Home  Maps  About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

First : << [11 12 13 14]

< Previous Page  

Page 11 of 14

Next Page >  

(532723)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Dec 13 09:36:11 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Dutchrailnut on Thu Dec 13 09:07:12 2007.

Dutch, just because you never get questioned doesn't mean no one does. We've seen tons of reports of people being questioned. It is funny that you are ignoring that.

I know how many times Nilet has been stopped. I don't care how many times it is. It is what happens DURING those stops that matters. Every time I have been stopped in the past two years I have also been incorrectly told that photography is not allowed. So what's the difference? There is NO EXCUSE for cops or employees telling Nilet or me or anyone that photography is not allowed.

(532727)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Railman718 on Thu Dec 13 09:38:30 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Dutchrailnut on Thu Dec 13 09:07:12 2007.

Hey it happened to me...

(532728)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 13 09:39:38 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Dec 13 09:36:11 2007.

OK, so what do you and he - who are clearly disgruntled by what you believe is ill treatment - do about it?

Have either of you tried to, e.g., seek disciplinary action via NYCT? If not, then why not?

(532731)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 13 09:44:50 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Railman718 on Thu Dec 13 09:38:30 2007.

True, but as I recall your post about it, you dealt with potential trouble very effectively.

(532737)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Dec 13 09:50:21 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 13 09:39:38 2007.

I have not. I would only do so for some egregious action toward me, or if it was bad enough AND I had enough identifying information about the person as to not get some other innocent employee caught up in it.

I've had two worse-than-normal encounters with employees. The first one involved all of us going to find the nearest policeman, but then the employee fled. The second one was this guy who yelled at me and threatened to call the cops and then walked away. I hope he got so mad that he brought it up with some other employees and then he gets told "uh, actually, photography IS allowed."

(532738)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Dec 13 09:52:02 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 13 09:44:50 2007.

He's part of the brotherhood and has the ID card to show for it. Of course that's a ridiculous reason to let someone go who you think is actually doing something suspicious, so it just shows that the person who stopped him was full of it from the beginning, as are most.

(532812)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Dec 13 11:36:14 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Dec 12 22:58:40 2007.

IAWTP

(532829)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Dec 13 11:56:49 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Dec 13 09:36:11 2007.

The LION has been questioned several times last summer by both police and MTA supervisors. Police allowed continued photography, as did the supervisor at the Canarsie terminal, once he satisfied himself that I was photographing trans and tracks and not he people. Apparently he was afraid I was from the Post, so maybe they had been bothering him.

ROAR

(532832)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Dec 13 12:00:09 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Dec 13 09:50:21 2007.

Photography *is* permitted, looking suspicious is not. Profiling is a dirty word, but if you fit the profile, you may well be interviewed by a police officer. They always stop the LION, thus when they stop *you* they cannot be accused of profiling *you*. Hahahaha....

ROAR

(532844)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Dec 13 12:13:53 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Dec 13 12:00:09 2007.

Looking suspicious is permitted as long as you consent to questioning and provide satisfactory answers.

(533163)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Train Dude on Thu Dec 13 23:37:59 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Nilet on Thu Dec 13 04:18:50 2007.

This never happened. Give it a rest.

(533209)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by South Ferry on Fri Dec 14 03:33:37 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Railman718 on Thu Dec 13 01:21:34 2007.

that applies to both, T/O and geese person.

The T/O wasn't very professional using the "Terrorist" remark.

(533214)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Nilet on Fri Dec 14 05:38:26 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Train Dude on Thu Dec 13 23:37:59 2007.

Yeah, right. When in doubt, deny all events, terms, and definitions...

(533217)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Dec 14 06:14:03 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by South Ferry on Fri Dec 14 03:33:37 2007.

"Professionally" was meant more towards the T/O, beacuse we are professionals..

Passengers just have to act a bit more civil...

(533221)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 06:47:38 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Railman718 on Fri Dec 14 06:14:03 2007.

Heh. Good one. :)

I've said it before to deaf ears, but I wouldn't necessarily blame the T/O on this one knowing what SOME of the training is about (and you've alluded to some of it as well) ... I suspect that the TRAINING and "what is a terrorist?" in particular is the problem as far as the T/O's reaction goes.

