"Both can be reported in a netural way, but by highlighting one and not the other, there is another form of bias."
Define neutral. If you mean factual, what is the standard for "facts". Or do you mean without bias? The fundamental problem with trying to eliminate bias is that it is NOT possible. ANY report from ANY source will be biased. For instance, the mere act of filming something or taking a picture is a biased act. What the camera points at, what is recorded, where it is set up, etc., all introduce bias. The key is for the bias to be easily IDENTIFIED and stated when possible.
"When you get good grades, it is because you master the material, work well with others, and give the professor what he wanted."
Probably. But not always. It also depends upon the field. You can get good grades and not master the material or work well with others. Hell, if the course is a hard curve, it PAYS not to work well with others....
In my field (geology), I found that lower grades often corresponded with greater mastery (for myself). Primarily because the courses were more difficult.
Heck, one of the best geologists I know barely received a 3 GPA for his undergraduate studies (of course he did start in nuclear engineering). Any good employer who wouldn't have wanted him would have been an idiot.
"What if, at the very moment he was shining his laser at the constellation of Leo, a burst of wind turbulence took the pilots by surprise and caused the plane to careen out of the sky.
I think both are equally likely."
Actually, as turbulence HAS caused crashes and is often considered an Act of God, I say we should arrest God for terrorism:)
"That was just with a hand held laser -- add a good mount and scope, it'll become trivial for any good rifleman. Remember, a good long distance rifleman can put a bullet in a 10" target at ranges of thousands of yards..."
So why not just use a rifle? And we are not arresting people who point rifles at planes....
"Fourth, you don't have to actually cause permanent blindness, just bounce enough light around the cockpit that the pilots cannot see well or focus consistently, and you have a good chance of crashing the plane."
Well, it's good thing pilots don't have sunglasses:)
Second, pilots land all the time in bad weather. If that doesn't qualify as an inability to see well or focus consistently, why aren't planes crashing left and right? Perhaps because it isn't that easy? And perhaps the fact that pilots don't HAVE to see where they are going to land (visual landings are nice but not required).
Look the guy is an idiot. But he isn't a dangerous idiot. Not even close.
Look, if a terrorist wants to bring a plane down, they will use a weapon. Not a toy that could be used as a weapon. Rifles and bombs are much more effective. Not to mention bringing a plane down by a laser pointer wouldn't inspire much terror (the point behind terrorism) because it would be virtually impossible to prove.
Of course, exactly why he was charged under "anti-terrorism laws" when he wasn't suspected of terrorism (according to the article) boggles my mind. I imagine a good lawyer could/will have a field day with that....
"but local and state governments stand in the way all the time, yet that never makes the newspapers."
Well, see local and state governments are run by the citizens (at least in theory) with regular elections. So when the local government does something it probably has the (tacit) approval of its citizens. And if they don't like it, someone loses their jobs. How exactly do I vote out a company (without buying it....)?
"I've also seen local governments place a 10 year moratorium on new construction because people don't like their streets dug up."
How does a moratorium on new construction (generally related to buildings of some type) relate to fiber or cable? In any case, I doubt they would say no to a deal that was profitable. I doubt they can stop utilities from using an existing right of way? In any case, if people don't want their streets dug up they have the right to express that through their government. Companies do not have the right to profit.
"Surveying, digging, laying conduit with thoughts to bend radius, redundancy, sewer, water, power, and future repair access for accidental cuts? Hope that the contractor has their best person running the backhoe so you don't have to worry about severed gas, electrical, or water lines."
It's called hiring competent contractors. Gee, when they hire the cheapest crews and people lose service and are inconvenienced, I wonder why people don't like their streets dug up?
"You won't get $15 a month without some heavy government subsidies."
So, what is the right of way worth? I mean, we auction off spectrum. I think the point of the previous post is that the companies get a LARGE subsidy. It is just that they take it for granted.
"Even in this day and age, most people see software as a magical phenomenon that can do anything provided the magician is powerful enough. Telling them "no" means you're but a lowly apprentice."
Well, in many respects, most anything CAN be done. Now whether it should be done, how much it will cost, or whether the outcome will be good is another story.
