Anyone still using this newsgroup?
Paul
time! What's this for anyway?
There used to be some good info here on water clean techniques which I
have new info on for anyone interested?
Paul.
none
But still viewed & monitored, yes.
When you last posted I replied, saying if you had something new please
post & discussion will follow. I repeat the offer. If you would rather,
locate & join the sewer-list e-mail discussion group. This group used to
be high traffic; over time it, too, has migrated to medium, then low, now
sparse traffic. But it picks up when a suitable question arises; in that
sense, it is high signal to noise - when something gets posted it tends be
worth following.
tooly
"Paul" <pma...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:G6CdnRJE3-hoWtvU...@westnet.com.au...
Why are there so many bad managers in the water/wastewater industry? anyone
else observe this through the years? Really piss poor...and I've seen many.
Often I feel like an inmate at a prison working at these larger plants [as
rank and file]. Comments?
none
> Why are there so many bad managers in the water/wastewater industry? anyone
> else observe this through the years? Really piss poor...and I've seen many.
> Often I feel like an inmate at a prison working at these larger plants [as
> rank and file]. Comments?
Bad in what sense? Compared to the finance and automobile industries they
are probably paragons of technical and personal virtue.
I haven't seen many bad managers, but I've often wondered if that is
because the better ones get to be those who get the jobs of liaising with
consultants and the R&D world.
tooly
"none" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.01.14....@none.net...
The fella I work with have a term..."the butt pucker factor", kidding among
ourselves of the simple presence of certain individuals, usually in
management, that causes stress levels to rise exponentially. I've
experienced a wide range of working environments in the field, and the 'butt
pucker factor' is usually high with managers who have the attitude of 'my
way or the highway' autocratic tyrannical rule. Productivity in such
working environments, IMHO, is usually low dependent upon the "cat" having
the stand over the "mice" to get work done [that the motivation is so low
and people need to be prodded, it only reinforces to the 'cat' that it is
needed to stand over such mice in a threatening manner to get that work
done]. I'm reminded of the chain gang existence of Cool Hand Luke...pretty
much how a typical operator might feel working in these plants.
Most management theory these days stresses the idea of giving employee's a
sense of ownership, but that idea seems to be absent in present water and
wastewater plant managements that I've seen. Usually, one is treated like
the scum one scoops off a clarifier surface...only less, ha. It creates a
real DREAD just having to get up in the morning to face a new work day.
Over thirty some odd years in the field, I've worked with something like 16
different companies and municipalities and countless plants, some in
management myself, but mostly rank and file...and this has been my
observation. Management usually is pretty bad in this field from an
employee viewpoint [in how one is treated...usually as simple labor, not
even skilled]. It's always been a mystery to me why these plant managers
and their designees are usually so awful.
none
You work in the US. In the UK they have de-manned sewage works, with the
reult that they have had to improve the skills of the remaining operators.
We had a visitor over from Philly looking our local sewage works, and
he concluded that if the UK model was used with Philly about 90% of
the operators would go - that was ten years ago; I don't know what has
happened to Philly staff levels since then. The operator at the UK sewage
works said that while it was tough t osee friends go, the job was more
interesting, he understood better why he was doing things, and he felt he
had greater job security. And, to a larger extent, he was responsible for
managing himself and his sewage works - there were, he claimed, normally
only two operators, 9 - 5, with automated callout outside thsoe hours;
while the Philly man spoke of having a team of 20 and three staffed shifts.
After a strike in the 1980s labour relations appear to have greatly
improved; while there are gripes about pay rates at the top end (claims
that in a privatised industry you have to pay to get good managers; but
the argument doesn't seem to hold as you move down the ladder) at the
grunt level - and including works managers - there is more of a feeling
that if you weren't good you'd be out. Most water companies have had at
least three rounds of redundancies, and in the early 1990s a popular form
of 'management' was to technically make *everyone* below directorate level
redundant, and having to reapply for their job. But the upshot was that by
the mid-1990s the water industry felt more stable, and those left were
more comfortable with the skills available and the management.