Used to be pretty easy to spot who didn't belong and who did as far as "buffs" go - I confessed to being one when I joined the steel-wheeled Navy. Got flagged off for that pronto - "don't ask, don't tell." Heh. But the "Special High Intensity Training" (or S.H.I.T.) is apparently defective if that was the reaction. You KNOW how it is down there about following bulletins and school car to the LETTER of the law. That's how I see this incident - ain't judging ANY of the parties involved, merely stating where I think the problem is.

Made a suggestion that MTA could help to solve the issue by offering "membership cards" to those willing to get one, got dissed as usual for even suggesting a solution that would make all sides somewhat more sane. Heh. Not that I care ... like yourself, it's a genuinely simple matter of explaining yourself, indicating that you know what the issues are, and asking "may I?" and usually getting the happy result of "enjoy your stay." Then there's those who'd rather pop a cap over bullsquat. Sheesh.

But offered some suggestions, all I can say is I've never had a problem ... everyone already knew what I wanted before I started doing it. Civility and "no chit" has a way of working wonders when there's beakies in yer face. "Be governed accordingly" and indicating that you know what the words are supposed to mean ain't no big thing. :(

But geese being civil? Heh. Better not be your day for a random, brah! (grin)

(533228)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 07:09:12 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by South Ferry on Fri Dec 14 03:33:37 2007.

Right, and the T/O was totally to blame here.

(533233)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 07:21:18 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 07:09:12 2007.

No, the TRAINING was ... T/O got fed a mountain of squirt ... and they probably DID what their training INSTRUCTED them to ... to the LETTER of the rules. Whenever there is a Bronx handshake over such matters, the poor bastard doing the job was lead to believe what they were TRAINED to do, or what the bulletin INDICATED was the correct response. Civil service actions with the public are based on very SPECIFIC instructions.

Has anyone examined the INSTRUCTIONS before piling on an hourly whose only recourse is to "do what you're TOLD?" or risk being brought up on charges for FAILURE to follow instructions?

I read the various accounts of the incident, and having CIVIL SERVICE experience with what bulletins and memos mean tells me that the person in question most definitely over-reacted, but since they still HAVE a job, they were based upon instructions you might not be aware of. And their reaction was based upon how they were TRAINED to perform in such a situation. MTA goes to GREAT lengths to clarify to employees what is expected in any such bulletins or memos.

My last comment on this subject ... FIND the bulletin ... FOIA ... that will explain all. :(

(533240)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 07:28:50 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 07:21:18 2007.

False, as I have said maybe 10 or more times in this thread (RTFT!).

The T/O did NOT follow her training to the letter of the rules. She violated both her training, the bulletin, and g-ddamn common sense. Next time she does the same thing with a real terrorist, he'll probably set off teh bomb right then and there :(

I've read the bulletin/memo. I don't make shit up.

(533260)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 08:20:45 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 07:28:50 2007.

What's your salary grade with the state? And how many times DID you watch the training film? Until you can answer those questions, how do you KNOW what information they were given in their training? I note your argument with Railman (who DID receive the training) over what he was told that he's NOT permitted to divulge externally (yet ANOTHER rule of civil service) ... he made it pretty clear that the T/O did apparently follow the letter of the training although he may differ from personal experience as to its value.

Bottom line in civil service though, SIMON SAYS ... now if you can tell us your pass number and your salary grade, be happy to argue further but in THIS case, you're *WRONG* ...

Like I said, issue is the TRAINING, not the hourly. Get over yerself.

(533291)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 09:38:42 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 08:20:45 2007.

I've read the memo. I've heard what's in the training film. And I have common sense. All three say to call Control/Supervisor/Police and all three say nothing about confronting/demeaning the "suspect". And all three say NOTHING about photography being illegal or prohibited or must be stopped. To think otherwise is insane. The problem here is 100% with the hourly. And Railman agrees with me on this. No one caused the hourly to do what she did wrong except for her dumb self.

(533296)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Dec 14 09:44:35 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 07:28:50 2007.

Then post the memo here. You're not an employee, so it's not like they can fire you.

On the other hand, you can name who gave it to you, and get him/her fired, if you want.

(533298)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 09:47:00 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 09:38:42 2007.

No one caused the hourly to do what she did wrong except for her dumb self.

Interesting. You seem to have radically undermined your more broad claims, however.

Assuming that you're correct, none of this is a very big systemwide deal at all, as some have contended then, by your own argument. So Nilet can prove that you and he and are correct by seeing the employee disciplined, and then all would be tickety-boo. By your descriptions of it, the employee MUST be disciplined, so let's see that happen.



