school busing here in Boston, plenty of kids, especially high school kids did take the MBTA to school. Boston, imho, is a small enough city so that kids could've gotten to school via public transportation, or perhaps even walked to the schools to which they were assigned when they were desegregated, without the use of mandatory school busing. Thanks to the stupid-assed, vicious political posturing of (the late) Louise Days Hicks and all her cronies on the Boston School Committee, however, there was no choice but to have the Federal District Court implement a large-scale cross-city mandatory school busing program, that basically satisfied almost nobody.
I'll also add that my mom, who was born and raised in New York City (namely Brooklyn and Manhattan) and attended the High School of Music and Arts, used to ride the subway train(s) for an hour to get to and from her high school, and New York is a much, much bigger city, yet.
This dates me but, prior to
This dates me but, prior to busing, my friends and I took the T from the Beech St. Projects in Roslindale to Girls' Latin School in Codman Square. We took a bus down Washington to Forest Hills, the old elevated train to Dudley and then a bus to Codman Square, or as close to it as we could get. We did this every school day, an hour each way, usually standing up and carrying a humungous pile of books (before non-hikers wore backpacks). And, we didn't raise a ruckus on the T either because, if we did, we'd be thrown off the bus or train, be late for school and get in trouble later on with our parents later on.
Most middle and high schoolers are more than capable of taking public transportation, even today.
Not just the arbitrators, the whole system needs to be revamped
It's not just the arbitrators, but the entire arbitration system under state law.
When the arbitration statutes were written, they were designed to keep cases out of the court system. Accordingly, the statutes were written so as to make it difficult to get an arbitrator's decision overturned in court (if it was easy, all of the cases would just end up back in the court system on appeal anyway). Unfortunately, the appellate courts have interpreted the statute to make it virtually impossible to overturn an arbitrators decision.
This balance is way off. I have personally been involved with some arbitration proceedings wherein a fired employee was returned to service. I cannot discuss the things that the employee actually admitted to doing, but suffice it to say that it would have been an arrestable offense in many situations. The arbitrator returned the employee to service with back pay (2.5 years worth) and a "missed" promotion because the conduct he admitted to was not specifically prohibited by his contract (think about how many things you would have to specifically prohibit using this line of reasoning).
The case was appealed to the Superior Court (where the judge wrote a scathing opinion to the tune of "how dare you appeal an arbitrator's decision"). We appealed further to the appeals court, which, to its credit, recognized that the dicta in the Superior Court's decision was out of line and that the conduct of the employee was beyond reprehensible, but (probably correctly) noted that its hands were tied by the statute, and called on the legislature to revisit it.
The legislature, as ever, has done nothing to rectify the situation.
Who are the arbitrators? When
Who are the arbitrators? When a judge makes a ruling it's public, but no one has named the arbitrator and it seems like that's the person to blame here
a bit of bias there
So, you were in management. The union took [whoever] to arbitration and won, so arbitration is bad.
I give you this much, at least you understand arbitration. I'm willing to bet most of the people griping here wouldn't understand the arbitration process at all. As for the appeals courts, like any appeal, you would have to prove that there was an error in application to the law (or contract), not an erroneous decision. Same as civil law, same as criminal.
And yes, I do have a bias towards the "non-management" side, but I know that it's a third party making the decision, so the best argument should win.
Wrong standard
The standard for overturning an arbitral award is "manifest disregard of the law" which is nothing like that applied to any civil or criminal case. It means that the arbitrator must manifestly understand the law and then disregard it. Mere erroneous application of the law is insufficient. It is a rediculous standard. As for the "choice" to send these cases to arbitration it is mandated by the union contract (all arbitration is contractual). The idea is that the parties have agreed to avoid court an leave their fate to the hands of a third party. The problem is the qualification and predisposition of the arbitrators. Personally, I would cut the arbitration clauses out of these agreements all together.
No lawyer here
My bad.
The key is the arbitrators. Again, I don't know the MBTA system, but in some systems the arbitrator is picked by mutual consent. I don't see arbitration going away. The system up to arbitration is tilted way towards the management. You need an impartial third party. Both sides should be checking the track record of the arbitrators when choosing (if they aren't in a system of appointed arbitrators).
Thanks, Union!
