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
???
Voice-over says first offense punishable by a 10-day suspension. Voice is talking over image of a sign saying first offense punishable by a 30-day suspension. Who we gonna believe, her or our own lyin' eyes?
It's possession vs. actual use
Possessing a cell phone is punishable by a 10-day suspension. However, actually using a cell phone is punishable by a 30-day suspension, with a recommendation for termination.
Would be nice
It would be nice to know the outcome of the MBTA's investigation. I just don't want the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction too far now as we overreact and fire people for something like this. It's pretty clear he's on a break in a parking lot. While I recognize that's against policy anyways, I hope it's reason to hit him with the 10 day "carrying a cell phone" penalty (what the hell was he thinking?) and not the firing.
There's a difference I see between borrowing a passenger's phone and stopping in the *middle* of your route to delay the run while you make a call. That's just completely unethical when your job is simple: drive, collect fares, be on schedule...and you break 2 of those while you make a phone call.
So long as this current guy didn't miss schedule because of this, then he was covering the basics but never should have had the phone on him to begin with because of the new policy. In my book, that's 10 days suspended and don't do it again.
agreed, but I think the
agreed, but I think the amazing thing about this, and the posters main point, is that the T workers still don't take it seriously that they will be caught. I think this is because for most city and state workers, they are asked to do very little for great benefits (pension, overtime, health care) and even still it seems getting them to perform what little is asked is difficult. Beyond that, when they get caught not working or doing something unethical or illegal, it is only if the police or FBI are involved do they lose their jobs. How many times have we heard of firefighters calling in sick en mass on holidays, or city employees not showing up for work, and they are never fired as they would in a real company.
So, its only logical that the T workers wouldn't think they have to actually stop talking on the cell phone at work (of course the customer service agents still spend their whole shift on the phone) because it is so rare that the city and state actually enforce their work rules with punishment. Maybe the T is different now, that would be great.
A little spiteful, maybe?
I've seen drivers on their cel phones and smoking ciggies on their breaks near Oak Grove Cemetary in Medford. So what? So long as the cigarettes and phones are put away before the driver gets on the bus and the route starts on time, why should I care?
I think the person taking the video is being a bit spiteful here. Makes me wonder if it was a set up by somebody with a grudge or something.
BTW, I would love it if they went out on a rainy day and cracked down on drivers smoking ON THE BUSES on their breaks at Sullivan Station. That's been a T rule for a long time and it is totally disgusting.
Meh
You know, I don't really have a problem with bus drivers talking on the phone when they're NOT DRIVING. It's only when I'm worried about them crashing my lazy ass that I have an issue with cell phones.
Problem is having a phone
Problem is having a phone handy will be too much temptation for 90% of those and will lead to using them while driving.
hence the zero tolerance policy.
If it's important, then dispatch will patch you through and make arrangements for you to leave your post.
otherwise, do you job and use your phone when you're off duty.
How Long?
How long will it be before Local 589 puts pressure on MBTA Transit Police to change their Photography Policy [pdf] to protect drivers?
How long will it take for the public to realize that currently, policy violating T drivers can compel the very people documenting their career-ending bad behavior, to produce identification so their name, address, and birthdate can be recorded?
Chilling?
Alarming?
Shocking?
Yeah, the drivers are scared
I had a bus driver tell me the other day "Well it's OK for you guys to have cameras and take pictures, and if you take pictures of us we can make you provide identification and then sue you."
Just a note: I was standing in Copley square taking a picture of the Hancock building.
I laughed and cried a little on the inside. It was too ridiculous.
The policy was stupid from
The policy was stupid from the start (as I argued on UH). Stupid begets stupid.
Separately, you need to talk to a reporter about that interaction with MBTA personnel. Security powers being abused to intimidate and thwart actual public safety and accountability.
Just walk away. They can
Just walk away.
They can refuse to provide you service, threaten to call the cops, ect; but they have no authority to detain you.
I'm sure threatening a customer in such a manor is also against policy. I would have asked for their badge number immediately and told them they're getting reported for harassment and threatening a customer.
I don't see how that policy
I don't see how that policy could hold up in court, since it's not illegal to take pictures of anything you wish as long as you're in a public space, which the MBTA is.
