I would first like to start of with a basic definition of ownership from Random House College Dictionary:
Ownership (noun)
1. the state or fact of being an owner.
2. legal right of possession; proprietorship
Next here is the another definition of ownership as from www.businessdictionary.com:
1. Ultimate and exclusive right (conferred by a lawful claim or title, and subject to certain restrictions) to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent, sell (fully or partially), use, give away, or even destroy an item of property. Ownership may be 'corporeal' (title to a tangible object such as a house) or 'incorporeal' (title to an intangible something, such as a copyright, or a right to recover debt). Possession (as in tenancy) does not necessarily mean ownership because it does not automatically transfer title.
The reason I am bringing this up is that my supervisor Jamie Tan and Maintenance Manager Gary Hill have been telling me that I a MPE have "ownership" of the DBCS's that I have been maintaining on Tour 3 at MLS P&DC. I completely disagree with both of them. I have told them that the Postal Service is the owner of the machines. That I only maintain and repair them.
Here is a good analogy for everyone. Most everyone owns or has owned a vehicle at sometime in their life. Now part of being an owner of that vehicle is taking care of the maintenance of that vehicle. As the owner, you do the scheduling on when you would like the maintenance to be done on your vehicle and who you want to do the maintenance of that vehicle. Now myself as a MPE, I feel that I am "NOT" the owner since I do not actually own any of this postal equipment nor do I schedule when the work is to be done or who is to do the work on this postal equipment.
So, since my supervisor Jamie Tan is the individual that schedules when the work is to be done and who is to do the maintenance work on the postal equipment. Would this not make him the default owner of this equipment?
9 comments:
Yes you are correct,It seem's to me mr. tan & mr.hill are often confused;and more concerned with attempted punishment than Maintaining postal equipment.
I never got your point in all this. when I started reading your article, I thought that you were gonna say how the p.o. owns the business and we don't, so they have a right to screw all of us over, which they are doing! I have never seen things so messed up in my life at the p.o. It all seems so deliberate.
To Anonymous (October 13, 2009 3:45 PM)
Well, I was not going in that direction. Instead, I was trying to point out that it is the USPS that owns the equipment that I maintain. That my supervisor/manager are the individuals that technically own the equipment that I maintain do to their position and duties in the Postal Service.
But, you do make a good point. Do to the individuals in managerial and supervisory positions all through out the Postal Service many bad decisions have been made by individuals.
There is an old saying: "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." This saying has been adapted for other professions and vocations. One of the most popular altered versions is, "Those who can, do; those who can't, supervise." Maybe this is what has happened to many in the Postal Service. I have worked for many supervisors over the years. Both in and out of the Postal Service... Some of which were excellent supervisors and others that were not so excellent. Right now I will let each of you draw your own conclusions of what type of supervision/management is going on at MLS P&DC in the Maintenance Department.
Have a good day
actually the correct answer for ownership(gag) of the machines is that "we the people" own it. everyone, both employees, up/down the ladder and our customers. we have and are all paying for it. boy are we paying for it! but thats another story! marion, I get the feeling that your supervisors are empowering you in some uncomfortable way about the ownership of the machines and possibly hinting at taking pride in your work, which you may find condecending or patronizing. is this right? cause I feel like something is missing. I mean, like they're not saying, " these are your machines so I don't give a @%*! what you do to them". are they? I'm biased from the start and am on your side. just having trouble understanding how the whole thing came up and why you are at odds with what they said. unless it just sounds plain funny or weird to you. sorry, I'm being so thick-headed on this, I know you're a good man, and don't even want to sound insulting on this.
Anonymous (October 14, 2009 4:08 PM)
I do agree with you in theory that since the Postal Service is part of the Federal Government that all the equipment does in fact belong to the all of the people.
Now about my supervisor's empowering me concerning "ownership" of the machines. Where I disagree with them is that to many times my supervisor either does not or cannot schedule items in a timely manner. If the machines were scheduled correctly and in a timely manner the routes would be done when they should be. So, for me to consider myself "the owner" of these machines I would want the ability to schedule the workload on the machines that my supervisor says I own.
But until that happens I will work on whatever equipment I am given and do the best I can given the time and constraints that are inherent in the job.
marion, thanks for the response. am now crystal clear on the matter. (machine ownership etc.) scheduling where I work is haphazard to say the least. sometimes they just photocopy the previous week's sched. whether people or persons have been on annual leave, fmla etc. or not. completely overlooking to correct the changes. it's pretty sad. guess you just have to try and be patient with them as they are in the same boat with us. just wish they would be a little more outspoken or supportive of their staff when it comes to excessing and such, when they are in these "special" meeting with their superiors! it would go a long way towards having any sympathy for them. right now I'm too pissed off at the whole enchilada.
here is some good news brought to you by the APWU union!!
the five ET's that acting maintenance manger miller sent to tour one, have won their grievance and will be returning to tour one on 10-17-09.
I think the point here is to own your effort. Have ownership for what you do in the way of completing your work assignment in a professional manner and accepting responsibility for your work quality and quantity, whether it be maintaining a piece of MPE or cleaning the toilets.
In the plant, the only way to expect this of anyone is to assign them the same MPE everyday and to give the employee a reasonable amount of work to perform in a day. My estimation of this, for example would be 2 DBCS's per MPE mechanic.
If the same person performed the PM route on the same 2 DBCS's everyday, then over time it would be reasonable to expect the MPE mechanic to be responsible for the machine's performance; good or bad. That would be my definition of "ownership" in this context.
This whole concept breaks down when management assigns an MPE mechanic 4 or 5 machines a day, and each day he/she has different machines assigned. The "chain of custody", so-to-speak, is broken and no one can be held responsible for anything. And, that's the situation currently in the plant. So, any attempt by management to suggest some one "has" ownership of a particular machine is ridiculous at best.
The concept of ownership is not something management can force on some one anyway. It's the MM/MPE/ET, or whomever making the decision that they themselves are willing to assume ownership for their work. Management has never held anyone accountable for their work for as long as I've worked there. They don't even hold themselves accountable for anything, how can they force accountability on the craft.
My advice would be to go to work every day, perform your daily assignment to the best of your ability, and then go home to your family and forget about the P.O. until the next day. Do that every day and don't worry about what some know nothing supervisor or manager has to say......
Hello Anonymous (October 21, 2009 2:05 PM)
Sorry took so long to get back to you. I enjoyed what you wrote. It does make sense to do it that way. But, also then if that was to happen I would expect that there would be some form of quality control. I do not mean that the supervisor looking over your shoulder and seeing how you are doing. I mean like a craft employee that is only doing quality control. If this employee then finds items that need to be corrected or maybe a better way of doing the job. This employee would then be capable of training the other employees to perform better or do the correction themselves. This job would not be to report back to the supervisor or manager about how each employee is doing. But, on how each machine is doing and the status of the equipment.
Post a Comment