4 ms·

I'm surprised everyone is jumping on the worker's side and assuming the supervisor is wrong. You folks have never worked with some anal retentive person being a

I'm surprised everyone is jumping on the worker's side and assuming the supervisor is wrong. You folks have never worked with some anal retentive person being as annoying as possible inside the rules? Back in the navy we used to call this malicious compliance. > Sanders’ supervisor berates him for calling the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). > “Why in the world would we ever call the FRA about anything? Unless I’m absolutely blatantly telling you to break the rules,” This sounds like a reasonable position. You expect anyone you work with to go straight to HR, or your boss, or an auditing agency? Without talking to you first? > “All I can say is I need your help right now to keep my ass from getting fired,” Sanders’ boss told him on the call. > “I need to just look the other way?” Sanders asks, referring to the reporting of defects. > “No. We just need to have a conversation,” his boss said. So when asked if he's supposed to falsify reports, his boss says no. > “Why can’t we just fix the (expletive) defects?” This is a great sound bite, but doesn't have much bearing on reality. Complex systems have complex solutions. There's liability and lifecycle budgeting, impact analysis, ERP, etc etc etc ad nauseum. All in all, it seems like the boss was somewhat shady, but its hard to tell - Nothing is black and white. I'm just surprised everyone is willing to take this implication and turn it into a witch burning.

joshuanapoli 3y ago
Well, there’s a place for software to help here. If the inspection findings were well documented in a transparent system, then there’s a place to discuss the severity level. Then there’s less room for a cover-up. If an individual inspector is not grading things correctly, then it will also be apparent and amply documented.
Buttons840 3y ago
If someone is following the rules and that's a problem, then you update the rules. This probably doesn't happen because whenever the railroad faces scrutiny they want to point to the rules and say, "look how strict our rules are, what more could we have done?", and then in reality they wink and nod at each other and ignore the rules. The honest thing to do is to set the appropriate rules and then follow and enforce them as thoroughly and exactly as possible.
thewildginger 3y ago
You should really read anything about how the railroad companies operate in the US. An "anal retentive" safety inspector is exactly what they should have, and firing them for doing their job is exactly what the railroad company would do, based off of recent and historical evidence.

joshuanapoli 3y ago

Well, there’s a place for software to help here. If the inspection findings were well documented in a transparent system, then there’s a place to discuss the severity level. Then there’s less room for a cover-up. If an individual inspector is not grading things correctly, then it will also be apparent and amply documented.

Buttons840 3y ago

If someone is following the rules and that's a problem, then you update the rules. This probably doesn't happen because whenever the railroad faces scrutiny they want to point to the rules and say, "look how strict our rules are, what more could we have done?", and then in reality they wink and nod at each other and ignore the rules. The honest thing to do is to set the appropriate rules and then follow and enforce them as thoroughly and exactly as possible.

thewildginger 3y ago

You should really read anything about how the railroad companies operate in the US. An "anal retentive" safety inspector is exactly what they should have, and firing them for doing their job is exactly what the railroad company would do, based off of recent and historical evidence.