Steam & Excursion > UP Steam damage and discipline

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/15 14:52 by JLW2K.

Not likely....

Generally, non-ambiguous evidence is preferred.
There are so many other factors that are at play that no single person could, reasonably, be held solely liable.

Typical action would be a promotion and transfer for personnel realignment.

IMHO...

Wes C.

I would expect any effort to go after him would result in a lengthy court battle with law suits and counter law suits. My suggestion: save the legal fees and apply them to fixing the UPs steam engines

Marty Harrison
Knob Noster, MO

I'm with Wes. I don't think the UP will ever admit that with all the fan fair of the UP bringing the Big Boy back to Cheyenne for rebuilding, that the top management would ever admit, if true, that THEY made a mistake in choosing him for this very public assignment.

There are already some court battles in progress that trace back to his incompetence and mismanagement.

Right now, the issue is more about what else he will screw up before they get rid of him. He's probably already working to undermine and embarass his new boss.

JLW2K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Assuming Union Pacific somehow figures out or
> proves that Ed Dickens is responsible for the
> damages to 844's boiler tubes, water tender
> corrosion, etc...would they ever hold him liable
> for damages associated with his change in the
> water treatment and other un-necessary costs he
> has created?
>
> In my line of work, where I work for a much larger
> entity than UP, people are held responsible for
> damages done to equipment.
>

I don't see any difference between this and a railroad employee being liable for damages he or she caused in a derailment or other accident. A scheduled employee could be given discipline in the form of suspension or dismissal, subject to review by Public Law Board, and a exempt employee could be given discipline in the form of dismissal (back to the craft if they have seniority) or some kind of change in job if the carrier feels they still have promise as an exempt. They could also have some kind of performance evaluation that would result in more oversight by superiors, in other words a kind of probation.

BSB

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are already some court battles in progress
> that trace back to his incompetence and
> mismanagement.
>
> Right now, the issue is more about what else he
> will screw up before they get rid of him. He's
> probably already working to undermine and embarass
> his new boss.


Such as no action on the E9A that is still "stranded in Kansas City" with flat spotted wheels. If the poor thing ever does get back to Cheyenne, none of the "staff" there, including the current manager, know how to use the drop table, assuming it still works after the pit being flooded (seems his crack staff didn't know how to turn on the sump-pumps that evacuate the pit).

Wow, so much damage done...hopefully none irreversible.


HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There are already some court battles in
> progress
> > that trace back to his incompetence and
> > mismanagement.
> >
> > Right now, the issue is more about what else he
> > will screw up before they get rid of him. He's
> > probably already working to undermine and
> embarass
> > his new boss.
>
>
> Such as no action on the E9A that is still
> "stranded in Kansas City" with flat spotted
> wheels. If the poor thing ever does get back to
> Cheyenne, none of the "staff" there, including the
> current manager, know how to use the drop table,
> assuming it still works after the pit being
> flooded (seems his crack staff didn't know how to
> turn on the sump-pumps that evacuate the pit).

BigSkyBlue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't see any difference between this and a
> railroad employee being liable for damages he or
> she caused in a derailment or other accident. A
> scheduled employee could be given discipline in
> the form of suspension or dismissal, subject to
> review by Public Law Board, and a exempt employee
> could be given discipline in the form of dismissal
> (back to the craft if they have seniority) or some
> kind of change in job if the carrier feels they
> still have promise as an exempt. They could also
> have some kind of performance evaluation that
> would result in more oversight by superiors, in
> other words a kind of probation.
>
> BSB


Ed is management & is not working under a union agreement; no law board for him. His employment (in his current role) is at the will of yoUPee.

Be just nice if it was easy like some jobs, fire him and make sure he doesn't come back!

I don't think there is any legal basis for personal liability in absence of deliberate action to cause damage. Incompetence perhaps and willfully ignoring those with decades of experience but I don't think anyone could say he was intent on damaging the locomotives. The more recent destruction of parts and drawings etc. is a bit more difficult to justify but there's probably some basis he can use.

I love how Jack and Realist always have a new little treat for us every time one of these threads turn up. (Drop Table) It would be a chore, but almost worth reviewing every UP thread for past couple years and make a Bullitt list of every one of his blunders. Re How not to run a heritage program.

Posted from Android

I dunno, but my corporate experience with incompetence was that the way to cover up the turds in the litter box and major screwups was FUMU.
Just sayin'
C

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

If anyone is wondering about that acronym, it stands for "foul up, move up" or something similar but unprintable here. Seen it many times here on the railroad, people getting promoted inversely proportional to their level of ability.

Posted from iPhone

The Peter Principle

Frisco1522 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Peter Principle

No. The Peter Principle is that folks rise to their level of incompetence, not higher. FUMU is a tragic counterexample to the Peter Principle. FUMO, over to VP of Dead Trees, is what is done in the better companies.

Best regards,

Rob L.

That's correct Carol. It's the UP way also. Every time we would get a real piece of work,that person would go away from us but to a promotion somewhere out of the way. It's a lot like after a bowel movement and the toilet gets flushed. There is always a turd that doesn't go down the drain. It just floats to the top and goes around and around and around. Once in a great while you might hear that they finally went down in a ball of fire due to that persons arrogance.

I think the primary discipline should be applied to the person in Omaha immediately above Dickens (I mean before the guy from Jenks was brought in).

It is not acceptable to not understand what the people below you are doing. If it is proposed to assign to you management of a department that you do not have the technical knowledge or domain knowledge to manage, you should have the guts and the humility speak up and say you can't do it alone, that you need help, that you need the time to learn the domain and the technology first, or else it needs to be assigned to someone else. Even worse than such an initial mistake, to continue for years overseeing something you have little or no clue about is inexcusable.

I run into this paradigm all the time these days: Good managers can manage anything, and so good managers should be rotated through different departments after relatively short tenures in each. It seems to be the dominant paradigm in civil service in Washington, DC, and the dominant paradigm promoted by high-priced organizational consultants. It seems to be strongly embraced at UP in Omaha. Most terrifyingly, managers in the system start to believe it about themselves.

While it is important to give talented managers exposure and experience in all areas that ultimately may be under their purview, I think the attitude has been carried to an absurd extreme. Domain knowledge and technical knowledge DO matter. They matter a LOT.

Best regards,

Rob L.

No, they will not go after him for damages.

With 3 ex wives, I doubt there is much to go after, anyway.

UP will not take any legal action towards Mr. Dickens for two reasons.

First, another law case is just going to look bad and be bad PR for the company, even if they are in the right.

Second, it makes UP look bad by admitting they placed the wrong person in that spot. No company ever wants to admit they did something wrong.

Hopefully, things will move along so Mr. Dickens will get a "promotion" away from Cheyenne and the next guy will be best for the job.

Posted from iPhone