A photo sent to my Facebook page shows an engineer peering from his locomotive with a big grin on his face... and not wearing safety glasses. Another viewer posted that the photographer was irresponsible for posting a photo of an engineer who was in violation and who could lose his job if management saw it. Would that really happen? They would fire him for that? Doesn't sound plausible to me.
Yes, they would discipline the engineer for the safety-rule violation, and possibly also the photographer for unauthorized camera use on the property. One has to be very careful about posting employment statuses on Facebook. I have a friend and coworker who would post, well, let's say "brutally honest" things on Facebook, and it cost him his job (they were lying in wait for him to make the slightest mistake). He did get back to work with restored back pay, and is now happily retired (he's definitely retired; I think he's happy).
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Dave Statter
Among the fire videos Dave posts on his site are other videos that serve as examples of firefighters behaving badly on camera. Some of it makes you shake your head in wonder.
Cameras are everywhere, and people freely post the photos that they've taken, especially if it could be sensational.
But it's not always social media. A fire inspector in California brought down the wrath of the workplace safety folks when a picture of him inspecting a roof appeared in a newspaper. There was no fall protection in place, and somebody from the state agency saw the photo. Fines were paid.
It's a mixed blessing. Knowing that you could be photographed at any time might make you work safer, but it also means that something otherwise harmless you might do (like toss a souvenier "comfort pack" out to a fan or kid) could get you in trouble.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
UlrichA photo sent to my Facebook page shows an engineer peering from his locomotive with a big grin on his face... and not wearing safety glasses. Another viewer posted that the photographer was irresponsible for posting a photo of an engineer who was in violation and who could lose his job if management saw it. Would that really happen? They would fire him for that? Doesn't sound plausible to me.
Well, if they know about it they'll have to apply some kind of discipline.
If someone gets hurt and a lawyer can show that the safety rule covering the situation was not enforced it's gonna' be big bucks.
These days, common sense is out the window. The common sense thing to do would be for a supervisor to walk up the the offending engineer and issue a simple verbal reprimand. Then let it go unless the engineer keeps doing it. But there would be no record of that. So the lawyer could claim non-enforcement of the safety rule and there would be no record to refute the accusation.
People have been fired for saying something on Facebook. Do not let this happen to you!
Any wonder real railroaders are circumspect when posting here?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CShaveRR YOne has to be very careful about posting employment statuses on Facebook.
YOne has to be very careful about posting employment statuses on Facebook.
Or anywhere else for that matter. I have tons of MOW photos, but they will not be posted on line until most of the people in them are retired and not subject to discipline. TTBOMK, they all work safely but why take a chance.
Norm
CShaveRR Yes, they would discipline the engineer for the safety-rule violation, and possibly also the photographer for unauthorized camera use on the property. One has to be very careful about posting employment statuses on Facebook. I have a friend and coworker who would post, well, let's say "brutally honest" things on Facebook, and it cost him his job (they were lying in wait for him to make the slightest mistake). He did get back to work with restored back pay, and is now happily retired (he's definitely retired; I think he's happy). [ my emphasis added-sp]
Yes, they would discipline the engineer for the safety-rule violation, and possibly also the photographer for unauthorized camera use on the property. One has to be very careful about posting employment statuses on Facebook. I have a friend and coworker who would post, well, let's say "brutally honest" things on Facebook, and it cost him his job (they were lying in wait for him to make the slightest mistake). He did get back to work with restored back pay, and is now happily retired (he's definitely retired; I think he's happy). [ my emphasis added-sp]
I would be in ths situation that it was his union affiliation that got him the legal advice that after an appearance with the entity of his "Labor Board; this individual got back to work after his " little run in"..
As a person growing up in a Mid South Community, I knew a number of railroad employees, and they all seemed tho have stories and instances of 'friends' who had run afoul of various job-related, work rules at their place of employment. One guy I was familiar with had a real familiarity with "the jug"; he was constantly wanred and covered for by his fellows. He would get 'laid-off', or fired, wait a period of time; go protest his situation and get a hearing, and be reinstated with back pay and allowances. One of his little misteps was while checking a set of 6 axle units, he set a couple of hand brakes, and then put the units in run 8 to ckeck them after maintenance. The hand brakes failed and the motors wound up in' the pit'. After coming back to work after that he died under a back-hoe that he flipped. HIs wife sued the railroad, and won her case...
I would bet that a' FB firing' could be rationalized with legal help, and a hearing. The employee would get his job back with back pay and benefits , after bing 'properly disciplined'....
