Hey, there! Log in / Register
Trolley drivers now oppose cell-phone ban
By adamg on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 4:09pm
Union calls the ban "profoundly unfair", Channel 4 reports. Also unfair, the union says: Always blaming drivers for crashes and not installing fail-safe mechanisms to prevent crashes (such as ones caused by drivers not paying attention because they're on their cell phones?).
Oh, and Aiden Quinn is now officially an ex-MBTA employee.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
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.
Comments
Maybe
They could kill 2 birds with one stone and have a collision alert system text them when they're about to hit something.
Done in One
I don't think we're gonna top that idea. Nice job, DVDWow.
Common Sense
It's true, you shouldn't have to legislate common sense. But when soooo many MBTA bus and subway drivers fail to us it, it becomes necessary. There has to be a reaction by the MBTA to the accident that happened a week ago. They can't say it was just one bad apple since it's so common to see drivers using their cell phones while operating the vehicles.
and now its even worse. On
and now its even worse. On top of talking and texting many cell phones are internet enabled. How many people are reading this blog right now on a cellphone style device? I bet at least one is driving in one form or another.
How about cell phone jammers built into the cab of the train? Feel free to have your phone with you, good luck using it...
Be careful what you wish for.
Some transit systems have unmanned trains with automated fail safe systems.
Against FCC regulations...
Against FCC regulations...
Texting transit trolley tragedy tranny terminated
Texting transit trolley tragedy tranny? Terminated.
PR oops?
As I argued too much here the other day, I believe that banning the carry (not use) of cell phones is a bad idea.
However, the I think union is not in a good PR position on this incident to complain, as they do in this statement, about T management checking off the "operator error" box. Unless the union is planning to mount a credible defense that a grossly negligent union employee was *not* the root cause of this accident.
Yes, it may be that T management was negligent in not using certain technology or in some other way (I don't know), but I suspect that the union is damaging its own reputation with this particular statement right now.
Union provided lawyer?
I'm guessing Quinn's lawyer was provided for by the union. If so, it'd say a lot about why he's suddenly not as willing to speak to NTSB after giving investigators an earful on his apologetically being the proximate cause...but now has had a change of tune. Nope, time to put the system on trial. How could the MBTA have gone so long without installing oh-so-necessary equipment that would have saved a dumbass from hitting the train in front of him even though it was in plain view and all of the signals were operating just fine to tell him to stop.
I wouldn't be surprised if
I wouldn't be surprised if the union has legitimate, long-running complaints with the safety of some things.
But all the public sees right now is a major fudge-up by a union member. Don't throw a brother under the bus (er, bad idiom), but realize you have to back off with such a weak story.
It's not about the job
The reason he's clamming up is because he faces the possibility of criminal charges. His lawyer presumably, and correctly, has advised him that any possible self-incriminating statement he makes to T officials can be used against him in a criminal case. In fact, his attorney has said that if Quinn is assured that no criminal charges will be filed, he will voluntarily submit to questions from T investigators.
The T drivers will quickly
The T drivers will quickly adapt to what we learned in high school -- if it's in your pocket or your bag, nobody will know you have it, hence not getting in trouble for violating the policy.
Sounds like a win
What's the problem there? If they've got to keep it hidden away so nobody knows they have it, then they can't use it. Problem solved.
Exactly. And once the zero
Exactly.
And once the zero tolerance rule is in place, and a few of these a-holes get pictures taken of them talking on their hidden phones and fired, then this crap will stop.
Or the MBTA will re-institute it's no-photography policy.
His lawyer is a private lawyer
Not a private lawyer.
And while standing up for T drivers is not the new Boston thing to do.
A T drivers shift is ten hours long. During those T hours they spend very little time any where near the barn where they start their shift. Their breaks are few and far between. In the old pre cell phone days, family members would call a union office that would relay information to each stop on the drivers route. It did not work very well.
Quinn already broke the rule that drivers are not suppose to use their phones while driving. Lets not punish all the drivers for the mistakes of one new driver.