You are correct that if you say no, they may move on. Better would be to say yes but it will cost you X amount. With X being more than they want to pay. But in the end, if you don't think it can be done, why take the job? You will just look bad in the end.
Well, the quote included the phrase "poor project management." This implies more than just the person on the project. So blaming the project manager may be a cop-out. But blaming management isn't.
Management decides what projects to take, how to run the project, and who to hire. So if it fails, they are responsible. Of course, if it works, then you could say they are responsible too:)
Of course, saying management is responsible is obvious and useless at the same time. The goal is to get the project done-how do we do this in spite of crappy decisions. In reality after all, if it fails, the employees on the project will be blamed. If it works, the management will claim credit.....
"If a corporation commits an act that would net an individual five years in prison, then that corporation has to shut down for five years."
Better idea: everyone on the board of directors, CEO, etc. goes to jail for five years. I mean, they ARE the decision makers for the corp. If the corp. committed a crime, they should be automatically? responsible. Has the added bonus of not hurting workers. But harder to implement (as in, when monkeys fly out of my rear end....)
"Also, a few of the OOo users had to revert back to MS Office 'coz of compatibility issues -- they regularly receive files from other organisations which refuse to open correctly in OOo."
But if they have been told OOo=new MS Office, could they really tell the difference? In other words, if they didn't realize it wasn't MS Office, wouldn't they likely chalk it up to incompatability between MS versions....
Of course custom applications will always be a problem.
"1) (Which you alluded to) is that there is no accountability in the productivity measurements. No comparison of deliverables to hours reported. Without that, there is no data to assist decisions concerning compensation and retention."
Won't help if you have bad management. Sure they will have numbers. But if they know they are goofing off NOW and not firing them, why would hard numbers help? The problem with numbers are many including: do they mean anything, will you act on them.
"I think that decision should be based solely on whether or not you fulfill the expectations for which you are being compensated, regardless of your position..."
And now, if you meet the minimum requirements, no need to be fired.... So feel free to slack off. If the workers know that if they meet the minimum standard they won't be fired and there is no hope of moving up, guess what, it is logical to slack off.
"I doubt, however, that most of these companies are using them to spy on their drivers, the benifits (better schedualing, accident handling, tracking if stolen) are outweigh the drawbacks for people yelling about their privacy. Its the way things are heading, and if done right, can make things a bit better."
You know, the privacy aspects don't really concern me (I'm at work anyway...) These systems, IF USED INTELLIGENTLY, can be great. If the point is to determine system bottlenecks, route improvements, etc. and then IMPLEMENT them, great.
But all too often they are used as a means to "encourage" people to work faster without common sense (gee, you took 60 seconds at that stop, we only want 45 seconds-I don't care if you had to deliver 10 100lb boxes 200ft up some steps....) Or improvements are never made because that takes real work and is likely to step on some important persons toes... People get lots of numbers and forget that how fast you can do things in the real world depend upon things out of control of the employee or that the employee is a person who has good and bad days. That is why I think people hate these systems. This is the reason that I am leary of them.
"You can't determine who is a good or bad delivery driver without a metric AND a way, such as tracking, to verify performance."
Bullshit. You sound like a bad manager justifying his/her crappy hiring decisions. Good employees are EASY to find. Finding GOOD employees at LOW wages is DIFFICULT. This is what businesses are complaining about when they say they can't find good employees....
If your delivers things, a metric already exists. Some type of tracking system already exists. We need X packages delivered. If he/she did X in the time alloted, then performance was fine. A GPS system would be useful if you want to fine tune things-but few companies really care about that-they just want the employee to go faster (but safety comes first-yeah right). Even if there is a way to make his/her job easier or quicker by changing company procedures.
Look, I work at a distribution center-I do a good job (I outperform some full-time personnel as a temp). But I receive NO benefits from working hard or doing a good job. They will keep me around if I work hard or slack off or start making errors. Hell, if anything, I am penalized for doing a good job (hey, go fix this, go fix that....) Because people aren't fired for doing a poor job. And we have a tracking system....
"The managers are managing better by using GPS technology rather than spending their time keeping track of their employees personally."
That's not managing, that's tracking. I'm sure someone can write a program to do the same thing for less money. Effective management requires at least some personal contact, a high degree of respect for the employee, and knowledge of the job.
