Passenger Trains > WaPo: WMATA Firings -- Suit Says "Racism"

Read and decide for yourselves:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/07/18/metro-fights-back-against-allegations-of-racism-firings-were-legitimate/?hpid=hp_local-news_metrofirings-615pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.91c35dc733fc

Metro has been trimming its ranks of employees with many years of disciplinary actions, which has antagonized some people in the community. The unions have wavered between getting rid of some really awful bad apples, and protecting guys who may have made a few mistakes, etc.

[The fact that Metro is even bothering to terminate people is noteworthy. That wasn't the case before.]

How is that racist if they weren't doing their jobs correctly or lying about it after. Get over it. You were fired for falsifying records. Not because of your race. Oh wait. Sorry. You were disrespected.

So what would be the purpose of failing false records?

DFWJIM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what would be the purpose of failing false
> records?

In the case of the guy who was accused of three filings of false track measurements, it's likely he didn't even walk the track to make the measurements (which were identical over a several year period, per the article). That could lead to problems if the track had moved in a way that would compromise safety.

I thought it was interesting the guy was promoted to supervisor after two of the readings. If I was his uber-boss, I'd want to know who felt he had the skills and credibility to be promoted. And, can that guy, too.

If a supervisor job goes to the next most senior guy on the crew, regardless of supervisory skills, that's a problem.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How is that racist if they weren't doing their
> jobs correctly or lying about it after. Get over
> it. You were fired for falsifying records. Not
> because of your race. Oh wait. Sorry. You were
> disrespected.

You obviously didn't follow the link within the link that describes the lawsuit in more detail.

Lawsuit involves two workers (likely union-protected), two supervisors, and a maintenance manager. Based on your past rants, you would have demanded those two be fired, and question the judgement of the other three (but don't fire them). :-)

The bigger issue in the lawsuit is the scapegoating of these employees, while higher-ranking officials escape any discipline. I chastise their lawyer for including racism to distort the issue to bait blind folks who don't read and don't know any better. The fact that the 3 management employees in the firing don't have access to union protection might have had something to do with the race card litigation tactic.

Introducing a claim of racism creates a threshold for some jurors to over come. Even if it is false, it will need to be addressed.


In DC, that history is all around you.

Posted from Android