|
The responsibility for track safety is ultimately on the workers on the ground. The main thing pounded into anyone who works on foot around track (BART or otherwise) is that a train can always come, even when one is not scheduled, and on maintenance crews there is always supposed to be one person whose only responsibility is to keep their head up and watch for approaching trains. edit: I wonder if these guys had the appropriate safety training for what they were doing? I suppose it is safe to assume that this incident will get the most thorough investigation in the history of train safety. withak fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Oct 20, 2013 |
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
withak posted:The responsibility for track safety is ultimately on the workers on the ground. The main thing pounded into anyone who works on foot around track (BART or otherwise) is that a train can always come, even when one is not scheduled, and there is always supposed to be one person whose only responsibility is to keep their head up and watch for approaching trains. Maybe, but it sounds like unqualified people were moving the trains around, and there had already been warnings that letting those people move them would create a more dangerous environment than normal. Not to mention the article makes it sound like dispatch may have dropped the ball (I assume dispatch would be responsible for letting trains and workers know when one or the other are going to be in the way of each other?). Maybe the fault is completely on the workers not paying attention, and this accident would still have happened without the strike, even if conditions were 100% perfect...but the timing sure isn't looking good for management IMO, regardless of who's at fault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Maybe, but it sounds like unqualified people were moving the trains around, and there had already been warnings that letting those people move them would create a more dangerous environment than normal. Not to mention the article makes it sound like dispatch may have dropped the ball (I assume dispatch would be responsible for letting trains and workers know when one or the other are going to be in the way of each other?). IME track safety training drills into you that there can always be a train approaching, whether you are told about it or not. Incompetent managers joyriding unexpectedly isn't an excuse for the guys on the ground to not be looking out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
rscott posted:Going to hazard a guess and say that it's a measurement designed to take nominal values of those various things and indexing them to a base value of 100 for the year 2000. A one point increase is 1% increase in fares or wages or inflation. It lets you plot everything using one unit, which makes comparison easier. Yeah it's based around something called cpi (Consumer price index) which is used by the government to aggregate cost for basic things such as food or energy costs into a inflation index. It's amazing to see angry crab syndrome when the whole point of a union is to use collective bargaining to help improve worker wages, workplace safety and also have democracy in the workplace. etalian fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Let's face it, the average person's reaction to that accident is going to be something like "wait, I thought they were on strike  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
I've heard a theory that BART management was trying to get their workers to strike. Now, the workers have little public support, and legislation has been proposed to take away transit workers right to strike. Basically, it's just Union busting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
I think you will find that everything is union busting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
withak posted:The responsibility for track safety is ultimately on the workers on the ground. The main thing pounded into anyone who works on foot around track (BART or otherwise) is that a train can always come, even when one is not scheduled, and on maintenance crews there is always supposed to be one person whose only responsibility is to keep their head up and watch for approaching trains. Man it sure is convenient that management can literally kill people and escape responsibility because they should have known better than to be around there! Honestly this mentality is terrible. Why not require people actually operating the huge metal shell rocketing around at high (relative) speed to be responsible because there could always be someone on the track. It can work both ways and there's no reason to place the responsibility entirely on the victims,
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Captain Frigate posted:Honestly this mentality is terrible. Why not require people actually operating the huge metal shell rocketing around at high (relative) speed to be responsible because there could always be someone on the track. It can work both ways and there's no reason to place the responsibility entirely on the victims, There's plenty of reason for somebody to place responsibility on the victims. If the victims are responsible then you can oppose the strike because obviously everything is safe and fine and can those overpaid fatcat union workers just stop caring about their working conditions and drive my rear end to work already?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Captain Frigate posted:Man it sure is convenient that management can literally kill people and escape responsibility because they should have known better than to be around there! That is the way that every industrial safety program works. You always assume that the other guy is going to do something stupid and the more vulnerable parties have to take steps to keep themselves safe. It doesn't doesn't mean that train operators can do whatever they want without regard for safety, but since there isn't any way for a rogue train to sneak up on someone the root cause here is almost certainly going to be that the track workers weren't following the rules about keeping a watch for unexpected traffic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