In my experience, effective management blends into the job background-bad management screams out its presence.
"Don't you think that a critical metric in the delivery business is the amount of time that it takes to cover a route? Seems to me that the GPS tracking is a great way to do that without having your boss sitting in the truck with you."
Time to cover a route is important. And a GPS is important for this. But why the hell isn't the info already known?!?! Every heard of a stopwatch (and a supervisor in the truck with you)?
"The good managers will become leades by sharing the GPS info with the employees and working with them to improve their efficiency in covering their routes."
No the "good" managers (from the company perspective) will be the ones who complain that you took longer to do the route than the "ideal" time. Even though the ideal was based on minimal stops, minimal traffic, and ideal weather.
If a supervisor/manager doesn't understand the job then unrealistic metrics will be set. And a GPS system will allow this to be done. Setting realistic metrics is HARD. And most people (including managers) are lazy.
Well, I'm glad the managers were so concerned that it only took them over 3 hours to determine the driver was late. If this happens, there are only a few LIKELY reasons: vehicle problem (aka accident/collision), employee goofing off, employee clueless (went to wrong address), company clueless (actually failed to dispatch, gave wrong address), customer clueless (actually delivered hours ago), others....
I mean a manager could have got in a car and driven the route (or WALKED) and they would have discovered the problem. No truck = high likelihood of employee at fault. GPS is not a great help. Sure it will track the truck and driver down but hey, the employers probably had a good idea if the employee was trustworthy. Of course, the fact that it took them so long indicates a great need for a clue-by-four...
All in all, a tech system to compensate (poorly) for bad management. I suspect THAT is why most people who don't like the system, don't like it.
"Example: At my workplace, we have a loser who is significantly less productive than his counterparts. He pisses his day away looking at the Internet, talking at the water cooler, forwarding unfunny internet apocrypha and jokes to everyone, and eating 15 meals a day."
Hey, that almost sounds like a manager where I work... Well, maybe more than one... The same ones that will yell at workers to "look busy" rather than change the system to ensure a constant work flow. Guess that is not their job.:)
"If the new super highway is planned and executed correctly (i.e. limited development along the route, avoid passing directly through urban areas, etc.), it could do a lot to help traffic problems in the cities."
It won't happen. EVER. Building more roads will eventually lead to more traffic. Period. Sure, it may help in the short term.
But, how do you prevent development along the route? If it is an ideal travel route, then it would be good to have warehouses/industrial areas. Okay, need exits. More exits mean more businesses (more profit if toll road....) Those businesses need employees. Build houses (or people commute). More businesses to cater to employees (gas stations, stores, restaurants....). Pretty soon you have a city around each exit.
Well, now we have congestion around those exits, need new exits (private businesses rarely have problems getting them if they can get the money....) Rinse, lather, repeat.
If you build a convenient route, you will get growth. The only way to prevent it, is to reduce its usefulness. A rather large catch-22....
"The problem is that this region has never seen Tsunamis before, and most people were just curious to see what the hell was happening. That made it only worse - a lot of them were morning walkers who were wondering what's up with the sea."
Well, what is the phrase, something to the effect "curiosity killed the cat".
If someone was stupid enough to come to the ocean because a tsunami was predicted I think the gene pool will be better off without them. It might suck for friends and family but they would be doing the human race a favor....
"The problem is that, it is not enough if you had a warning system -- you would need to know what to do with it. It's not sufficient to warn people, you need to tell them where to go and what to do, too."
True. Of course I am amused about the "tsunami evacuation route" signs near the coast of Washington. If there is an actual need for the evacuation, the routes will probably be useless due to the massive 9 to 10 intensity EQ off the coast that preceded it...
"So, what do you do? 1) Check off each item visually? 2) Run around the warehouse looking for the missing items? or 3) Read the boxes with a barcode scanner?"
Yes, yes, and yes. This from working in a warehouse that only has bar codes.... So there is not much point in having RFID, at least yet. I mean, hell, you can have a grunt with a bar code scanner scanning each pallet-you don't need RFID for this. I suspect this is how it may happen in the short term (we are fully RFID compliant, by using bar codes....)
