Brave New World? 1984? What's next, the "Thought Police"?
Nope. Next is an attempt at having the best suited train crews possible.Brave New World? 1984? What's next, the "Thought Police"?
The first question is whose employees they currently are and whose they will be as the new Amtrak contract commences. If the outgoing operator is terminating these workers and Amtrak is extending them conditional offers of employement as new Amtrak employees, arguably, Amtrak can establish qualifications for each position. The article indicates that they already require these tests of new hires for this classification of worker in its broader operations nationwide. If so, this provision should not be new to the unions. The only catch may be if the new contract requires Amtrak to hire these workers for these specific operations as a condition of the contract award. Then, collective bargaining rules may come in to play.
Honestly, just how much interaction does the average Amtrak passenger have with their engineer?i would like this idea if it means no more rude employees who think that you just being on the train is ruining their lives.
none but it also reviews the C-O-N-D-U-C-T-O-R.Honestly, just how much interaction does the average Amtrak passenger have with their engineer?i would like this idea if it means no more rude employees who think that you just being on the train is ruining their lives.
i would like this idea if it means no more rude employees who think that you just being on the train is ruining their lives.
I am sure that it is less than zero. My thought that the engineer would be singled out this way because of the critical interaction with the conductor and other on board crew.Honestly, just how much interaction does the average Amtrak passenger have with their engineer?i would like this idea if it means no more rude employees who think that you just being on the train is ruining their lives.
I personally think that you hit it on the head jmbgeg. I am well versed in union contracts and as this has been universally applied to employment candidates in the past, even qualified engineers from other railroads. Your logic seems to be right on baring any specific collective bargaining restrictions.The first question is whose employees they currently are and whose they will be as the new Amtrak contract commences. If the outgoing operator is terminating these workers and Amtrak is extending them conditional offers of employement as new Amtrak employees, arguably, Amtrak can establish qualifications for each position. The article indicates that they already require these tests of new hires for this classification of worker in its broader operations nationwide. If so, this provision should not be new to the unions. The only catch may be if the new contract requires Amtrak to hire these workers for these specific operations as a condition of the contract award. Then, collective bargaining rules may come in to play.
I am not a lawyer or well versed in union contracts and collective bargaining. Others may have a better informed opinion on whether Amtrak can impose these terms of employment in this specific scenario.
I can't tell if this is an April Fool's joke or not. That's only one step removed from saying that getting fired for doing your job poorly is really just a case of "unabletodomyjobism".Personality testing is neutral about saying whether a person is "good" or "bad." It simply determines whether a person has certain trains like extroversion and introversion and whether the person makes decisions primarily based on thinking or feeling.
Using this sort of testing to determine employee qualification is a form of discrimination. We have words for "racism" and "sexism" and "ageism" and there ought to be a similar word for "personalityism". It's another form of discrimination plain and simple.
The idea that people have to have similar personalities to interact is ludicrous. Interacting with people of differing personalities or people that you just do not like is part of any job and is what being a professional is all about. A conductor and engineer could hate each others guts, as long as they are both professionals the job will get done.I am sure that it is less than zero. My thought that the engineer would be singled out this way because of the critical interaction with the conductor and other on board crew.Honestly, just how much interaction does the average Amtrak passenger have with their engineer?i would like this idea if it means no more rude employees who think that you just being on the train is ruining their lives.
If I'm not mistaken, several courts have actually banned certain testing of potential new hires, when it is deemed not having any real bearing on how a new hire may perform their position, but rather is used to covertly discriminate against certain demographic groups.Personality testing is neutral about saying whether a person is "good" or "bad." It simply determines whether a person has certain trains like extroversion and introversion and whether the person makes decisions primarily based on thinking or feeling.
Using this sort of testing to determine employee qualification is a form of discrimination. We have words for "racism" and "sexism" and "ageism" and there ought to be a similar word for "personalityism". It's another form of discrimination plain and simple.
That's a wild misinterpretation of the firefighters case. The test in question was a promotion exam, not for new hires and there isn't a ban on testing, but you need to ensure that there are no hidden biases in the test. In the firefighters case, there was a wide variation on how well different groups did on the test and the department took no steps to ensure that it wasn't just a statistical happenstance and not a biased exam.If I'm not mistaken, several courts have actually banned certain testing of potential new hires, when it is deemed not having any real bearing on how a new hire may perform their position, but rather is used to covertly discriminate against certain demographic groups.Personality testing is neutral about saying whether a person is "good" or "bad." It simply determines whether a person has certain trains like extroversion and introversion and whether the person makes decisions primarily based on thinking or feeling.
Using this sort of testing to determine employee qualification is a form of discrimination. We have words for "racism" and "sexism" and "ageism" and there ought to be a similar word for "personalityism". It's another form of discrimination plain and simple.
I'm not saying that this is the 'real' intention in this particular case, but such things have happenned recently in many different cases, most notably exams for firefighters.
Enter your email address to join: