Glenmont red signal violation & possible switch damage

It appears a Red Line train reversing out of Glenmont on track 1 back in service to Shady at ~7:14p ran a red signal (B11/04) while switches 1A/1B were in reverse, and possibly trailed or caused other damage to 1A. And of course, it was a 7K trainset.

But did you die? - Dan Stessel

FTA now investigating (according to SOP, I presume) per Martin Di Caro.

Metro has fired the operator of the train due to the red signal violation and "blatant disregard for safety."

Don't worry. In a few months, the union will strong arm his job back. Even though he almost killed several other union members and customers, which is not important to the jobs program.

srepetsk wrote:Metro has fired the operator of the train due to the red signal violation and "blatant disregard for safety."

While the operator most likely will be terminated. If the incident happened on 7/5, there hasn't been time - in accordance with any union contract - to convene a formal hearing to ascertain the facts concerning the incident and then formulate a disciplinary action based on those facts presented.

His statement eludes to suspension being the standard offence as well, which is more fodder for the union to get him his job back.

"MCL1981"
His statement eludes to suspension being the standard offence as well, which is more fodder for the union to get him his job back.

He may in the end up remaining on the payroll but he will never get any more handle time. During the early years many in the station managers ranks were from the ranks of bus driver that were no longer allowed to operate a bus for a verity of reasons. The same also likely applies today to train operators. Those verity of reasons ranged from medical conditions to the failure to follow established safety procedures.

Why does the union protect workers no matter what they do? This is what gives them a bad name in some circles. People need to be held accountable then they screw up. Unions should only protect people who are true victims of unfair treatment.

The people in charge that do the protecting and make excuses for people are generally equally as guilty of being useless, dangerous, or otherwise worthy of being canned. As such, protecting other morons sets precedents that protects themselves, and gets them re-elected year after year. I mean, look at Jackie Jeter. She's gotten on national television and, in short, said they won't allow white people. And yet, she's re-elected year after year.

Chris Brown wrote:Why does the union protect workers no matter what they do? This is what gives them a bad name in some circles. People need to be held accountable then they screw up. Unions should only protect people who are true victims of unfair treatment.

Why do lawyers do their best to 'protect' criminals - no matter what they have been accused of doing. The American system of justice!

Employees that have been accused of making mistakes deserve the same kind of 'protection' from the company as do citizens that have been accused of violating the law deserve from the government. It is the American way.

ADMIN NOTE:

Locked until the moderators can get their mops out and clean up aisle 162946.