The question is, why are you worried about it? There is nothing you can do to about it but work with it, so why waste time worrying about it?
exactly
The question is, why are you worried about it? There is nothing you can do to about it but work with it, so why waste time worrying about it?
Would you consider this to be a form of harassent or a teachable moment?
We had a demonstration as part of our PCM Thursday morning. Telematics showed that one of our drivers backed 300' feet on a main road. He had driven past the delivery point and rather than turn around decided to back. The on-car and center manager had us assemble in the parking lot. The on-car had two cones---he kept one and had the driver in question take the other one and start walking in the other direction toward our safety chair, who had walked off the 300' distance earlier that morning. When the driver reached that point he stopped, put down the cone and stood next to it. The on-car then described the scenario, relayed what the driver had done and gave what he felt were safer alternatives, which included walking it off. I have to admit that the demonstration was effective----it is one thing to hear 300' but to see it is quite another. It is the length of a football field and to back up that far on a main road is simply unsafe. The driver in question readily admitted that he had made a poor decision and the demonstration clearly showed that he had.
Back to my question----would you consider this to be harassment or a teachable moment? I saw it as a teachable moment. As I said above, hearing 300' is not the same as seeing it; but, I also feel that the objective could have been achieved without embarassing the driver in question.
He shouldn't have been pointed out in my opinion, but I do agree its OK to remind drivers if you go past a stop walk it off or go around the block. Definitely never back like that on a main road unless there was some other reason we don't know about.
Back to my question----would you consider this to be harassment or a teachable moment? I saw it as a teachable moment. As I said above, hearing 300' is not the same as seeing it; but, I also feel that the objective could have been achieved without embarassing the driver in question.
To answer your question, I don't see anything wrong with it. He got his nose rubbed in it. Better than a warning letter or suspension.
The drivers that were shocked by it the most in my Center were the runners. Now they have to wear their seatbelts, shut the engine off at each stop, shut the bulkhead door, and they have to take their lunch. They also don't clock out before 5:00 anymore. I haven't had any problems with it. I do make more money than I used to because I walk off more stops.
where does the lunch factor in pops,, i punched out at 348 friday
Was the employee given an opportunity to explain any mitigating factors or circumstances regarding his decision to back that far?
I wonder how the company will choose to prioritize the conflicting metrics when the drivers who are being instructed to achieve 85% or better ORION compliance start showing a huge increase in their total backing events as a result. Will it be a "teachable moment" for management when the problem of conflicting metrics is explained to them, or will they just mindlessly chase whichever number happens to be the current flavor of the week?
I was talking to my on-car last week, and she pretty much said that we are going to have unlearn a lot of what we've been instructed to do in order to meet that 85%.
Or... we can continue using our experience and area knowledge to go out there and get the job done in the safest and most efficient manner possible, and learn to tune them out when they bitch and whine at us for failing to generate 85% compliance. That 85% isnt a holy writ from God almighty, its just a random number that some IE guy pulled out of his ass and decided to get excited about. It doesnt mean anything in the real world.