I would like to place money on the track not being properly tagged as being closed due to track workers. Either the workers didn't notify or the supervisor didn't follow through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I would like to place money on the track not being properly tagged as being closed due to track workers. Either the workers didn't notify or the supervisor didn't follow through. Or maybe the dispatchers, who were management replacing striking workers failed to notify someone. I'm amazed at the level of cognitive dissonance required to say there is no way the driver of the train is at fault, when there's nowhere near enough evidence to make such a claim. There's not any evidence to directly blame the driver either, but to say it all lies on the workers is crazy. The trains on this system in fact travel quick enough that if: 1. dispatch failed or 2. the driver failed, the workers could have followed all correct procedures and still gotten killed. You can't always see the train coming and a train on a tagged out section of line is in fact a rogue train. Besides this all points to the failure of BART management to create a safe work environment, regardless of which individuals were specifically at fault. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Obviously those union thugs were up to no good and trying to sabotage everything. That's what unions do right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
withak posted:That is the way that every industrial safety program works. You always assume that the other guy is going to do something stupid and the more vulnerable parties have to take steps to keep themselves safe. I don't see why there can't be rules about making sure there aren't people in the way when you're driving, or why somehow the most vulnerable party automatically ought to be the most responsible party, from a bureaucratic/legal perspective. Sure from a practical perspective its good to make sure you're safe but there's no reason to extend that to the bureaucratic/legal realm as well, because, well, blaming the victim is generally a pretty terrible thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
BART strike is over. It would appear a tentative agreement has been struck, trains will start running on a limited schedule at 4AM Tuesday morning, with full service "in time for the afternoon commute" according to one official. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bart-strike-update-20131021,0,6001763.story#axzz2iQcHOqWW
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
From what I'm gathering, the guy driving the train was a trainee despite claims that they were experience, and the train was going faster then was reported - indeed, faster then is considered safe period, especially with where on the track it was (right next to a station). There's also been a lot of notes about BART not having the bare minimum needed to ensure safety. I imagine management wants to shut this down fast, as details about the accident would only make them look way worse. I'm guessing they want to avoid NTSB nailing them to the wall mid-strike, because they are getting hit hard already from what I'm reading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:From what I'm gathering, the guy driving the train was a trainee despite claims that they were experience, and the train was going faster then was reported - indeed, faster then is considered safe period, especially with where on the track it was (right next to a station). There's also been a lot of notes about BART not having the bare minimum needed to ensure safety. It's been maddening trying to find ANY details about this goddamn strike. Everything is just one line about the update with 10 paragraphs of human interest bullshit. Did the union get rolled? Did they roll management? Did the tragedy on the track spur both sides to end the strike quickly? It'd be great if someone, somewhere, reported on the specifics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:It's been maddening trying to find ANY details about this goddamn strike. Everything is just one line about the update with 10 paragraphs of human interest bullshit. Did the union get rolled? Did they roll management? Did the tragedy on the track spur both sides to end the strike quickly? It'd be great if someone, somewhere, reported on the specifics. There won't be anything on the specifics until union members approve the deal. And I think you can be pretty sure that the deaths had something to do with the two sides suddenly returning to the table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:It's been maddening trying to find ANY details about this goddamn strike. Everything is just one line about the update with 10 paragraphs of human interest bullshit. Did the union get rolled? Did they roll management? Did the tragedy on the track spur both sides to end the strike quickly? It'd be great if someone, somewhere, reported on the specifics. IIRC there has been some kind of gag order in place since the start of negotiations and neither side is supposed to be talking about specifics until everything is signed and approved. Odds are that management wanted this sewn up before worker-safety horror stories start to leak from the NTSB.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
This is the difference between personal safety and process safety. Personal safety is all the things you know you have to do in order for a piece of work to be done safely. If you asked someone doing the work before they started they should be able to tell you this. Process safety has to do with how larger systemic events, possibly related to personal safety, endanger anyone in the system. Almost all large scale industrial disasters are a result of process safety violations, some going all the way back to design. I will see if I can get some version of the case study being worked up, but this sounds like a mix. If I were investigating I would look pretty closely at the actions of the driver and then the system of communications and protocols supposedly in place. There will be things the track workers could have done, but they will not be root cause. Since the corporate morality is profit/cost safety is one of the major areas of union activity. Unless the management has an explicit plan whereby safe operations are also more profitable there is no counter balance built in and human beings are reduced to profit/cost calculations in a quarterly spreadsheet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