One really has to be careful. I had someone call me the other day, and I wanted to see if I could do business with him. I googled his name, and within 10 minutes I had his bio, his Facebook and Linked In page, and even a virtual tour of his recently purchased house. I guess the key take away would be: before doing anything pretend that 20 people are watching you and ask yourself if that's ok.
Ulrich ... Another viewer posted that the photographer was irresponsible for posting a photo of an engineer who was in violation and who could lose his job if management saw it...
... Another viewer posted that the photographer was irresponsible for posting a photo of an engineer who was in violation and who could lose his job if management saw it...
One popular definition of integrity is what a person does when he thinks nobody will ever find out. I would wonder about a person who thinks it's irresponsible to post an image because it could affect the employment of someone who violates corporate policies/state or federal laws. I leads me to assume that in his mind, the violation is irrelevant or of comparatively lesser value and that only a secure employment has value worth protecting. IOW, an unsafe driver is as good as a safe one, as long as either's working faults are obscured or withheld from the eyes of a more responsible management.
I know that wasn't your concern, Ulrich, since you merely asked about the veracity of the claim that he could have been fired, but I tend to get sidetracked by ethical problems when I see them. Protectionism at the expense of public safety seems like a bizarre assignment of value to me.
The future has arrived with social media. We have met Big Brother and he be we.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52wis_sLT1I
Companies(not just railroads) have hired socila media specialists that look at websites to see what employees say about the company.Some people ask for pictures most do not.Some people think they are the boss and post every picture they can of a possible violation.
stay safe
Joe
Deshler Ohio-crossroads of the B&O Matt eats your fries.YUM! Clinton st viaduct undefeated against too tall trucks!!!(voted to be called the "Clinton St. can opener").
selector Ulrich ... Another viewer posted that the photographer was irresponsible for posting a photo of an engineer who was in violation and who could lose his job if management saw it... One popular definition of integrity is what a person does when he thinks nobody will ever find out. I would wonder about a person who thinks it's irresponsible to post an image because it could affect the employment of someone who violates corporate policies/state or federal laws. I leads me to assume that in his mind, the violation is irrelevant or of comparatively lesser value and that only a secure employment has value worth protecting. IOW, an unsafe driver is as good as a safe one, as long as either's working faults are obscured or withheld from the eyes of a more responsible management. I know that wasn't your concern, Ulrich, since you merely asked about the veracity of the claim that he could have been fired, but I tend to get sidetracked by ethical problems when I see them. Protectionism at the expense of public safety seems like a bizarre assignment of value to me.
23 17 46 11
All it takes is a hard-nosed employer and some jerk watching everything you do hoping you'll screw up so they can get you in trouble, and you can find yourself swimming in deep sewage.
SALfan All it takes is a hard-nosed employer and some jerk watching everything you do hoping you'll screw up so they can get you in trouble, and you can find yourself swimming in deep sewage. Very well put. Welcome to the modern railroader's world
Very well put. Welcome to the modern railroader's world
SALfan All it takes is a hard-nosed employer and some jerk watching everything you do hoping you'll screw up so they can get you in trouble, and you can find yourself swimming in deep sewage.
selector SALfan All it takes is a hard-nosed employer and some jerk watching everything you do hoping you'll screw up so they can get you in trouble, and you can find yourself swimming in deep sewage. Hardnosed, or conscientious and responsible? I guess it depends on the person observing. I wonder if the good folks in Lac Megantic would have preferred the former or the latter.
Hardnosed, or conscientious and responsible? I guess it depends on the person observing. I wonder if the good folks in Lac Megantic would have preferred the former or the latter.
We aren't talking about major rules violations or Federal regulations being violated here. Mostly they are minor, sometimes very minor, rules that have been violated. Probably, doing it absentmindedly. Rules that by themselves would garner only a "coaching" event.
However, those "coaching" events can add up. Depending on the powers that be in charge, it's only when being coached for the same reason multiple times will discipline be given. Our superintendent last year proposed that any employee on his territory be given a level one discipline if they had 5 coaching events for any offense in one year, not just in the same category. Even his line officers (most of them) thought that was crazy and it was not implemented. It was said that this person buys into the reasoning that some managers do, that people work safer and better when they are in fear of their job.
The thing is you can be following a rule, but a manager may not think you did it to satisfy his/her interpretation. (My conductor and myself received a coaching event once because the manager riding with us didn't think we were calling signals LOUD ENOUGH TO SUIT HIM. I could hear my conductor and he could hear me, but we weren't LOUD ENOUGH. I think he just needed to fill his quota and that was a minor one.) Maybe the switchman didn't look long enough at the points, maybe he didn't point at the switch in the proper manner. Maybe getting off equipment, a crewmember didn't look right, left and down long enough.
