In message
, at
15:54:59 on Wed, 25 Feb 2009, remarked:
I'd be very surprised if the project management company had all the
individual details of the staff that would be needed, that's what the
agencies are for. Of course blame will lie with the workers who are
down to work in two places at once (if that is the case) and who have
got the jobs from different agencies.

Why keep blaming the workers? What kind of agency signs someone up,
sells their services to a client, and then fails to get confirmation
from the workers that they'll turn up?

But I don't see how any project
management company can take ALL the blame. My original point is that
the problem with the workers was one occasion of a much bigger
project, if there is something fundamentally wrong with staffing
supply, then why didn't happen much more often?

Because the big re-wiring projects take place during specific
maintenance windows. In this case both Rugby and Liverpool St over the
same Xmas holiday.

Both sets of project managers should have realised that they'd been
promised "too many" engineers because there simply aren't enough to go
round, and even if that penny hadn't dropped when they placed their
orders with the agencies, it should have done so on the first day the
workers failed to tun up.
--
Roland Perry

Am Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:26:16 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry
auf uk.railway :

agencies are for. Of course blame will lie with the workers who are
down to work in two places at once (if that is the case) and who have
got the jobs from different agencies.

Why keep blaming the workers? What kind of agency signs someone up,
sells their services to a client, and then fails to get confirmation
from the workers that they'll turn up?

What if the workers have been signed up by two different interim
agencies for the same job? The workers confirmed that they will be at
the assigned place in time, but nobody really noted that the 5 from
agency Hire-the-Fire are the same as the 5 from agency Fire-the-Hire?


Cheers,
L.W.

-- -----------------------------------------------------

On Feb 26, 8:26*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
15:54:59 on Wed, 25 Feb 2009, remarked:

I'd be very surprised if the project management company had all the
individual details of the staff that would be needed, that's what the
agencies are for. Of course blame will lie with the workers who are
down to work in two places at once (if that is the case) and who have
got the jobs from different agencies.

Why keep blaming the workers? What kind of agency signs someone up,
sells their services to a client, and then fails to get confirmation
from the workers that they'll turn up?


The one where the workers are signed up to more than one agency. A
worker may have signed for a morning shift on one job with one agency
and an evening shift on another job with another agency, having a
shift or two in between (depending on the day)

But I don't see how any project
management company can take ALL the blame. My original point is that
the problem with the workers was one occasion of a much bigger
project, if there is something fundamentally wrong with staffing
supply, then why didn't happen much more often?

Because the big re-wiring projects take place during specific
maintenance windows. In this case both Rugby and Liverpool St over the
same Xmas holiday.


And big re-wiring jobs have happened at the same time before, why
should the project managers think it would be any different this time?

Both sets of project managers should have realised that they'd been
promised "too many" engineers because there simply aren't enough to go
round, and even if that penny hadn't dropped when they placed their
orders with the agencies, it should have done so on the first day the
workers failed to tun up.

But that fails to take into account that there might be enough
workers, but that more than expected have taken a break over
Christmas, maybe not over the whole period, but for a day or two.
There were also lots of little OHL jobs from which workers were pulled
when the problems became apparent.

In message
, at
18:28:53 on Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Lüko Willms
remarked:
What if the workers have been signed up by two different interim
agencies for the same job? The workers confirmed that they will be at
the assigned place in time, but nobody really noted that the 5 from
agency Hire-the-Fire are the same as the 5 from agency Fire-the-Hire?

The workers can't legitimately confirm they'll attend on the same days,
to two different agencies.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
09:41:53 on Thu, 26 Feb 2009, remarked:

Why keep blaming the workers? What kind of agency signs someone up,
sells their services to a client, and then fails to get confirmation
from the workers that they'll turn up?

The one where the workers are signed up to more than one agency. A
worker may have signed for a morning shift on one job with one agency
and an evening shift on another job with another agency, having a
shift or two in between (depending on the day)

That's fine, as long as the two sites aren't as far apart as East London
and Rugby (and Modulo the Working Time Directive). It's up to the agency
to make sure those aspects are OK.

And big re-wiring jobs have happened at the same time before, why
should the project managers think it would be any different this time?

I don't know - that's why we are blaming the project managers for
failing to spot what was going to be different this time.

Both sets of project managers should have realised that they'd been
promised "too many" engineers because there simply aren't enough to go
round, and even if that penny hadn't dropped when they placed their
orders with the agencies, it should have done so on the first day the
workers failed to tun up.

But that fails to take into account that there might be enough
workers, but that more than expected have taken a break over
Christmas,

A strange thing to do when your main job is wiring things during
maintenance windows like Xmas.

And something the agencies should have seen coming weeks ahead when the
workers concerned confirmed (or not) their availability.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
18:28:53 on Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Lüko Willms
remarked:
What if the workers have been signed up by two different interim
agencies for the same job? The workers confirmed that they will be at
the assigned place in time, but nobody really noted that the 5 from
agency Hire-the-Fire are the same as the 5 from agency Fire-the-Hire?

The workers can't legitimately confirm they'll attend on the same days,
to two different agencies.

