|
|
| Re: November 6, 2016 B Division Pick N short-turns to 96th, W part of N (1406256) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: November 6, 2016 B Division Pick N short-turns to 96th, W part of N |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Aug 24 21:34:24 2016, in response to Re: November 6, 2016 B Division Pick N short-turns to 96th, W part of N, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Aug 23 16:16:09 2016. I have a few questions, but I want to get a few issues out of the way first.I understand the points that you and others have made on this particular topic, a transit agency having either enough workers to handle outages of employees, or paying on-duty employees over-time to cover for absent employees. I'm not arguing the merits of either side of this issue, or if the salaries should or should not be publicized. Understand I am not talking about the WHAT was said, but rather the HOW it was said. Yes, I'm talking about the English - the wording being used. Here's the particular sentence: "I, do, however believe that the agency should roster enough qualified workers that not outs account no employee should not occur." The particular words are "that not outs account no employee should not occur." That is a tough working sentence - even though I get the gist. And another sentence: "I received the SF Muni daily reports which detailed exactly those issues -- not outs even by route ..." ------ Does "not outs" mean a bus or train that is taken out of service or the schedule due to a lack of personnel? Or a situation where a bus or train would have been taken out of service or the schedule due to the lack of personnel? But an employee was found able to cover that run (over-time or not). Do transit agencies make a list of train or bus runs that might not have run, except there was a person willing to do over-time, or to take over that shift? Just wondering. Mike |
|
|
|