The list can go on and on, and the thing is one manager might take exception to something while the next one doesn't see anything wrong. Social Media just make it possible for a violation (or a perceived violation) to be viewed by a wider audience of managers.
Jeff
Going to work, every trip, wondering if at some point I haven't violated one of the rules or not complied with a plethora of rules defining my every action or, perhaps not satisfying "ERAD", which moniters every throttle possition, brake application, horn blast, and on and on. Taking a job which I have always enjoyed and taken great pride in and making it a source of anxiety. A job, where an employees good judgement was once considered a valuable tool, but now only blind complience is acceptable. This is the modern Class 1 railroad enviornment. And, now I have to worry about a posting on facebook being possibly used against me in an investigation. Great! I'm glad I'm closing in on retirement!
jeffhergert selector SALfan All it takes is a hard-nosed employer and some jerk watching everything you do hoping you'll screw up so they can get you in trouble, and you can find yourself swimming in deep sewage. Hardnosed, or conscientious and responsible? I guess it depends on the person observing. I wonder if the good folks in Lac Megantic would have preferred the former or the latter. We aren't talking about major rules violations or Federal regulations being violated here. Mostly they are minor, sometimes very minor, rules that have been violated. Probably, doing it absentmindedly. Rules that by themselves would garner only a "coaching" event. However, those "coaching" events can add up. Depending on the powers that be in charge, it's only when being coached for the same reason multiple times will discipline be given. Our superintendent last year proposed that any employee on his territory be given a level one discipline if they had 5 coaching events for any offense in one year, not just in the same category. Even his line officers (most of them) thought that was crazy and it was not implemented. It was said that this person buys into the reasoning that some managers do, that people work safer and better when they are in fear of their job. The thing is you can be following a rule, but a manager may not think you did it to satisfy his/her interpretation. (My conductor and myself received a coaching event once because the manager riding with us didn't think we were calling signals LOUD ENOUGH TO SUIT HIM. I could hear my conductor and he could hear me, but we weren't LOUD ENOUGH. I think he just needed to fill his quota and that was a minor one.) Maybe the switchman didn't look long enough at the points, maybe he didn't point at the switch in the proper manner. Maybe getting off equipment, a crewmember didn't look right, left and down long enough. The list can go on and on, and the thing is one manager might take exception to something while the next one doesn't see anything wrong. Social Media just make it possible for a violation (or a perceived violation) to be viewed by a wider audience of managers. Jeff
Welcome to the " Brave New World" :
Management is now having to deal with a new Social order in which common sense takes a back to to the world that seems to think that employees need to to be scolded, and verbably 'spanked' to keep them in line...
I think that our workforce in this country is now experiencing the effect of Retail Human Resources Movement... it might be called the "Wal*Martization" of employmnet...For years in the retail side of business they seemed to operate on the premise that if you kept your employees off balance, and worried about their jobs; they would perform their jobs better...Anyone who showed initiative was thought to be a threat, and thus a target to retrain back in to the herd instinct....
I'm talking hardnosed, as in virtually no tolerance for any transgression, and VERY publicity-shy. I'm also talking about an employer which seemed to attract an inordinate number of managers who would step on their own mother to get half a step up the ladder; before becoming managers, those types would not hesitate to turn in a fellow employee to "stand out" and begin their slither into management.
Yes, Mr. Sanctimonius, I'm sure the people in Lac Megantic would have called being hardnosed about failure to tie down a train properly conscientious and responsible. I would too, because that failure actually matters. I'm talking about failures or transgressions that don't really matter.
SALfan Yes, Mr. Sanctimonius, I'm sure the people in Lac Megantic would have called being hardnosed about failure to tie down a train properly conscientious and responsible. I would too, because that failure actually matters. I'm talking about failures or transgressions that don't really matter.
Do you really think the 'Mr. Sanctimonious" is helpful to my comprehension of your point? Please be assured, it's as irritating to me as any ad hominem would be, and is therefore not the least bit of an aid to your cause. Kindly find another approach to your argumentation.
In what place of work have you any experience where the employees tell management which transgressions "...don't really matter?" In any place where I have worked, it goes very much the other way around. It is management who determine the parameters of work, the roles of each paid position, and the descriptions of work. Management is responsible for imposing safety measures if for no other reason than their insurers would refuse to pay claims if they learned the management encouraged a culture of the routine ignoring of safety infractions. IOW, it's the bottom line that drives policies. Some employees never figure that out, or they dont care if they ever do. They would rather protect each other for the moment than to consider the heady implications of future risks...again, as it happened at Lac Megantic.
