Random Thoughts - Part Deux [NO POLITICS]

[Capt Spaulding]

Saw him a a couple airshows years ago doing his Shrike routine. Damn



edit: https://www.amazon.com/Flying-Feathe.../dp/0986304409


Oh. And there ain't nobody who's Bob Hoover good. ('ceptin him)

[Boomerang]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

That's bizarre. Those things are in there super tight from the factory. I agree. Drain and refill for science. Gives you an opportunity to marvel at all the iron goo captured by the magnet. That's always fun.

Yep diff oil change done and new crush washers installed.



Can only guess at the last factory service(+ 1 year ago) the drain plug was not tightened to spec. Normal expectations for factory servicing...


Luckily I hadn't lost much, just a drip or two as I found when draining it I had close to the 1.1L in there.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

Yep diff oil change done and new crush washers installed.



Can only guess at the last factory service(+ 1 year ago) the drain plug was not tightened to spec. Normal expectations for factory servicing...


Luckily I hadn't lost much, just a drip or two as I found when draining it I had close to the 1.1L in there.

if it was an american car, it could drip like that for a decade before it's an issue.

japanese vehicles, i only know how they rust, or blow out fluid pumps, never had one that dripped.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Now the question is how long it's been dripping. Is that a diff oil change I smell in your future?

Bubba says no problem, as long as it's dripping, it's still got oil in it -

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

Luckily I hadn't lost much, just a drip or two as I found when draining it I had close to the 1.1L in there.

You measured!

Cost in time and materials - meh
Peace of mind gained - priceless

[ichitaka05]

I enjoy new staff tells me "I can't do that... It wasn't part of the job description." First of all, yes it is. When we interview you, we explained that you will be doing that (not everyday, but once a while) AND when you got hired we explained AGAIN and you agreed. Secondly, we're not expecting you to know it all and toss you by yourself, that's why we have 3 freaking long hrs of training AND 8hrs of buddy system (someone supervising next to them) to make sure they can do it.

[soundman98]

my boss had a rash of potential hires, about 25 of them. he would tell them he was sending them for a drug test, ask if it was a problem, they would say it wasn't, and then they would fail it...

[spcmafia]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I enjoy new staff tells me "I can't do that... It wasn't part of the job description." First of all, yes it is. When we interview you, we explained that you will be doing that (not everyday, but once a while) AND when you got hired we explained AGAIN and you agreed. Secondly, we're not expecting you to know it all and toss you by yourself, that's why we have 3 freaking long hrs of training AND 8hrs of buddy system (someone supervising next to them) to make sure they can do it.

Guess he also omitted the part from the job opening where it says "Responsibilities include, but are not limited to".

[spcmafia]

Originally Posted by soundman98

my boss had a rash of potential hires, about 25 of them. he would tell them he was sending them for a drug test, ask if it was a problem, they would say it wasn't, and then they would fail it...

Maybe they thought they had to do drugs to pass for positive for drug use. Some people are just bad test takers.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I enjoy new staff tells me "I can't do that... It wasn't part of the job description."

"Not in my job description" will get you thrown out of our place so fast they don't know what happened.

Originally Posted by soundman98

my boss had a rash of potential hires, about 25 of them. he would tell them he was sending them for a drug test, ask if it was a problem, they would say it wasn't, and then they would fail it...

I hate that. We will hire people on a probationary period if they know they will fail since pot is legal here and give them a 60 day postponement on a UA, but we just want to know before we waste the time on scheduling a UA.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by spcmafia

Guess he also omitted the part from the job opening where it says "Responsibilities include, but are not limited to".

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

"Not in my job description" will get you thrown out of our place so fast they don't know what happened.

Either way, don't think this person gonna last long... if I was manager, I would toss her out already for not able to do her job. She can do 1... maybe 2 out of 10 basic tasks we ask from every staff. Funniest/saddest part is, she's demanding she gets promotion, cuz she's currently going to college for this degree. I want to tell her to give up, cuz she suck at it. It sounds mean, but pass 3 months, not only me, but both supervisors have tried to help her... but not going well. She haven't even cleared 3 month probation due to she haven't hit minimum standard. Our minimum standard isn't THAT hard. Honestly, 10yrs old or 90yrs old can hit the minimum standard. My manager doesn't want to offend her or get bad rep, so she gives-in... but supervisors are in charge of all new staffs and have power to fire anyone in probation. Let's hope supervisors will toss her out sooner than later.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I enjoy new staff tells me "I can't do that... It wasn't part of the job description."

Simple answer from me is "Hmmm, well it's not in my job description to manage people who aren't flexible enough to actually do their job, or understand no job is that well defined. So, based on my job description and your actions, you are no longer needed."

That's like the folks at Uber (or where-ever it is that's in the news now) about doing one food delivery a month. I mean, come on, all you have to do is have your significant other put in a food order, pick it up and deliver it to home. It's not that complicated.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by soundman98

my boss had a rash of potential hires, about 25 of them. he would tell them he was sending them for a drug test, ask if it was a problem, they would say it wasn't, and then they would fail it...

Drug testing is only allowed here for very limited jobs such as truck drivers. Even then if you test them and don't hire or "accommodate" them because they were positive you risk a huge fine and payout to the applicant for discriminating against their "disability"!

The OHRC takes the position that drug and alcohol testing as part of the initial applicant screening process is prohibited under subsection 23(2) of the Code.

While the case law has not ruled out the possibility of testing for alcohol or drugs after a person receives a conditional offer of employment for a safety-sensitive position, the OHRC recommends against this practice.

If testing leads to refusing to hire someone based on an addiction or perceived addiction, it may be prima facie discriminatory. Negative consequences flowing from a positive test result may contribute to a finding that a job applicant has a “perceived” disability – even if he or she does not have an addiction.[36]

If employers do put in place before-the-job drug and alcohol testing for safety-sensitive positions, they should make sure that a positive test result does not lead to automatically revoking the offer of employment or other negative consequences. The testing should be one part of a larger qualifying process, which could include examining the required licencing or other legitimate qualifications. The employer also must meet their duty to accommodate people with addictions.

Any medical testing should provide an effective assessment of the applicant’s ability to do the essential job duties. Pre-employment and pre-access drug and alcohol tests have been found to be insufficient to show that an employee has or will attend work impaired by alcohol or drugs.[37] Because of this, if testing leads to negative consequences based on someone’s addiction or perceived addiction, it may be difficult to justify as a bona fide requirement.[38]

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

My manager doesn't want to offend her or get bad rep, so she gives-in... but supervisors are in charge of all new staffs and have power to fire anyone in probation. Let's hope supervisors will toss her out sooner than later.

Your manager isn't doing anyone any favors by doing that, including the employee. Just reinforcing that behavior and undermining their own rep.

On the same subject. Our company president has also held a dual role as our GM. He has been at it for 10 years with both positions. He is handing off the GM position to someone else so he can more focus on other things. That and he has been notoriously weak when dealing with personnel decisions. He has been talking with me about this for about a month and I was surprised he gave himself an F in that category. I don't know if the new GM will be any better, but it is a change so we will see what happens. We have a lot of key hires that need to be made in the next couple years. I kinda see this transition as him just passing them buck to someone else as it is something we have known we need to look into for a while but I will try to be optimistic when talking with staff.