Man, and just as he was pulling into the station

WHDH reports an MBTA inspector is charged with having sex at Ashmont station while on duty yesterday.

The woman whom he was allegedly inspecting in his T vehicle denied she was a prostitute but allowed as how "she needed money for her hair," WHDH reports.



Free tagging: 


Nothing New.

One old lady once commented to me a number of years back on the number of couples "courting" in a parking lot near the station. Once I told her of what was going on her perspective changed and the parking lot was gated and lit.


By on

Having sex is not a crime, even on duty. Its not exactly professional but not really a fire-able offense.

And what does this have to do with fare increase? Zippo.

If you

By on

If you were caught having sex on the job with a prostitute would you be fired?

If someone was able to

By on

If someone was able to observe the sexual act, it is a crime. Where did the act happen? If it was in an MBTA vehicle, or on T property, it must violate some policy. Unless this inspector was on break, he did violate a policy. I don't think anyone gets fired from the T, so I'm sure he's safe.


By on

Can you cite your source please?

Curious to know where in the MBTA handbook it says "no sex on the job on mbta vehicles".

I worked for a porno company and we never even had such clauses in our handbook, I doubt the T would have something like that either. Actually I've NEVER worked at a company that had no such rule outside of the standard sexual harassment training stuff. (which btw, my porno company, was a total joke)

Not a fire-able offense?

By on

Maybe not in the world of Union hacks. But believe me, if i was caught fucking a hooker in my office i would be packing my shit up effective immediately.

"It must violate some policy"

By on

"It must violate some policy" was my comment, I obviously have no source. I highly doubt a handbook will have the words "no sex on the job", but I will bet the act violates some policy.
The guy is suspended, so he did something wrong.


By on

if you doing anything during working hours that your employer deems not part of your job description, you can get in trouble. I would think having sex, during your 9-5, would most likely be something that is not found in one's job description.

It is pretty much an accepted work place no-no.

No specific policy

You know, I just checked our employee manual, and there's no specific policy against urinating on the customer. Odd omission, that, eh?

Typically most employee

By on

Typically most employee handbooks have morality/ethical or professionalism clauses.

Yeah, but

By on

I worked for a porno company and we never even had such clauses in our handbook

Ok, but at a porno company, the job for the on-camera talent is to have sex at work. For anybody else though, probably not, donchathink?

And I'm pretty sure that if the porno company wanted to get rid of you, for whatever reason, they likely could, within what is allowed by law. and that's still pretty broad.

Could you repeat that?

By on

I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you over the bloviating anti-union yelling happening elsewhere in the thread.

Possession of drugs

Having sex isn't a crime. Possession of drugs is. The police claim to have found found a bunch of pills in the vehicle for which he could not produce a valid prescription.

Solicitation of prostitution is also a crime, but I'm not sure how they'd make that one stick unless he either admitted to it at the time of his arrest, they caught him outright exchanging sex for money, or the woman confessed to taking money from him for sex. (Didn't they recently bump solicitation up to a felony in this state, ostensibly to try to fight human trafficking?)

Depending on how visible his vehicle was to passers-by, having sex in it may also be "open and gross lewdness."


By on

But plain old sex isn't a crime. :)


By on

I actually pulled out my company handbook to read what it says (no, I don't work for porno company anymore)

No where does it say that. Actually says zippo, except where it needs to be under sexual harassment (which is mostly 'unwanted' advance kinda stuff) and a clause about fraternization of fellow employees (which means 'date'). But zippo about sex.

its a very grey area.. very gray. Of course, the actual sex he would not be fired for. but goofing off and not doing their job, absolutely.

So you can do ANYTHING

By on

So you can do ANYTHING you want at work and as long as it's not an actual crime or it's not forbidden in your company's handbook?? Wow. You must live in a fascinating universe!

I'm sure it's not the case for the MBTA employee, but most of us in MA are employees at will, meaning we can be fired without notice for any or no reason.

I think, cybah,

By on

that you should try to have sex on your job, in a place where you may be caught, and see how your employer feels about that. And, heck, let us know? Thanks.

"Conduct unbecomming"

Is the standard verbage for police contracts. Basically if you do something that a normal person would consider to be offensive or not condusive to the workplace you can be disciplined. Im sure the T has similar language for their employees.

George Costanza

By on

was fired for having sex in his office with the cleaning woman.

26 year employee.

By on

He could have and probably should have retired 3 years ago.

Reminds me

By on

Of a childish joke about a kid sleeping in bed with his parents, and the punch line goes like:

"Mommy, Mommy turn on your head lights, daddy's train is trying to go into your tunnel!"

(If you know the joke, you're probably on the floor laughing right now.. for other, tell me and I'll write out the entire joke)

Not so much of an "old" joke ...

... but one of those jokes that seems to live in, perpetuate in, and forever remain in, a middle-school environment.

I'd like to say that I haven't heard it in 35 years ... except my kids picked it up in 6th grade.

It's not the sex act that wil likely get

By on

this guy fired. It's the needless black mark against the agency as a whole because some news organization obsessed with maximizing ratings (and, thus, profits) decided it was worthy of a headline story that will.

Not defending the guy's actions, but if this is what passes for a news story worthy of coverage these days, IMO there's something seriously wrong with our society.

What isn't news these days!?!

By on

What isn't news these days!?!
People are interested in this story, tax dollars fund the MBTA. MBTA wants to raise rates to pay for projects, pensions etc. People should know that this is what T inspectors are doing.

Yes. Because "shock horror" reporting

By on

about the actions of ONE employee will magically solve the MBTA's legislative and financial problems in one fell swoop.

Personally, I could care less about stories like these and wish the media would legitimately raise public awareness by investigating real and practical solutions to the serious problems the MBTA continues to face. That's the only way we'll effect real and lasting changes, not by focusing on "shock horror" stories that only serve for a quick ratings boost.

Sad that most people think it's OK for the private media to report "news" by rehashing Twitter feeds and reporting established facts as "alleged" (the Glob(e) is notorious for this) instead of actually doing real journalism.

I don't find this to be a

By on

I don't find this to be a "shock horror" story. My fear is that incidents like this are not few and far between on the MBTA. The trolley driver who crashed (with the awful driving record), the guy caught sleeping, the txt and driving bus operators.
I wish the MBTA would investigate and come up with real and practical solutions to the serious problems the MBTA continues to face. Until then, the only way people are made aware of the MBTA issues is through MBTA patrons and the media.

In my limited experience

By on

In my limited experience dealing with inspectors, they seem to be bus drivers and train operators who have been promoted because they shouldn't be on the road or dealing with the public.