I mean, the point of RFID is to be be able to confirm that EACH BOX or whatever on that pallet is what it is supposed to be, without individual scanning/breaking down the pallet. What's the point of RFID for whole pallets? It seems like a solution waiting for a problem. Of course, that assumes things were coded correctly, attached correctly, etc. Just like bar codes. Somehow, I just don't think this is a great panacea. Oh, it sounds great. But in practice I don't think it will improve inventory at a lower cost-and if it doesn't, what's the point.
"The other issue is trust. When allowing a consumer to check themselves out, there has to be some level of trust, or, alternatively, a significant tolerance for shrinkage."
Well, I think Kmart (or is that SMart?) stopped using self scanners precisely because of skrinkage. And the demographics probably aren't much different...
I guess I am rather amused. I wonder if they will really save any money (will the increased skrinkage rate be less than the assumed cost savings for RFID tags). Or do they trust their RFID tags/customers more than their cashiers (I don't think I want an answer...) I suspect these are real issues. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall. Or is each unit trying to save money regardless of the impact on the other or ooh, look, shiny tech, it will save money?
"When all the kinks are worked out, not having to hand-scan every item entering or leaving a warehouse is bound to save lots of dollars."
You mean IF all the kinks are worked out. Is it realistic to expect better than a 1 or 2% error rate (say no scan or incorrect scan)? I don't know, maybe it is. But if you have a pallet of 100 items and one or two don't scan, or show up, what do you do? Manually input them? Break the pallet down? Ignore them? I have seen all three occur with bar codes when every box wasn't scanned. The net result: any cost savings just disappeared if you want inventory accuracy. More likely, your inventory will suck because those doing the work won't care for one reason or another....
In other words, how is this better than bar codes again? Sure it has the potential-when everything has a RFID tag-to do some cool things, but I'm betting that is going to be a lot like fusion. Technology of the future and always will be....
"One hour into my shift our reference system went down. No IT peoplewere willing to come in and fix it."
I wonder why. If this is accurate, of course. I would define this as an emergency-willingness would have nothing to do with it. In other words, if you don't come in, you have just accepted unemployment.... Of course, if this wasn't in their contract, etc., just one more instance of incompetent management....
"Yes, the airline industry does not prepare for emergencies as well as it could for the holidays when people want to travel in record numbers. However, I think the general public could try to have their own backup plans in place as well and realize that the travel industry in general does not have the equipment or the staff to handle everyone in the country wanting to travel all at once in one week."
Ahh, yes. The "I'm incompetent, but it's your fault" defense. If they didn't have the staff or equipment, why did they sell the tickets? I mean, it's not like this was a surprise-this increase in travel happens every year. Hell, the airlines encourage it. Look, it is the airlines job to prepare for things like this. If they can't or won't then why don't they advertise this fact? Perhaps because they will be seen (rightly) as greedy and incompetent idiots? I mean, if they offered to refund peoples tickets, even those that weren't refundable, most of the animosity would disappear.
"Working in the travel industry should not indenture us to be your slaves over holidays."
What a crock of crap! You get paid for your work. All labor laws remain in effect. Therefore you are not slaves.
"The public needs to have a little bit of compassion and realize how much we give up in our own personal lives just to help you get where you are going."
And exactly what do you give up? It's called a job. You get paid for it. With the full knowledge of what it is going to be like this time of year. And it's not like you helped people get where they PAID to go very well....
"Frankly, the way most people treat me on the phones I don't think they deserve our help and compassion."
And the last time I was treated with compassion by the airlines in this situation was, oh, let's see, never. Look, you took their money for a service, now you are calling to say, oops sorry, we can't deliver this service because of the weather (because we are actually incompetent goes unsaid). Did you offer refunds? Probably not (oh, but you bought a non-refundable ticket....) Look, people don't deserve crap over the phone, but I doubt they were getting much help or compassion....
Slashdot Mirror
"Both can be reported in a netural way, but by highlighting one and not the other, there is another form of bias."
Define neutral. If you mean factual, what is the standard for "facts". Or do you mean without bias? The fundamental problem with trying to eliminate bias is that it is NOT possible. ANY report from ANY source will be biased. For instance, the mere act of filming something or taking a picture is a biased act. What the camera points at, what is recorded, where it is set up, etc., all introduce bias. The key is for the bias to be easily IDENTIFIED and stated when possible.
