Hey, there! Log in / Register

MBTA moves to fire Green Line operator found texting

Channel 4 reports he was a 24-year veteran and was in the second car of an E train.

Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

that's just stupid. if you're the operator of the second car, the only thing you have to do is open and close the doors. there is an essentially-zero amount of safety risk involved with this.

just another situation where "zero tolerance" really means "zero common sense".

up
Voting closed 0

... the second car operator plays a vital role in safety issues. at least that's what they said in a globe article when they were fighting plans to eliminate second car drivers earlier this year.

you can't have it both ways. if that role is essential and necessary, then the operator has absolutely no reason to be texting on a phone (clearly ignoring a well publicized rule). if that role isn't needed, then perhaps folks should stop fighting the idea of automating those duties.

fwiw, i think zero tolerance policies are usually not the best way to go about fixing problems. but if you clearly violate them, and get caught, you sort of have to just take your lumps. this guy knew better, and he did it anyway.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, the union issued a hue and cry about how endangered we'd all be if 2nd operators were removed from trains.

Which makes me wonder if they'll contest this. Unfortunately, this guy threw himself under the bus by violating the T's most well publicized work rule. Sad way to end a 24-year career, especially right now.

up
Voting closed 0

NO LEGITIMATE REASONS WHATSOEVER to justify the necessity of sending or receiving text messages. Texting is a convenience, not a "necessary" activity. IMO, texting is also no more than a frivilous application of expensive technology that only serves to cause people to waste time and money.

And if your employer has a rule that says no texting on the job because you are in a "safety sensitive" postion, then you don't text. Period end of statement!

up
Voting closed 0

This is the part I don't get about these guys who continue to get busted for this: Have you no respect for your job? If not, then why should the rest of us?

I have rules at my company. They're pretty clear ones and the punishment isn't even as formally laid out as it is for these MBTA employees. I follow them, because I respect the work that I do. If you're in a job where you get to retire early to a nice pension system and get paid better than most other equivalent transit workers, then why can't you follow the rules?

up
Voting closed 0

I'd argue that safety doesn't even need to be a factor. If the employer has a rule against personal communication on the clock, regardless of reason, the rule should not be violated. Are we paying the 2nd car operator to text his friends? Or is there some useful function of his job that he should be doing instead? We don't need safety to justify the idea that somebody should do personal activities on personal time.

up
Voting closed 0

My job doesn't have it written anywhere that we can't talk or text while working, but I can assure you that if I pulled out my phone during a therapy session or an IEP meeting or while evaluating a kid or something, I'd be so fired. It's not a safety issue whatsoever; it's an understanding that when I'm doing my job, that's the only thing I should be doing.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

safety only bolsters the need for such rules.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd add that where public saftey is an element, we should consider legal restrictions. It should not only be a violation of a workplace rule to put the public at risk. Maybe a texting carman should be charged with reckless endangerment.

up
Voting closed 0

...let's remember the worker is likely to lose his job in the midst of a horrible economy. Before that young kid rammed his train into another, we weren't making a deal of this. If a no tolerance, quick termination policy isn't going to cause T workers to keep their cells at home or in their locker, tacking on reckless endangerment to this guy's burden isn't going to make a big diff either.

up
Voting closed 0

...so big and tough. True in grade school. True in (supposed) adulthood.

up
Voting closed 0

Are you saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with the matter? Public safety is an important concept. And what I'm saying is that if his texting is dangerous, we should codify that for the protection of riders.

But I suppose any comment on a message board focused on local news is just piling on. Adam, what do you say, wanna shut down the board?

up
Voting closed 0

...is wishing for criminal charges to be filed against someone already being kicked out of their job.

up
Voting closed 0

A cop used his badge to intimidate someone into lying on the stand. Sure, when they find out, he lost his job but hey, don't "pile on" with criminal charges!

There's a difference between me screwing up my TPS reports and getting fired and a public official screwing up their job in a way that endangers public safety or abuses public trust and getting fired.

up
Voting closed 0

If he broke the law, criminal charges should be filed. There's no immunity derived from employment status. Don't be silly.

up
Voting closed 0

Um no.

What if a door closed on someone's clothing trapping them?

I'm all for zero tolerance on anyone operating heavy machinery in any way. It shouldn't be that hard to go 8 hours without a phone. once these boneheads get it through their skulls that their good job is in jeopardy, then you'll see change.

For those who don't, well sorry, but there's a line of people waiting to work at the MBTA, most of which that will follow a common sense safety rule.

Once you allow phones on a person, or texting in the back, it'll be very hard for people in the front to comply. take away the temptation, and there will be less issues.

up
Voting closed 0