dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to Steve

Re: Hamilton workers ran errands instead of fixing potholes

said by Steve:

Spoken like a true union lackey.

That some employees went off on personal errands once in a while is not really a big deal, in the category of "Hey, knock it off", but if you want to get rid of truly bad apples, you have to have a real handle on the full scope of the problem.

Did they just take one day off? Is it just once a month? Just one guy? Just one team? If this is a chronic problem, getting a sense for just how deep it goes, in order to get all the bad apples, with a case that's so overwhelming that it a) looks like a formal review and not one manager's vendetta, b) is iron-clad in court or in front of some grievance board, and c) sends a message to everybody else that this city doesn't mess around; all points to the correctness of "overkill" on the investigative front.

From what we've read — and I would certainly say that we don't have the whole story — the worst offense of management is perhaps inefficiency, but it appears that the "workers" were in fact stealing from their neighbors.

Spoken like a true corporate apologist. I haven't been in a union for decades and have been operating businesses in the private sector ever since. The fact that 30 guys are involved demonstrates this is not an isolated incident and had to have been going on for months or years, unless that is you propose that all these guys just happened to start all of a sudden to do this. This does not go to satisfying a burden of proof at a quasi-judicial body or arbitrator but common sense. How could it be this pervasive, which means it must have been ongoing for a while, yet managers were clueless until they called the PIs in?

How many managers were fired? I thought so. None. Institutional CYA in full bore here.


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5

dishonesty > incompetence


peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

said by Steve:

dishonesty > incompetence

I don't think the managers were dishonest just incompetent. The workers were outright thieves and dishonest.


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5

said by peterboro:

I don't think the managers were dishonest just incompetent. The workers were outright thieves and dishonest.

Thank you.

From the information we have so far, there is much stronger evidence that the workers are culpable than that the managers were culpable. The latter seems likely, but the former is all but certain.

I do hope that all the facts come out, and if it turns out that this has been going on forever, I can't see why heads shouldn't roll in management too - I don't expect managers to follow their workers out in the field every day, but to not check up on them at all? Really?

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

said by Steve:

I do hope that all the facts come out, and if it turns out that this has been going on forever, I can't see why heads shouldn't roll in management too - I don't expect managers to follow their workers out in the field every day, but to not check up on them at all? Really?

I will be reading the decision when it is posted. At this point we only have managements story.


J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Rogers Portable ..
reply to Steve

said by Steve:

I do hope that all the facts come out, and if it turns out that this has been going on forever, I can't see why heads shouldn't roll in management too - I don't expect managers to follow their workers out in the field every day, but to not check up on them at all? Really?

Depends on the manager/supervisor. Part of their job ensure work is being done. Being that these 29 men/women were fired, you can be 100% sure this wasn't a one off. You don't get fired for slacking off for 1 day. This likely was going on for a while, with the guys doing minimal work. At some point, management caught on, and started to investigate. It's very unlikely that them taking entire days off was ongoing, but you can be guaranteed that this style of slacking off had been. I also propose that between the union and highly unknowledgeable and management staff (since cities only higher managers with a MBA's now), the managers would be totally clueless with how long it should take to fill a 2' by 3' pothole with a 2.5" inch depth.

What I'm basically saying is that these guys were likely given insufficient work and felt it okay to take lieu days with their co-workers.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

said by J E F F:

What I'm basically saying is that these guys were likely given insufficient work and felt it okay to take lieu days with their co-workers.

I think they were given enough work to put in a reasonable effort for the money. However they realized no one checked that they did the work and they took advantage of that situation. I remember in one union job I had the managers would usually follow at least one guy on their crew at least once a week. We are not talking just checking the work was done but actually following us around to make sure we didn't spend one more minute than we were allowed on break or extra stops.

Look what goes on in this forum. A bunch of IT and related guys with computers on their desks posting here all day cause they know they can.