withak posted:IIRC there has been some kind of gag order in place since the start of negotiations and neither side is supposed to be talking about specifics until everything is signed and approved. Ahh, that may partially excuse the coverage then. For instance, on Facebook the other day, someone put up some union bashing statement along the lines of "they union is striking because they want to use fax instead of email for scheduling." I know there had to more to it than that, but I couldn't find anything that got into the details of the negotiations, or even the issues really. All I could find were articles that mentioned "work rules" in passing, then went on play he-said/she-said quote games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Incidentally...Lord_Pigeonbane posted:I've heard a theory that BART management was trying to get their workers to strike. Now, the workers have little public support, and legislation has been proposed to take away transit workers right to strike. Basically, it's just Union busting. I'm starting to hear variants of this a bit more often, though not nearly as often as would be comfortable. The accident has really destroyed most support management had. EDIT: Kobayashi posted:Ahh, that may partially excuse the coverage then. For instance, on Facebook the other day, someone put up some union bashing statement along the lines of "they union is striking because they want to use fax instead of email for scheduling." I know there had to more to it than that, but I couldn't find anything that got into the details of the negotiations, or even the issues really. All I could find were articles that mentioned "work rules" in passing, then went on play he-said/she-said quote games. As I understand it, when the feds got involved, management and the union almost had a deal, until management ruined the whole thing at the last minute by, apropos of nothing, trying to push new work rules that ran against what the union wanted. This is not the first time management has ruined a potential deal. Honestly, it looks like management has been itching for this fight for awhile and has been doing what they can to start it and ensure they get the good attention from it, and have been negotiating in extremely bad faith from day one. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
There was a bit on the (channel 7 I think?) news tonight about the deaths on the track. Tomorrow they're shutting down part of the Pittsburgh/Bay Point line for three or four hours in the afternoon so they can "re-create" the accident, but here's some preliminary facts: -The train operator did hit the emergency brakes, as evidenced by flat spots on the wheels -One of the slain workers on the track was supposed to be a lookout and was supposed to be entirely clear of the train space as part of that duty -The procedure rulebook for track workers explicitly warns that workers must expect and act as though a train can come from any direction at any time, as mentioned by someone earlier here -The two trainees driving were apparently being supervised by an "experienced trainer" at the time, so actually there were three operators on board the train So we still don't know exactly what happened, but it's looking to me like mistakes may have been made by the (non-union) workers on the track, but also by dispatch and/or management in allowing a train to be running on track being worked-on. It's too early to say whether the trainee drivers are at fault in any way. But it seems very likely to me that management chose to make final concessions and end the strike in order to avoid a potential shift in public perception now that the NTSB is starting to make initial reports.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 09:06
|
|
|
I know y'all are all fixated on the BART stuff, but there are greater things afoot with regard to Unions in the state. San Jose Mayor files a statewide constitutional measure that would empower governments to trim pension benefits. This is probably going to be the big fight of this next coming year as far as initiatives goes. The (alleged) backers for this are basically trying to get their hands on the privately managed pension monies of Public Employees. Can't wait for the ads to completely engulf us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
I personally know a state firefighter who retired at 59 years old after 40 years of service. He gets a 14k a month pension payout. That's crazy, but I don't see how hurting the current workforce (rather than 6-figure pensioners) fixes that problem. Edit: Both of the 50-something former law-enforcement officers who are running for office in my city district make 6-figure pensions as well. It's gross. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Illuminado posted:I know y'all are all fixated on the BART stuff, but there are greater things afoot with regard to Unions in the state. I'll be sure to get ready for a barrage of "gently caress them, I don't got mine" arguments from private sector folks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I personally know a state firefighter who retired at 59 years old after 40 years of service. He makes 14k a month in pension benefits. I remember hearing something about firefighter's pensions being based on their last 2-3 years of work, so oftentimes they'll work crazy amounts of overtime in those last couple years to ensure their pension is amazing. Personally, I don't care, they run into burning buildings to save people's lives, pay them whatever they want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I personally know a state firefighter who retired at 59 years old after 40 years of service. He makes 14k a month in pension benefits. Too bad we can't retroactively go back and reprimand those who have spiked their pensions like that. They already reined in that practice, but the municipalities are still on the hook for hundreds of millions for everyone who squeezed through the cracks before that legislation went into effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I personally know a state firefighter who retired at 59 years old after 40 years of service. He makes 14k a month in pension benefits. 