"...take your stack of applications and divide them in half at random. Take one stack and throw it into the trash."
:)
Funny, that seems to be the primary purpose of most HR departments. Seems like a lot of companies could a lot of money
"When you get good grades, it is because you master the material, work well with others, and give the professor what he wanted."
Probably. But not always. It also depends upon the field. You can get good grades and not master the material or work well with others. Hell, if the course is a hard curve, it PAYS not to work well with others....
In my field (geology), I found that lower grades often corresponded with greater mastery (for myself). Primarily because the courses were more difficult.
Heck, one of the best geologists I know barely received a 3 GPA for his undergraduate studies (of course he did start in nuclear engineering). Any good employer who wouldn't have wanted him would have been an idiot.
"What if, at the very moment he was shining his laser at the constellation of Leo, a burst of wind turbulence took the pilots by surprise and caused the plane to careen out of the sky.
:)
I think both are equally likely."
Actually, as turbulence HAS caused crashes and is often considered an Act of God, I say we should arrest God for terrorism
"That was just with a hand held laser -- add a good mount and scope, it'll become trivial for any good rifleman. Remember, a good long distance rifleman can put a bullet in a 10" target at ranges of thousands of yards..."
:)
So why not just use a rifle? And we are not arresting people who point rifles at planes....
"Fourth, you don't have to actually cause permanent blindness, just bounce enough light around the cockpit that the pilots cannot see well or focus consistently, and you have a good chance of crashing the plane."
Well, it's good thing pilots don't have sunglasses
Second, pilots land all the time in bad weather. If that doesn't qualify as an inability to see well or focus consistently, why aren't planes crashing left and right? Perhaps because it isn't that easy? And perhaps the fact that pilots don't HAVE to see where they are going to land (visual landings are nice but not required).
Look the guy is an idiot. But he isn't a dangerous idiot. Not even close.
Look, if a terrorist wants to bring a plane down, they will use a weapon. Not a toy that could be used as a weapon. Rifles and bombs are much more effective. Not to mention bringing a plane down by a laser pointer wouldn't inspire much terror (the point behind terrorism) because it would be virtually impossible to prove.
Of course, exactly why he was charged under "anti-terrorism laws" when he wasn't suspected of terrorism (according to the article) boggles my mind. I imagine a good lawyer could/will have a field day with that....
"but local and state governments stand in the way all the time, yet that never makes the newspapers."
Well, see local and state governments are run by the citizens (at least in theory) with regular elections. So when the local government does something it probably has the (tacit) approval of its citizens. And if they don't like it, someone loses their jobs. How exactly do I vote out a company (without buying it....)?
"I've also seen local governments place a 10 year moratorium on new construction because people don't like their streets dug up."
How does a moratorium on new construction (generally related to buildings of some type) relate to fiber or cable? In any case, I doubt they would say no to a deal that was profitable. I doubt they can stop utilities from using an existing right of way? In any case, if people don't want their streets dug up they have the right to express that through their government. Companies do not have the right to profit.
"Surveying, digging, laying conduit with thoughts to bend radius, redundancy, sewer, water, power, and future repair access for accidental cuts? Hope that the contractor has their best person running the backhoe so you don't have to worry about severed gas, electrical, or water lines."
It's called hiring competent contractors. Gee, when they hire the cheapest crews and people lose service and are inconvenienced, I wonder why people don't like their streets dug up?
"You won't get $15 a month without some heavy government subsidies."
So, what is the right of way worth? I mean, we auction off spectrum. I think the point of the previous post is that the companies get a LARGE subsidy. It is just that they take it for granted.
It's called publicity. Connect your research with the movie and bingo!
If it is done by the media, well, they suck at science anyway.
If it is done by a scientist (prior to peer reviewed articles), then the scientist probably sucks at science....
"Even in this day and age, most people see software as a magical phenomenon that can do anything provided the magician is powerful enough. Telling them "no" means you're but a lowly apprentice."
Well, in many respects, most anything CAN be done. Now whether it should be done, how much it will cost, or whether the outcome will be good is another story.