(533308)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 09:55:59 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 09:47:00 2007.

huh?

(533313)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 10:06:08 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 09:38:42 2007.

Different people walk away from Special High Intensity Training with different perspectives. Once again, to deaf ears, I maintain my claim that the TRAINING was defective if THIS was the outcome. But by all means, yammer on ...

(533315)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 10:14:25 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 10:06:08 2007.

Different people walk away from Special High Intensity Training with different perspectives.

You're claiming that this employee's Special High Intensity Training (S.H.I.T.) wasn't effective. Uh oh! There's more training to come, then!


Employees who don't take their S.H.I.T. will be placed in DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEE EVALUATION PROGRAMS (D.E.E.P. S.H.I.T.). Those who fail to take D.E.E.P. S.H.I.T. seriously will have to go to EMPLOYEE ATTITUDE TRAINING (E.A.T. S.H.I.T.). Since our managers took S.H.I.T. before they were promoted, they don't have to do S.H.I.T. anymore, and are full of S.H.I.T. already.

If you are full of S.H.I.T., you may be interested in a job training others. We can add your name to our BASIC UNDERSTANDING LECTURE LIST (B.U.L.L. S.H.I.T.). Those who are full of B.U.L.L. S.H.I.T. will get the S.H.I.T. jobs, and can apply for promotion to DIRECTOR OF INTENSITY PROGRAMMING (D.I.P. S.H.I.T.).

If you have further questions, please direct them to our HEAD OF TRAINING, SPECIAL HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING (H.O.T. S.H.I.T.).



(533316)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 10:18:41 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 10:14:25 2007.

Heh. YOU got da picture! In civil service, logic makes rocks float reliably. It's ALL about "Simon says" on the rails there. And if Simon SAYS, you DO. If Simon DOESN'T say, you don't. Obviously, we have one seriously spooked hourly here, following the rules. Like I said, the S.H.I.T. was probably applied to a rotary device, lacking of logic. And as we ALL know here, when a bulletin hits the ventilator, it is NOT evenly distributed. :)

(533323)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 10:33:01 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 10:06:08 2007.

Different people walk away from Special High Intensity Training with different perspectives.

Duh. The non-dumb people with common sense walk away from "S.H.I.T." with the right ideas. They are the people who don't yell at photographers doing legal things. They are also the ones who discreetly call Control if they observe something that looks to be legitimately suspicious, thereby potentially saving the day if it turns out they witnessed a real threat.

So as I said, no one caused the T/O to royally screw up except her own dumb self. I never said she did it maliciously. I essentially said she did it because she is dumb (of course she may NOT be dumb and DID do it maliciously, but the additional proff needed to make that claim is not available). Better training MIGHT help her, but there is no guarantee. Bottom line is, again, that she violated the memo, her training, and common sense.

(533325)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 10:35:20 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 10:18:41 2007.

Plus, there's also a locker room effect, I think, in which a (mis)interpretation of whatever rule - in any job - is propagated. In this fashion, which was studied in the context of police but which probably applies just as well elsewhere, one person with wrong information can pass that on to others in an informal context, and then, the rule enforced becomes, for those tainted, not the one in the memo or on the books but the one they heard from Ralph or Bonnie or whoever else.

(533342)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 10:51:15 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 10:33:01 2007.

Bottom line is, again, that she violated the memo, her training, and common sense.

Common sense is downright uncommon.

But can you post a copy of this memo and video of training sessions? Otherwise, the claim I quoted isn't falsifiable.

(533348)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 10:56:09 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 10:35:20 2007.

That doesn't justify it. And if the employee is going to go so far as confront a customer over something only heard through locker room talk, that shows that they are dumb. They should instead seek official verification before enforcing such a rule, not to mention that I don't they wouldn't be responsible for enforcing it (via direct confrontation) even if it was real, though I could be wrong. If they take the time to seek formal verification, they would hopefully be shown the memo that says nothing about it being illegal or that they should confront the customer, and only says to call control. They would hopefully also take a look at the rules posted on the website, as there are posters and pamphlets all over the system that direct customers to the website to read the full set of rules and regulations. Employees should be no less expected to, at a minimum, be aware of the posted rules as the customers. And one look at the rules would hopefully clear up any and all misconceptions about what is permitted and what is prohibited for the customers to do.

