Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SlightlyStoopkid t1_j9vhnb7 wrote

Reply to comment by eigiarce in Dispatcher availability no longer all that’s holding back MBTA service by eigiarce

>Historically, only existing MBTA employees qualify for dispatcher jobs, and Interim General Manager Jeff Gonneville said the agency is exploring the idea of hiring externally for the role.

sounds to me like they haven't hired anyone from outside yet, but instead just trained people from other roles in the org, and now the problem is:

>our vehicle availability and staffing of operators and front-line management

aka they shuffled people around within the mbta to say "look how well we're doing, we have so many dispatchers now," and in the process they moved so many conductors that they can't run enough trains to maintain their old operating schedule. "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"

34

silocren t1_j9w8ea3 wrote

They've literally hired one new dispatcher. It took them a year to do it.

They went from 15 to 16.

This is why everyone thinks the MBTA is a sad joke.

26

trowdatawhey t1_j9weakr wrote

That's hilarious actually lol

But if you think about the type of shit that a train driver has to deal with on the daily and the horrible attitude that forms because of it, would you want to be a dispatcher who then has to deal with those train drivers?

4

rip_wallace t1_j9zet05 wrote

Hilarious if true, which is not. False claims like the one above do nothing towards fixing the T and discourage folks from funding it/taking it leading to a death spiral. All for internet points..

1

rip_wallace t1_j9ygjx1 wrote

Source on this? Their board presentations say otherwise

1

silocren t1_j9yzqy9 wrote

"In June, when the FTA published interim findings of its safety probe, the operations control center had only 15 rapid transit dispatchers total."

"As of Friday, the operations control center had 21 permanent heavy-rail dispatchers employed, five who were performing those duties while “on loan” from other MBTA departments, and another three in training"

So they have 21 now, 5 of whom are on loan. 21 - 5 = 16. They had 15 before, meaning they've only hired one new person.

−1

rip_wallace t1_j9zbkak wrote

It’s a reading comprehension error on your end. It’s 21 permanent dispatchers, ANOTHER 5 on loan (which makes it 26) and another 3 in training.

But take your upvotes for shitting on the T with a false claim, I guess.

Edit: Here is the MBTA’s presentation disproving your bullshit lie. https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2023-02/2023-02-24-1-report-from-the-general-manager.pdf

4

silocren t1_j9zniai wrote

Cool, so we should be back to a regular schedule, right? I mean it has been over a year.

Oh we're not? And we won't be until July 2024, per the MBTA's own dashboard?

https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2023-02/2023-02-01_sd22-6_cap6_redacted.pdf

Sorry for not giving the MBTA the benefit of the doubt, they definitely deserve it after the stellar service they've provided - a train hasn't caught fire in months! Running reduced service for only 3 years should be celebrated!

0

rip_wallace t1_j9znw45 wrote

Lol you got caught spewing a bullshit lie and now you’re changing the subject

0

silocren t1_j9zoit2 wrote

Relax dude - I referenced the exact source, which made it sound like the 5 dispatchers "on loan" were part of the 21 total, with 3 "additional" dispatchers in training. Blame the reporter for being ambiguous.

It doesn't matter if they have 5 dispatchers or 50 if they can't run a normal schedule for 3+ years. The number is irrelevant.

Imagine simping for the MBTA in 2023.

0

Barstomanid t1_j9yl4h1 wrote

Hiring externally requires renegotiating multiple union contracts. That's... not going to be an easy or quick process. I don't even know if they've started.

2

SlightlyStoopkid t1_j9zte06 wrote

Why would they have to renegotiate multiple contracts to hire people? Can’t they join the union and start working?

2

Apprehensive_Text_68 t1_j9zui5j wrote

I don’t have any experience with this union, but I have lots with other unions. There are often work change polls, seniority issues to work out along with grade changes and a bunch of other stuff before moving to external offerings. It’s a long and ridiculous process, especially if you have multiple unions working in the same group. The most I worked with was 5 unions and it took months to ‘get permission’ to hire someone externally. Hell, I wanted to move some machinery to a different building and it took me nearly a year because the union thought it was being done to ‘reduce overhead’ when I was literally just moving it to a different building to give them more room to work.

3

SlightlyStoopkid t1_ja027ku wrote

I just don’t understand why either party would sign a contract that prevented them from hiring enough people to do the job. Even if it does take such a long time, wouldn’t you take that into consideration and start the process sooner?

2

Barstomanid t1_ja056xy wrote

As I understand it, the current contracts only lets them promote into the roles they need from people with sufficient seniority. If you don't have enough people with 5 years of experience or whatever (I don't know the exact number) they can't fill the roll until someone earns the necessary seniority.

Which is, yes, a shitty contract that no one should have signed. Colored me surprised that the MBTA boxed themselves in by signing a bunch of shit contracts.

I could be wrong though, this is all hearsay.

2

SlightlyStoopkid t1_ja078ri wrote

You’d think, after sticking yourself with a multi year time delay to hire an employee, that you’d want to start that process as soon as possible, instead of letting it get so bad that the federal government had to jump in and tell you you were dangerously understaffed.

2