You are correct that if you say no, they may move on. Better would be to say yes but it will cost you X amount. With X being more than they want to pay. But in the end, if you don't think it can be done, why take the job? You will just look bad in the end.
Well, the quote included the phrase "poor project management." This implies more than just the person on the project. So blaming the project manager may be a cop-out. But blaming management isn't.
:)
Management decides what projects to take, how to run the project, and who to hire. So if it fails, they are responsible. Of course, if it works, then you could say they are responsible too
Of course, saying management is responsible is obvious and useless at the same time. The goal is to get the project done-how do we do this in spite of crappy decisions. In reality after all, if it fails, the employees on the project will be blamed. If it works, the management will claim credit.....
"If a corporation commits an act that would net an individual five years in prison, then that corporation has to shut down for five years."
Better idea: everyone on the board of directors, CEO, etc. goes to jail for five years. I mean, they ARE the decision makers for the corp. If the corp. committed a crime, they should be automatically? responsible. Has the added bonus of not hurting workers. But harder to implement (as in, when monkeys fly out of my rear end....)
"Also, a few of the OOo users had to revert back to MS Office 'coz of compatibility issues -- they regularly receive files from other organisations which refuse to open correctly in OOo."
But if they have been told OOo=new MS Office, could they really tell the difference? In other words, if they didn't realize it wasn't MS Office, wouldn't they likely chalk it up to incompatability between MS versions....
Of course custom applications will always be a problem.
"1) (Which you alluded to) is that there is no accountability in the productivity measurements. No comparison of deliverables to hours reported. Without that, there is no data to assist decisions concerning compensation and retention."
Won't help if you have bad management. Sure they will have numbers. But if they know they are goofing off NOW and not firing them, why would hard numbers help? The problem with numbers are many including: do they mean anything, will you act on them.
"I think that decision should be based solely on whether or not you fulfill the expectations for which you are being compensated, regardless of your position..."
And now, if you meet the minimum requirements, no need to be fired.... So feel free to slack off. If the workers know that if they meet the minimum standard they won't be fired and there is no hope of moving up, guess what, it is logical to slack off.
"I doubt, however, that most of these companies are using them to spy on their drivers, the benifits (better schedualing, accident handling, tracking if stolen) are outweigh the drawbacks for people yelling about their privacy. Its the way things are heading, and if done right, can make things a bit better."
You know, the privacy aspects don't really concern me (I'm at work anyway...) These systems, IF USED INTELLIGENTLY, can be great. If the point is to determine system bottlenecks, route improvements, etc. and then IMPLEMENT them, great.
But all too often they are used as a means to "encourage" people to work faster without common sense (gee, you took 60 seconds at that stop, we only want 45 seconds-I don't care if you had to deliver 10 100lb boxes 200ft up some steps....) Or improvements are never made because that takes real work and is likely to step on some important persons toes... People get lots of numbers and forget that how fast you can do things in the real world depend upon things out of control of the employee or that the employee is a person who has good and bad days. That is why I think people hate these systems. This is the reason that I am leary of them.
"You can't determine who is a good or bad delivery driver without a metric AND a way, such as tracking, to verify performance."
Bullshit. You sound like a bad manager justifying his/her crappy hiring decisions. Good employees are EASY to find. Finding GOOD employees at LOW wages is DIFFICULT. This is what businesses are complaining about when they say they can't find good employees....
If your delivers things, a metric already exists. Some type of tracking system already exists. We need X packages delivered. If he/she did X in the time alloted, then performance was fine. A GPS system would be useful if you want to fine tune things-but few companies really care about that-they just want the employee to go faster (but safety comes first-yeah right). Even if there is a way to make his/her job easier or quicker by changing company procedures.
Look, I work at a distribution center-I do a good job (I outperform some full-time personnel as a temp). But I receive NO benefits from working hard or doing a good job. They will keep me around if I work hard or slack off or start making errors. Hell, if anything, I am penalized for doing a good job (hey, go fix this, go fix that....) Because people aren't fired for doing a poor job. And we have a tracking system....
"The managers are managing better by using GPS technology rather than spending their time keeping track of their employees personally."
That's not managing, that's tracking. I'm sure someone can write a program to do the same thing for less money. Effective management requires at least some personal contact, a high degree of respect for the employee, and knowledge of the job.
In my experience, effective management blends into the job background-bad management screams out its presence.
"Don't you think that a critical metric in the delivery business is the amount of time that it takes to cover a route? Seems to me that the GPS tracking is a great way to do that without having your boss sitting in the truck with you."
Time to cover a route is important. And a GPS is important for this. But why the hell isn't the info already known?!?! Every heard of a stopwatch (and a supervisor in the truck with you)?
"The good managers will become leades by sharing the GPS info with the employees and working with them to improve their efficiency in covering their routes."
No the "good" managers (from the company perspective) will be the ones who complain that you took longer to do the route than the "ideal" time. Even though the ideal was based on minimal stops, minimal traffic, and ideal weather.
If a supervisor/manager doesn't understand the job then unrealistic metrics will be set. And a GPS system will allow this to be done. Setting realistic metrics is HARD. And most people (including managers) are lazy.
Well, I'm glad the managers were so concerned that it only took them over 3 hours to determine the driver was late. If this happens, there are only a few LIKELY reasons: vehicle problem (aka accident/collision), employee goofing off, employee clueless (went to wrong address), company clueless (actually failed to dispatch, gave wrong address), customer clueless (actually delivered hours ago), others....
I mean a manager could have got in a car and driven the route (or WALKED) and they would have discovered the problem. No truck = high likelihood of employee at fault. GPS is not a great help. Sure it will track the truck and driver down but hey, the employers probably had a good idea if the employee was trustworthy. Of course, the fact that it took them so long indicates a great need for a clue-by-four...
All in all, a tech system to compensate (poorly) for bad management. I suspect THAT is why most people who don't like the system, don't like it.
"Example: At my workplace, we have a loser who is significantly less productive than his counterparts. He pisses his day away looking at the Internet, talking at the water cooler, forwarding unfunny internet apocrypha and jokes to everyone, and eating 15 meals a day."
:)
Hey, that almost sounds like a manager where I work... Well, maybe more than one... The same ones that will yell at workers to "look busy" rather than change the system to ensure a constant work flow. Guess that is not their job.
You know, I think there is an easier and cheaper way to get rid of animals than making them run a quarter mile freeway gauntlet....
:)
If you don't like them, just shoot them
Then again, maybe my "Flattened Fauna" book would come in handy....
"If the new super highway is planned and executed correctly (i.e. limited development along the route, avoid passing directly through urban areas, etc.), it could do a lot to help traffic problems in the cities."
It won't happen. EVER. Building more roads will eventually lead to more traffic. Period. Sure, it may help in the short term.
But, how do you prevent development along the route? If it is an ideal travel route, then it would be good to have warehouses/industrial areas. Okay, need exits. More exits mean more businesses (more profit if toll road....) Those businesses need employees. Build houses (or people commute). More businesses to cater to employees (gas stations, stores, restaurants....). Pretty soon you have a city around each exit.
Well, now we have congestion around those exits, need new exits (private businesses rarely have problems getting them if they can get the money....) Rinse, lather, repeat.
If you build a convenient route, you will get growth. The only way to prevent it, is to reduce its usefulness. A rather large catch-22....
"The problem is that this region has never seen Tsunamis before, and most people were just curious to see what the hell was happening. That made it only worse - a lot of them were morning walkers who were wondering what's up with the sea."
Well, what is the phrase, something to the effect "curiosity killed the cat".
If someone was stupid enough to come to the ocean because a tsunami was predicted I think the gene pool will be better off without them. It might suck for friends and family but they would be doing the human race a favor....
"The problem is that, it is not enough if you had a warning system -- you would need to know what to do with it. It's not sufficient to warn people, you need to tell them where to go and what to do, too."
True. Of course I am amused about the "tsunami evacuation route" signs near the coast of Washington. If there is an actual need for the evacuation, the routes will probably be useless due to the massive 9 to 10 intensity EQ off the coast that preceded it...
"So, what do you do? 1) Check off each item visually? 2) Run around the warehouse looking for the missing items? or 3) Read the boxes with a barcode scanner?"
Yes, yes, and yes. This from working in a warehouse that only has bar codes.... So there is not much point in having RFID, at least yet. I mean, hell, you can have a grunt with a bar code scanner scanning each pallet-you don't need RFID for this. I suspect this is how it may happen in the short term (we are fully RFID compliant, by using bar codes....)