The only semi-excuse is if the employee asked a TSS and the TSS told them that photography was not permitted. But then that still means the employee hasn't read the rules posted on the website, and is also violating the memo would only says to contact control, and does not mention anything about confronting the person directly (which should make sense why it doesn't - it's not a prohibited activity!).

(533355)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:03:11 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 10:51:15 2007.

I don't have the memo. It was widely discussed at the time it came out,and during the time of the proposed photo ban, and occasionally since. If any employee wants to claim that the memo states anything about confronting the suspect, then go ahead.

(533359)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:07:25 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 10:35:20 2007.

Heh. Yep ... it's TRUE ... you can only take away from S.H.I.T. what was imparted, and it's SIMON SAYS. And for those who don't quite get it, others will offer their advice. All comes back to my original argument though ... apparently the TRAINING was defective and Doctor Fenway needs them all to come back for regrooving. :(

But I have no DOUBT that our "misbehaving T/O" firmly believed what she'd been TOLD to do ... and that what she was TOLD to do was lacking. :(

(533361)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:09:32 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:03:11 2007.

I don't have the memo. It was widely discussed at the time it came out,and during the time of the proposed photo ban, and occasionally since.

You're citing to a memo written and circulated before the existence of the present rules?

(533363)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:10:59 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:09:32 2007.

Yep ... cock sure of himself as always, completely clueless as to what was ACTUALLY issued on pink sheets and classroom instruction. For all his bluster, he was NOT in schoolcar when any of this was issued. :(

(533364)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:15:01 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:07:25 2007.

But I have no DOUBT that our "misbehaving T/O" firmly believed what she'd been TOLD to do ... and that what she was TOLD to do was lacking.

I'm pretty sure that you're right, but given that we don't know the details of this account - and we probably never will, so this will end up as a 'he said v. he said she said story' - there are lots of questions we'll have. With the present info, there's not even enough to corroborate the story given by Mr. Nilet.



(533367)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:16:01 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:07:25 2007.

apparently the TRAINING was defective

From what I have heard about the current anti-terrorism training class, photography is specifically addressed, and at no time is it stated to be prohibited. Employees are told what to look for to spot suspicious photography, and then to report suspicious photography if they see it. They are not told to take matters into their own hands via direct confrontation. And that all matches up with what was in the memo.

But I have no DOUBT that our "misbehaving T/O" firmly believed what she'd been TOLD to do

Ignorance is not an excuse for the law, which is posted on the website, and notice of that is displayed throughout the system. Employees should be no less expected to read it / know it than the riders.

(533372)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:21:37 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:09:32 2007.

No, not at all. Why are you accusing me of such?

(533373)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:22:07 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:10:59 2007.

No, he is wrong, as are you.

(533375)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:25:08 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:15:01 2007.

Which is why all we can do at this time is say that "The events, as only presented by one side, show that the T/O was in the wrong, and that the customer wasn't. If any new evidence is brought, that could possibly change." Because if Nilet didn't present an entirely truthful scenario, then there is a wide range of possibilities for what could have happened.

(533376)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:26:07 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:16:01 2007.

From what I have heard about the current anti-terrorism training class, photography is specifically addressed, and at no time is it stated to be prohibited.

Since I haven't been to the training sessions, I can't and won't comment on this.

Ignorance is not an excuse for the law, which is posted on the website, and notice of that is displayed throughout the system. Employees should be no less expected to read it / know it than the riders.

First off, to the extent that you think riders know the law on this, you're way off in right field, possibly beyond the fence.

So no, employees should know the regulations because that's their job.

Secondly, the rules do not allow for all manner of photography. As was explained by a dialogue between NYCT's own Mr. Railman718 and myself, there are in fact permissible restrictions on photography. The real question is what's permissible and what's not.

As for the incident in question, we simply don't have enough information to evaluate it. To the extent that the NYCT employee was drawn into a confrontation with our Mr. Nilet, if any, is probably the main problem for the employee, I think.

One thing I'm confused on, after the employee raised this stink, allegedly over the radio, what ever did come to happen to our "terrorist"? Was he apprehended or searched and seized by police? Does he have any witnesses to any of the acts he's described other than himself?

Beside which, on your and his view of this, why is this nefarious employee not being brought up on disciplinary charges?

(533379)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:37:46 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:26:07 2007.

First off, to the extent that you think riders know the law on this, you're way off in right field, possibly beyond the fence...employees should know the regulations because that's their job

Where did I say the riders know the law? I said they should know it. And I said employees are no less expected to know it. And you're right, they should in fact be more expected to know it.