Blame the arbitrator, but also blame the union that brought the grievance. Defending workers' rights at all costs!
This bum
will be back on the job in 2 months, Unions in this country need to be put in check!
Fighting for workers rights (its not the 19th century) is not the same as defending someone who is a harassed to the public and himself.
Yeah, it's not the 19th Century!
I mean, jeesh, who needs self representation in the work place these days, when employers have become so enlightened and progressive--so twenty-first century! Just ask any contingent employee, H1B visa holder, or adjunct faculty member.
In my industry, the employers are just begging us to take a living wage and decent working conditions. And I'm sure its the same everywhere else as well. Why, things are so good, why do we need any employment laws at all?
"And I'm sure its the same
"And I'm sure its the same everywhere "
Actually, it's not the same everywhere. Not all corporations and businesses are evil to their employees. I've no complaints and many of my friends and family are very happy where they are.
Someone needs to calibrate
Someone needs to calibrate their sarcasm detector.
Congratulations on coming
Congratulations on coming from a higher class of society than most people.
I disagree with your generalizations about unions, anon.
Granted, not all unions are good, and there are some that're quite backward, corrupt and just plain lousy, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist. The past 40 years or so, contrary to what you and many other people believe, is that unions in the country have been ham-strung and undermined, rendering unions less affective in protecting workers' rights than they once were.
I'll also add that this:
is the same as fighting for workers' rights. Defending a worker's right not to be harassed, is precisely that; fighting for workers' rights.
Can't blame the union
If the union turned its back on a member, then what use is the union to its members? Why would any member want to join a union that won't defend them when they need it? The union absolutely should have gone to bat for this guy, just like we need solid defense attorneys willing to defend even the accused pot dealer who decides it's a good idea to show up in court with a joint behind his ear. If that guy walks because the judge is inept, you don't blame the defense attorney for showing up.
It's why we have a court/arbitration system. To sort out whether the offense rose to whatever level is contracted and whether the union member is being treated fairly by their employer.
Calm down people, and read the story
The driver was not at fault in the incident. The injured admits that she did something to cause it, and she said the driver was helpful. His offense was not reporting the incident. There was a police report.
Now, I'm not an arbitrator, but for a first offense (with the T) I could not see this as a fireable offense. Worth a discipline? Yes, no doubt. A few days suspension? I could see it. But firing someone for not reporting something that the T Police already had a police report on? Come on, if not for this mess now no one, and I mean no one, would care about the fact that he got his job back.
I don't buy that.
What do you mean the driver wasn't at fault? The driver could've slowed way the hell down ahead of time, or he should've been driving slowly enough so that he could avoid hitting that person. I don't buy into the notion that the driver wasn't at fault for this incident.
Not at fault
The driver is not at fault when somebody bends over into the path of the train as the train arrives, past the yellow line.
Or maybe she drifted into it if you get the drift.
He's totally at fault
He should have swerved to avoid her.
No, I'm not serious.
You know what is unacceptable?
That he didn't immediately call for professional help to assist the woman. That should be at least worth a reprimand. You don't "treat" a head injury like that. Ever.
First responders responded
Again, all I have to work on is what WBZ tells us. If the T Police decided not to call for an ambulance, well, I don't get that. How were the T Police summoned. Of course he called it in, he just didn't make a report of it.
And again, I wouldn't say that failing to follow proper procedure in a situation like this shouldn't be punished, just that my knowledge of "progressive discipline" makes me think that the T overreached in this case. If they did the right thing and suspended him, we would have read about the suspension and another conversation would be going on here. The firing was a losing case. To be honest, I'm surprised the T didn't try to cut a deal with him if they really didn't want him on the job. But there was no deal, apparently a weak case for termination, and we know the rest.
Even an at will employee can sue for wrongful termination. The unions just have a process that keeps it out of the courts. If people want to hate in the earlier case, hate on management.
Really?
A creeper on the train was about to take a picture up her skirt, but used his smartphone to call 911 first as a courtesy....come on, buddy.
A trolley cracks someone in the head and the driver jumps off and escorts the victim onto the train and you don't think anyone calls for help?
So it was reported
Someone else at the T knew about it. Also, it means that the most important thing in the incident, that the injured was treated, happened.