Corporate not Public
Speaking of the Port Authority of NJ & NY (PA) and NYC's MTA, a probable transit cop says:
As is the case with an increasing portion of government, the MBTA is an Authority or "a body politic and corporate, and a political subdivision" of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts[9].
The choice of this model is predicated on the notion that if "government were run like a business" political meddling would be minimized and such a quasi-public enterprise could be financially autonomous. (This structure may also serve as part of the bizarre excuse for public sector unions to guard against the predations of government appointed non-exploitive, non-profit-seeking, non-competing, non-capitalists.)
Hey Tape....the MBTA is
Hey Tape....the MBTA is private property!
I suspect it comes down to management/HR
One perspective on the default theory is that the MBTA sometimes places as operators people with disturbingly poor discipline for observing policies and procedures.
An alternative theory: perhaps the MBTA was unclear internally, such as a supervisor telling operators something different than what we laypeople reading the news heard about the policy.
I've seen the MBTA make some atrocious decisions in who they place in customer service roles. If they're willing to place a person who can't think or communicate clearly in a customer-facing role (pro tip: the incompetent tend to be especially quick to assume that *others* are wrong or stupid), who's to say that the MBTA didn't also place a mind-bogglingly incompetent supervisor or two?
The common theme in these theories is the MBTA sometimes placing someone in a position for which they are incompetent.
If so, why? For example, the majority of MBTA operators I've seen seem to take their work seriously and do it competently, so the organization does have a baseline that could be used to identify lesser operators.
The MBTA sent out the policy
The MBTA sent out the policy in letters to all their employee and had them sign and return them.
If an employee is to stupid to understand the zero tolerance policy written out in plain English signed and returned, then how the hell are they capibile of driving several tons of equipment with people inside.
Sorry, but these people know the rules and think they won't get caught. There's plenty of other in the hiring lottery waiting for their jobs that will follow the safety rules.
Thank you for being a
Thank you for being a grown-up.
Just a thought here
Perhaps drivers would be less willing to risk violating the no phone rule if the MBTA released their names to the press along with the survellance videos when these incidents arise.
If the threat of termination isn't deterring these folks from acting stupid, perhaps having their names displayed in the Herald might. Given the numer of reported incidents thus far, they could even do a weekly roll call.
If penalties from 10-day suspension up to termination...
...in this economy isn't deterrence enough, I don't think that adding additional penalties will change behavior.
Publishing names just exposes the MBTA to lawsuits when the person can't find another job.
Seems to me that publishing the name of a person
in a safety sensitive position who gets fired for knowingly violating a rule punishible by termination makes it far less likely that they'll be able to get away with covering the facts up (such as mis-representing their previous employment) when interviewing with future prospective employers.
How is this bad again? Oh yes, because those few people who willingly ignore rules and are caught have more rights than the majority who follow the rules do.
Not sure where the "more rights" comes in
The liability angle: The rule against *carrying* a cellphone appears to be asinine PR butt-covering, not so much about safety. Likewise with, say, use while on break. The entire policy is tainted by this. I suggest that makes a violation a personnel matter. Publicly smear the reputation of a former employee on a personnel matter, and I think you should expect a lawsuit.
The public good angle: Someone terminated from employ as an MBTA operator is going to have a hard enough time finding a job safety-sensitive enough that they actually do any any degree of due diligence or background check. No sense blackballing him/her out of pretty much all work, especially when work is already hard to come by.
Nobody "needs" a cell phone
For a very, very long time... thousands of years... people managed, somehow, to get along without having communicators in their pockets and douchetooth thingys hanging from their ears. Somehow, I think the world, including MBTA employees, can survive just fine with this arrangement... because they cannot all be trusted not to be idiots, and they've got other people's lives in their hands.
Seems reasonable, considering what's at stake.
I think I made all my arguments before
The rule that prohibits even carrying a powered-off phone in a bag constitutes a BS way to treat employees from whom you need a high degree of professionalism. The rule sends the wrong message, and suggests dysfunctional management. IMHO.
You have made those arguments before.
I do not agree with them.
