dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
10

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

Steve to peterboro

to peterboro

Re: Hamilton workers ran errands instead of fixing potholes

dishonesty > incompetence
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

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

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

Steve

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 (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

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 F4
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON

J E F F4 to Steve

Premium Member

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.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

said by J E F F4:

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.