But if the second job is offering more money, and the workers are in
short enough supply that they can't not be used, can anyone do much
about it?

(IIRC this was about specialist skilled workers, and so just hauling in
someone off the street wouldn't work?)


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , at
18:28:55 on Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
The workers can't legitimately confirm they'll attend on the same
days, to two different agencies.

But if the second job is offering more money, and the workers are in
short enough supply that they can't not be used, can anyone do much
about it?

The agency can't force them to work, but the agency ought to know how
many are actually going to turn up.
--
Roland Perry

On Feb 26, 5:52*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
09:41:53 on Thu, 26 Feb 2009, remarked:

Why keep blaming the workers? What kind of agency signs someone up,
sells their services to a client, and then fails to get confirmation
from the workers that they'll turn up?

The one where the workers are signed up to more than one agency. A
worker may have signed for a morning shift on one job with one agency
and an evening shift on another job with another agency, having a
shift or two in between (depending on the day)

That's fine, as long as the two sites aren't as far apart as East London
and Rugby (and Modulo the Working Time Directive). It's up to the agency
to make sure those aspects are OK.


Replace agency with agencies and maybe you can grasp the problem.

And big re-wiring jobs have happened at the same time before, why
should the project managers think it would be any different this time?

I don't know - that's why we are blaming the project managers for
failing to spot what was going to be different this time.


Blaming the project managers for something that has never occured
before seems a bit harsh. Why should they question an agency that has
provided the workers on all previous occasions?

Remember, the original question was: Has Bechtel ever been involved in
a disasterous project? I would say not, as the OHL problems that
Christmas were only a small (although important) part of something
much bigger.

Both sets of project managers should have realised that they'd been
promised "too many" engineers because there simply aren't enough to go
round, and even if that penny hadn't dropped when they placed their
orders with the agencies, it should have done so on the first day the
workers failed to tun up.

But that fails to take into account that there might be enough
workers, but that more than expected have taken a break over
Christmas,

A strange thing to do when your main job is wiring things during
maintenance windows like Xmas.


Actually, their main job won't be working at Christmas, otherwise
they'd be very poor. There will be work all year round on repairs and
replacement jobs.

And something the agencies should have seen coming weeks ahead when the
workers concerned confirmed (or not) their availability.

In message
, at
11:20:09 on Thu, 26 Feb 2009, remarked:

The one where the workers are signed up to more than one agency. A
worker may have signed for a morning shift on one job with one agency
and an evening shift on another job with another agency, having a
shift or two in between (depending on the day)

That's fine, as long as the two sites aren't as far apart as East London
and Rugby (and Modulo the Working Time Directive). It's up to the agency
to make sure those aspects are OK.

Replace agency with agencies and maybe you can grasp the problem.

Replace "agency" with "each agency".

Blaming the project managers for something that has never occured
before seems a bit harsh. Why should they question an agency that has
provided the workers on all previous occasions?

So what was different this time?

Remember, the original question was: Has Bechtel ever been involved in
a disasterous project? I would say not, as the OHL problems that
Christmas were only a small (although important) part of something
much bigger.

The Rugby re-wiring was a disastrous project. It was on the TV news day
after day.

Actually, their main job won't be working at Christmas, otherwise
they'd be very poor. There will be work all year round on repairs and
replacement jobs.

But I'd still expect the main work to be major projects during periods
when the line was closed (be that Xmas, weekends, or just overnight).
--
Roland Perry

On Feb 26, 7:57*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
11:20:09 on Thu, 26 Feb 2009, remarked:

The one where the workers are signed up to more than one agency. A
worker may have signed for a morning shift on one job with one agency
and an evening shift on another job with another agency, having a
shift or two in between (depending on the day)

That's fine, as long as the two sites aren't as far apart as East London
and Rugby (and Modulo the Working Time Directive). It's up to the agency
to make sure those aspects are OK.

Replace agency with agencies and maybe you can grasp the problem.

Replace "agency" with "each agency".

Blaming the project managers for something that has never occured
before seems a bit harsh. Why should they question an agency that has
provided the workers on all previous occasions?

So what was different this time?

Remember, the original question was: Has Bechtel ever been involved in
a disasterous project? I would say not, as the OHL problems that
Christmas were only a small (although important) part of something
much bigger.

The Rugby re-wiring was a disastrous project. It was on the TV news day
after day.


Yes, but Bechtel weren't hired to do just the Rugby re-wiring, they
were hired to get costs under control and the WCML upgrade completed
to some sort of reasonable budget. What would the alternative be, once
the problems became apparent? Postpone it to a later date and so
impact on the other parts of the project, or try and get things done
at the slot set aside for the work, even if it looks like things will
run over.

I would be interested to see if they recommended the start of the new
timetable in January and how much Bechtel were involved in the day to
day decisions and how much 'local' control Network Rail had over
matters.

Actually, their main job won't be working at Christmas, otherwise
they'd be very poor. There will be work all year round on repairs and
replacement jobs.

But I'd still expect the main work to be major projects during periods
when the line was closed (be that Xmas, weekends, or just overnight).

If they are all agency staff, then how can they be forced to work
weekend or during holiday?