It is one thing when management gets it wrong. It's terrible for every employee below them. But when individual employees begin to neglect policies where their continued employment is contingent upon their orientation to those policies, why all the angst over the possible loss of employement if management finds out? What kind of an organization, once again, lets the employees determine safety policy where impirical evidence says the policy is both sound and ethically necessary?
selector SALfan Yes, Mr. Sanctimonius, I'm sure the people in Lac Megantic would have called being hardnosed about failure to tie down a train properly conscientious and responsible. I would too, because that failure actually matters. I'm talking about failures or transgressions that don't really matter. Do you really think the 'Mr. Sanctimonious" is helpful to my comprehension of your point? Please be assured, it's as irritating to me as any ad hominem would be, and is therefore not the least bit of an aid to your cause. Kindly find another approach to your argumentation. In what place of work have you any experience where the employees tell management which transgressions "...don't really matter?" In any place where I have worked, it goes very much the other way around. It is management who determine the parameters of work, the roles of each paid position, and the descriptions of work. Management is responsible for imposing safety measures if for no other reason than their insurers would refuse to pay claims if they learned the management encouraged a culture of the routine ignoring of safety infractions. IOW, it's the bottom line that drives policies. Some employees never figure that out, or they dont care if they ever do. They would rather protect each other for the moment than to consider the heady implications of future risks...again, as it happened at Lac Megantic. It is one thing when management gets it wrong. It's terrible for every employee below them. But when individual employees begin to neglect policies where their continued employment is contingent upon their orientation to those policies, why all the angst over the possible loss of employement if management finds out? What kind of an organization, once again, lets the employees determine safety policy where impirical evidence says the policy is both sound and ethically necessary?
Blah, blah, blah. SAL is right on; your invocation of Lac Megantic is so irrelevant (not to say prissy) as to be off-topic.
Lac Megantic was about a cheapjack shortline railroad operation compounded by probable engineer laziness. It would never have been captured on Facebook. This thread is about the kind of unworthy, gotcha games played by supervisors trying to catch the attention of their superiors at the expense of people doing the real work.
dakotafred Blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah.
This sums up your reply.
dakotafred SAL is right on; your invocation of Lac Megantic is so irrelevant (not to say prissy) as to be off-topic.
SAL is right on; your invocation of Lac Megantic is so irrelevant (not to say prissy) as to be off-topic.
Your failure to see the relevance is not really my problem. So, I'll continue to discuss this with SAL.
To put this into a non-railroader's perspective.
In my state, multiple tickets for moving violations within a year can cause you to lose your driver's license. You can receive a ticket for being one mile per hour over the speed limit.
You go driving on a nice Sunday afternoon. You happen to drive through Nowheresville, which has a 25mph limit for about 1/4 mile through town. Not even a town, just an unincorporated collection of a few houses. Most people don't bother to slow down to 25, maybe to 40 or 35. But rarely to 25mph. Joe Resident has had it. To prove that the speed laws aren't enforced, he sets up his video camera and a speed gun. (In real life this wouldn't be admissable evidence, but it is today for this example. They passed a law or something.)
Joe's video goes viral on Youtube. It shows multiple cars zooming through town at 10, 15, even 20 mph over the legal limit. Officer Fife sees this video and realizes that he can write out tickets for each offender, thanks to our new law.
You, being a more careful driver, slowed down to what you thought was the legal limit of 25 mph. Except you drifted up to 26 mph, got caught on the video doing that speed, and received a ticket from Officer Fife.
Even though you tried to, and thought you were complying with the rules, you broke the law. Now is doing 26 in a 25 zone more dangerous? Probably not, but it was determined that a safety study warrants a 25 instead of a 30mph zone there. Do you deserve the same treatment as those who went so much faster through the zone? In most people's opinion, probably no. You clearly tried to comply and were only one mph over. Many would probably give a 5 mph lee way, which is why they chose 25 over 30 originally when setting the limit.
That's what we're talking about on videos like this. It's mostly minor violations of rules that don't place any one in danger, but are still violations. Sometimes, the intent of the rule is for one thing, but written in a way that it can catch violations in an unintended manor.
To say that the crewmember's infraction in the original post (who didn't have on his safety glasses) is in the same league as what happened at Lac Magentic is a real stretch.
Something along the lines of "Bill, nice to see you smiling on Facebook; however, please remember to wear your safety glass at all times while on duty". Thank you.
Firing or even a formal warning would be far less effective as people respond better to a friendly reminder than to an official warning or threat of action.
It pays to be careful. A friend was fired because he posted a shot of something that he thought was really neat at his place of employment (not a railroad.) It never occured to him that his boss would think he was exposing the company to risk.
Mike
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.