Call me a waaaaa-mbulance.
Call me a waaaaa-mbulance. When they're 43 and retire (with a full pension! and benefits!), they'll have 47 more years to talk on their cell phone.
Cripes all fricken mighty.
Looking for the payout
I think the carman's union realized that they would be changing their work rules for free. So look for another fight about how T employees will put away their phones on the job only if it's negiotiated (i.e. paid to do so), much like the fire-fighters and drug testing.
Making it a little clearer
From the union's memorandum in the first link, it is clear that the Union knows full well its members should not be using their cellphones while on duty, and would be okay with a ban on employees using or even having the devices on while on duty.
And they do bring up a good point:
If that's the case and T employees have no place to stash their cellphones away while they're on their shift, then there's something unfair about that. In order to fully comply with the rule, T employees would have to leave their cell phones at home. What good's that do at the end of the day when you're off shift?
If the T wants a blanket ban on the devices while on duty, they at least ought to provide employees with a secure place to keep their phones so they can come back for them after the shift. Otherwise it's only going to encourage cellphone smuggling.
The "you can have them but keep them off at all times" rule only works up to a point. I've worked in several offices that had access to very sensitive information. The typical policy is to ban all cell phones, digital cameras, and even iPods (which are pretty much just USB drives anyway) from restricted areas. Even if they're all turned off, because someone could sneak a snapshot of proprietary information or drag 'n drop important files onto their iPod. These businesses gave you your own secure locker to stow your devices outside the restricted areas. I would consider the MBTA trains and tracks a "restricted area" in this case. Not because they could leak information, but because they create a diversion.
But still, people would bring their phones in. And keep them on. And every now and then someone would forget to set the phone to vibrate, and a ringtone would go off, and everybody would point and go "oooooooh" much like they do at drunks getting ejected from Fenway. Official sanctions? Not usually, unless it happened when a suit or similar bigwig was around.
So I can see both sides of the argument here. The T believes that if they let employees keep their cellphones with them on duty "even if they're turned off", there's going to be more Aiden Quinns who don't bother with the whole "turned off" thing. Not all employees will, but some will and that's where the trouble lies. I agree with that. And the union believes that their employees shouldn't be forced to keep their cellphones at home. I agree with that, too.
So I dunno what should happen here.
Good point, Spatch.
This:
articulates the problem perfectly, and the T should really enforce the "no cellphone use while on duty" policy.
Give them alternatives
How about providing terminals and phones where they can check their email and make a call while on break?
How about giving them very
How about giving them very small lockers, say a sq foot, to put things they can't bring with them on a shift?
It'll be a cheap and easy solution.
The best idea yet!!
Bravo, anon (not verified)!
But...
Many drivers have shifts that do not end where they began.
Good idea.
The idea of terminals and phones where MBTA employees can make calls while on their break times is a good one. Email can always wait until they're home, imo.
Not necessarily
Email allows family to send information that they might otherwise send in a text(pick up bread on the way home). Without it, the employee has to call everyone who *might* have sent a message.
None of this would be necessary if they had access to their own stuff on breaks.
Maybe different rules are needed depending on each type of situation. For example, no possession allowed if your breaks are where you start from. If not, you may only carry if they're powered off and you lose the privileged if you're caught with it on. And anyone caught actually using one loses their job.
Barring an extremely DIRE emergency,
I'm with those who advocate strongly enforcing the existing "no cellphone or texting" policy that's in place. The reason that a lot of the laws and policies in the books are such a joke is that the people who make these policies don't bother to really put some teeth into them, and to enforce them, they way they should do.
How about enforcing current regulations?
MBTA drivers are forbidden to use cell phones or to text while driving - period. Here's a novel solution that the private sector uses rather effectively: expect COMPLIANCE with current regulations, and ENFORCE/APPLY consequences when employees break the rules. Word gets around very quickly - when the MBTA starts ENFORCING and following through with current regulations, employees will pay attention and get with the program or get fired.