Look, I'm not saying it was okay that he didn't make a report. I am saying that the police determined, and the injured party agrees, that he wasn't to blame. I am also saying, and I am guessing that the arbitrator agrees (since the T isn't releasing the arbitration decision, I can only guess,) that the guy didn't deserve to be fired for it.
Now, should he be fired for derailing a train while speeding into a wall Snafuing the Green Line for a day? Most likely. But that doesn't mean that the last, and seemingly only, incident this guy had on his record means that he was definitely a danger. It's Monday Morning Quarterbacking to go "oh, his trolley hit a girl that suddenly walked into his path so we should have seen that he was a speed demon." Now, his driving record while off duty, that should have been a red flag. Thank the T for starting to look at driving records only after 2009.
By the way, I've heard that one doesn't even need a driver's license to drive a trolley. A holdover from the pre-automobile era no doubt.
Correct
You technically don't even need a license to drive a trolley bus on the 71/73/77 routes.
Exactly correct Waquiot
The Transit Police were summoned, got aid for the woman, investigated the incident, and then filed a report, which presumably included the name and badge number of the train operator. Yet, the micro-managers at the MBTA have a bureaucratic rule that states, under the circumstances of an accident (however minor and/or where the operator isn't at fault - as in this case) in which the Transit Police respond, the train operator must also file a report on the same incident.
If the operator struck the woman, didn't summon help, then kept on going, and failed to file a report, I could see management's justification for immediately firing him. But, given the circumstances of the BC Line incident, I think I'm beginning to understand why the union was able to file a grievance, and why the arbitrator ultimately sided with the union.
Of course, it would help if the relevant information regarding the arbitrator's decision, such as the union's arguments and the arbitrator's rationale for said decision, was actually made public. Then again, that would deflate the "shock horror" value of the story.
It's a basic rule for *any*
It's a basic rule for *any* job: if something goes wrong, tell your manager.
A train hitting someone in the head certainly qualifies.
He was at fault for how he handled it
1) He should have reported it when it happened.
2) He should have called for 911 to check the woman out, not helped her stand up and climb onto the train.
If the MBTA has it in their contract that failure to report an incident is a fireable offense, then they did the right thing.
"If not for this mess now"...well, considering his prior probability of having an accident (poor driving record, hitting a pedestrian at a station, not following the rules...), the problem is that getting his job back led to this accident which would have been avoided had he not been given his job back. When it's pretty inevitable that something has a high probability of causing harm, people care about the proximate knowable causes. Risk prevention/mitigation is real and people care about it.
So, your statement is useless as well as just plain wrong. If not for the explosion of the Space Shuttle, no one would have cared that the O-rings might fail on launch. If not for the tremendous loss of life and property, no one would have cared if Bush was informed that an attack by Osama was imminent. If not for the marathon bombing, nobody would care about the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers were experimenting with pressure cookers, ball bearings, and black powder.
What does the union contract say, exactly?
My guess is that you know as much as I do about that. Of course, my guess is that the reporting of an incident is a work rule, and I won't deny he violated it. I won't deny that he deserved to be disciplined. If you can show me where, in the union contract, it says that failure to report an incident is an offense that results in termination, I will humbly note my error. However, knowing labor relations enough, I doubt it is there. And I doubt you know what happens when one makes an assumption of that nature.
The earlier incident has absolutely no bearing on this current case. There was no allegation of speeding. The pedestrian and police concluded that it wasn't his fault. His previous, off duty, driving record wasn't an issue (whether it should have been when he was hired is not debatable- it should have been but wasn't.)
Your comparison to the Challenger accident is SO off the mark. That's engineering failure. If the engineer who designed the O rings also got into a fistfight with a co-worker 5 years earlier, that fact would have no bearing on the poor design. The Tsarnaev brothers liked smoking pot. Does that mean that a permissive view of marijuana caused the bombings? Or that smoking pot causes people to want to kill innocent people? Hell no, but with your logic it does.
In short, guy gets fired for a procedural thing and an independent arbitrator calls bullshit on that. Procedure involved an incident he was not at fault for. Guy causes a crash (allegedly) years later and now everyone wants arbitration abolished, along with unions, because of the procedural thing.