Secondly, the rules do not allow for all manner of photography. As was explained by a dialogue between NYCT's own Mr. Railman718 and myself, there are in fact permissible restrictions on photography. The real question is what's permissible and what's not.

Couldn't agree more! Except that what's permissible and what's not is not a significant question. We know the answer. The answer is that photography that complies with the rest of 1050, and with all applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations, is permissible.

(533381)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:38:28 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:21:37 2007.

Why are you accusing me of such?

No accusation. It's simply that you wrote:

I don't have the memo. It was widely discussed at the time it came out,and during the time of the proposed photo ban, and occasionally since.

If the memo was widely discussed during the time of the proposed photo ban in NYCT, i.e., after (and during) on (or about) mid-2004, and NYCT subsequently, in May 2005, abandoned said proposal, and the present rules on photography were issued on or after June 2005, THEN how is that memo relevant to interpretation of rules promulgated well after the time the memo was drafted?

I hope that clarifies my question as to your citation of the memo.



(533389)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:46:13 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:38:28 2007.

No, the present rules on photography were not issued on or after June 2005. They have been the same since the early 1990's, AFAIK. The proposed rule change with regards to photography was just that, a change. Since the change was abandoned, no change was made, and the rules remained the same as before the change was proposed. AFAIK, at no time since 1050.9(c) was changed from "not permitted" to "permitted" in the early 1990's has the rules ever stated that photography is not permitted.

(533391)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:49:01 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:25:08 2007.

No ... what we can impart from this is that the TRAINING left a bit of discretion lacking ... I have NO doubt that the T/O did what they felt they were TRAINED to do - else they would have been dummed out of the corps for some OTHER "discrepency" LONG before this occurred.

I once again argue that "training" materials often lack specificity and the "discussion" following the screening likely failed to slice the bologna properly. But having DECADES of experience in "civil service S.H.I.T." that it was the training that failed here, and the T/O in question left training without fully understanding the situation, and that the "rules" NEVER came up at all.

If you're going to PIN the tail on a donkey by JUDGING people, best to know PRECISELY what occurred, and what lead up to it. I haven't seen the video either, but at least I've been told what WAS in it. And it left MANY scratching their heads. And I can ALSO assure you that nothing about 1059c was contained in the training material.

So WHERE is the actual fault here? Sure ... hang the hourly instead of their "leaders." :(

(533393)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:50:12 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:25:08 2007.

Which is why all we can do at this time is say that "The events, as only presented by one side, show that the T/O was in the wrong, and that the customer wasn't. If any new evidence is brought, that could possibly change."

But who talks like THAT?!

"The events, as only presented by Eichmann, show that the Hebrews were in the wrong. If any new evidence is brought, especially by the allegedly deceased, that could possibly change."

A harsh rejoinder, but there's good reason why we don't make judgments in these situations. One can say that things appear a certain way (or not), or speak of probabilities, but it sounds very queer to talk in the way you suggest, because you're making a judgment based on the truth of a conditional whose truth is not known and whose truth is key to the judgment.

(533394)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:53:48 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:37:46 2007.

The answer is that photography that complies with the rest of 1050, and with all applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations, is permissible.

Which begs the question of whether or not Nilet's photography so complied....

(533397)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:54:38 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:16:01 2007.

Ummm ... no. I'm privy to details you may not be, but based on what I've been told by seven friends of mine who have seen this thread, 1059c is *NOT* mentioned. I won't go into the other details of what IS in the training video, but photography *IS* a part of it, I'll just say that it relates to "photographing INFRASTRUCTURE and PROCEDURES (such as operating)" and as far as I'm concerned, based upon rather VAGUE directions in the video, this particular T/O might have misinterpreted the training, but the AUTHORITY will stand behind her decision to do what she did. And I can *confirm* that she's STILL pounding the rails after all that's been seen here (and NOTED by her supervisors) ...

Gotta leave it there.

(533399)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:56:20 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:38:28 2007.

Heh. Has NOTHING to do with 1059c ... NOTHING.

(533401)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:56:48 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:22:07 2007.

All I can tell ya is "HAVE a nice day." :)

(533402)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:56:53 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 11:46:13 2007.

My understanding is that the photography rules were changed on or about June 2005 along with the rules about moving/riding between cars along with the one about beverages on a moving conveyance.

First : << [11 12 13 14]

< Previous Page  

Page 11 of 14

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]