14k a month in pension benefits? Health care for a 59-year-old firefighter probably isn't cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Yeah, what does "benefits" mean in that case. Counting health care "benefits" like he is getting the money is pretty gross.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, what does "benefits" mean in that case. Counting health care "benefits" like he is getting the money is pretty gross. That's his gross before taxes (which he complains about). I'll adjust my original post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, what does "benefits" mean in that case. Counting health care "benefits" like he is getting the money is pretty gross. There was a court case here recently of a retired fire chief who was suing for back pay. Through public records, his last year working was 140k and his retirement pay was just north of 100k. I dunno about you, but fire chiefing sounds like a really important public service role and we'll worth the money to have someone with 40 years of service doing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:There was a court case here recently of a retired fire chief who was suing for back pay. Through public records, his last year working was 140k and his retirement pay was just north of 100k. I dunno about you, but fire chiefing sounds like a really important public service role and we'll worth the money to have someone with 40 years of service doing it. Yeah, my point being, saying someone is getting pension benefits of x makes it sound he is getting a check not oh yeah some of that is his health insurance and other benefits. When someone asks you how much you make (it's rude but happens), do you include how much your employer sends on health and dental benefits?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
I'm telling you he told me that he makes 14k a month. That's almost verbatim what he told me. Whether that's after his health insurance or before is unknown to me, because I didn't ask him. The question I asked to prompt that response, btw, was "Geez, how can you afford two homes, one of which is in Hawaii, on a single government pension?" He was a fire station chief. FYI he wasn't a chief for the entire 40 year. He became a fireman right out of high school and worked his way up the ladder (no pun intended).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm telling you he told me that he makes 14k a month. That's almost verbatim what he told me. Whether that's after his health insurance or before is unknown to me, because I didn't ask him. Yeah thats how it works, and he put in 40 years of service to get that pension, and ended up a chief (which is pension is based on). Part of the reason people accept risky jobs in which their fire is often in danger for the better part of their lives is that there is a delayed pay off at the end. Sounds like he worked pretty long and hard for two houses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Government jobs have been sold to workers as generally lower pay but with good benefits. This is because municipalities and states choose to pay less and offer a better retirement package. Then when it comes time to actually pay these workers what we promised, we get shocked at the price we agree to and use whatever means possible to not pay them. The purpose of the union is to negotiate the best deal for workers and its the purpose of management (in this case cities) to negotiate the best deal for their side. Just because management hosed up, and negotiated a very short-sighted deal, workers often have to suffer. Que the: "My non-unionized job has been going down the crapper, so should everyone else's too!".
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Illuminado posted:I know y'all are all fixated on the BART stuff, but there are greater things afoot with regard to Unions in the state. Remember when Goldman Sachs, etc wanted to "run" Social Security into the ground? same thing....."idle" easily targetable funds looking to be "repatriated back to the true patriots, ie. billionaires"
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, my point being, saying someone is getting pension benefits of x makes it sound he is getting a check not oh yeah some of that is his health insurance and other benefits. I see where you're going but I'd like to add two points. You often see it that way for public pensioners because they're reporting the total cost of the pension to the state or whichever organization owns the pension obligation, and also by conservatives out to paint them as fat cats. Fire chief is an incredibly important job that can get people killed if not done right. I don't see anything wrong with that pay scale. Proust Malone fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I see where you're going but I'd like to add two points. Yeah, but granted that is an accounting method that obviously isn't used in public unless you want to smear them. Yeah, it is a large amount of money, but I don't see how he didn't earn it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:FYI he wasn't a chief for the entire 40 year. He became a fireman right out of high school and worked his way up the ladder (no pun intended). 14K a month is certainly a lot of money. It's certainly something I'm envious of. But for someone that's worked for the public good for 40 years? I'm more comfortable with that than, say, some banker or CEO making that after 2-5 years on the job. So I don't begrudge the guy his money. Whether he realizes how incredibly fortunate that is, and how unlikely someone from this generation will ever experience that... well that's something else, aint it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:48
|
|