Also when i have staff again they won't be allowed to twitter, tweet, bleat, rumble, facebook, or jack off on company time.
my shop, my rules.
They are CLEARLY not capable of carrying powered-off phones in bags without being tempted to use them, and then succumbing to that temptation. As a manager, that's really all I need to now.
This is a different class of working animal that you're dealing with. They just want their damn money and don't care how they do their jobs. In the presence of such a creature, sometimes extreme measures are needed to maintain order. They can't be reasoned with... that went out the window when grievances were invented.
screwups
I have seen many T operators who take their jobs seriously. They do exist.
When management puts screwups in positions that can't tolerate screwups, then management are also screwups.
When management ruins their own credibility and employee morale with their non-screwup people by treating everyone like screwups who shouldn't be there in the first place, then management are again the screwups.
I'm being a little harsh, since much of current management inherited a good number of screwups in positions they should not be. But there are better ways to do housecleaning than to torch the place.
torching the place?
making rules that help keep people safe is far from "Torching the place"
puhleeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeee
Did you know that employees at casinos and other sensitive operations, including some high tech companies, have to carry their personal stuff in and out in clear bags?
Very high-paid workers at some of these same firms aren't allowed to have cell phones in the office.
Those places aren't torched. They're thriving. Rules? why? Sometimes to protect mere trade secrets, other times because the government forces them to. I don't think I've heard a lot of squealing from that sector about the "right to text" and somehow those firms are doing fine (keeping in mind the downturn in casino business has nothing to do with the clear baggie policy).
It does make you wonder
If they can't follow a simple rule like don't bring the cell phone...
What other rules are they not following?
It seems possible that firing the jokers who can't be bothered to follow this rule might make travelers safer, because if they think they're too good for this rule, what else do they think they're too good for? Red lights? Turn signals? Lane markers?
There might not be enough workers left...
... if they fired the jokers on staff who don't follow rules.
As has been noted, the union will protect them. They don't take orders from T management, they do what they decide to do.
Of course there are good people working there, but that doesn't matter a whole bunch in terms of policymaking since polices are not made for the "good" people in the organization - they'd do the right thing even if there weren't strict rules. The rules are exactly there because an apparently large number of workers can't be relied on to do the right thing otherwise.
Union mentality?
I'm guessing it's the union mentality that makes them ignore the cell phone policy. Whatever happens to them, the union will protect them, and they can continue with their job.
Good analysis, Neil V.
Your points are well taken. However, consider this. An adult who becomes involved in a car accident through no fault of their own is ALWAYS mentioned by name in the State Police press release (and thus in the press story), yet a public agency worker who KNOWINGLY VIOLATES an established work rule is not identified when the incident is reported in the press story - even when they print a photo of the operator. This is the type of discrepancy in reporting that prompted my "more rights" comment.
Also note that since the T enacted their cell phone ban, the state Department of Public Utilities has since implemented a regulation prohibiting cell phone use by bus and subway operators, ferry boat captains, etc. working for any transit agency, not just the MBTA. So violation of the rule is no longer just a T personnel matter, but is now a violation of a state regulation as well.
Bah
Sorry, I was waffling between conceding and not. I think most of my argument still stands despite the good points you make, but I've already thrown too much of my meager social capital behind a relatively unimportant battle. (And also, an MBTA CSA was rude to me this week.) No contest.
This isn't rocket science
There's a policy, it's about as clear as one can be in terms of linking specific conduct to specific consequences, and there you have it. The fact that some T workers apparently regard safety-related policies as being flexible as applied to their own conduct is very troubling.
Yes, it's possible that the policy is overly strict, in effect making everyone pay for the stupidity and negligence of the few. If so, at least T workers have the option of raising this issue in collective bargaining. Whether T management will budge is subject to the whims of whether this remains a hot button issue...
Stupidity of the few?
While I agree that it may seem to be overly strict, I think the fact that so many are getting caught violating this new policy shows that there are more than just a "few" T-employees that are stupid. This issue is a Hot-Topic issue right now. T-employees have to be aware that they are under the microscope. Yet, they keep getting caught breaking the rule? That's stupidity. How many have been caught since the rule went into effect? Three? I wonder how many others have broken it but haven't been photographed/video taped?