I mean, the point of RFID is to be be able to confirm that EACH BOX or whatever on that pallet is what it is supposed to be, without individual scanning/breaking down the pallet. What's the point of RFID for whole pallets? It seems like a solution waiting for a problem. Of course, that assumes things were coded correctly, attached correctly, etc. Just like bar codes. Somehow, I just don't think this is a great panacea. Oh, it sounds great. But in practice I don't think it will improve inventory at a lower cost-and if it doesn't, what's the point.
"The other issue is trust. When allowing a consumer to check themselves out, there has to be some level of trust, or, alternatively, a significant tolerance for shrinkage."
Well, I think Kmart (or is that SMart?) stopped using self scanners precisely because of skrinkage. And the demographics probably aren't much different...
I guess I am rather amused. I wonder if they will really save any money (will the increased skrinkage rate be less than the assumed cost savings for RFID tags). Or do they trust their RFID tags/customers more than their cashiers (I don't think I want an answer...) I suspect these are real issues. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall. Or is each unit trying to save money regardless of the impact on the other or ooh, look, shiny tech, it will save money?
"When all the kinks are worked out, not having to hand-scan every item entering or leaving a warehouse is bound to save lots of dollars."
You mean IF all the kinks are worked out. Is it realistic to expect better than a 1 or 2% error rate (say no scan or incorrect scan)? I don't know, maybe it is. But if you have a pallet of 100 items and one or two don't scan, or show up, what do you do? Manually input them? Break the pallet down? Ignore them? I have seen all three occur with bar codes when every box wasn't scanned. The net result: any cost savings just disappeared if you want inventory accuracy. More likely, your inventory will suck because those doing the work won't care for one reason or another....
In other words, how is this better than bar codes again? Sure it has the potential-when everything has a RFID tag-to do some cool things, but I'm betting that is going to be a lot like fusion. Technology of the future and always will be....
"Walmarts are a scourge on society."
:)
Well, that may be. But if they are, it's because they are popular.
You might as well say people are a scourge on society because they enabled Walmart to get where it is today.
Of course, there may be some truth to that
Some comments:
"One hour into my shift our reference system went down. No IT peoplewere willing to come in and fix it."
I wonder why. If this is accurate, of course. I would define this as an emergency-willingness would have nothing to do with it. In other words, if you don't come in, you have just accepted unemployment.... Of course, if this wasn't in their contract, etc., just one more instance of incompetent management....
"Yes, the airline industry does not prepare for emergencies as well as it could for the holidays when people want to travel in record numbers. However, I think the general public could try to have their own backup plans in place as well and realize that the travel industry in general does not have the equipment or the staff to handle everyone in the country wanting to travel all at once in one week."
Ahh, yes. The "I'm incompetent, but it's your fault" defense. If they didn't have the staff or equipment, why did they sell the tickets? I mean, it's not like this was a surprise-this increase in travel happens every year. Hell, the airlines encourage it. Look, it is the airlines job to prepare for things like this. If they can't or won't then why don't they advertise this fact? Perhaps because they will be seen (rightly) as greedy and incompetent idiots? I mean, if they offered to refund peoples tickets, even those that weren't refundable, most of the animosity would disappear.
"Working in the travel industry should not indenture us to be your slaves over holidays."
What a crock of crap! You get paid for your work. All labor laws remain in effect. Therefore you are not slaves.
"The public needs to have a little bit of compassion and realize how much we give up in our own personal lives just to help you get where you are going."
And exactly what do you give up? It's called a job. You get paid for it. With the full knowledge of what it is going to be like this time of year. And it's not like you helped people get where they PAID to go very well....
"Frankly, the way most people treat me on the phones I don't think they deserve our help and
compassion."
And the last time I was treated with compassion by the airlines in this situation was, oh, let's see, never. Look, you took their money for a service, now you are calling to say, oops sorry, we can't deliver this service because of the weather (because we are actually incompetent goes unsaid). Did you offer refunds? Probably not (oh, but you bought a non-refundable ticket....) Look, people don't deserve crap over the phone, but I doubt they were getting much help or compassion....