Back when I was working in an FAA facility doing repair and overhaul we had a boss who wanted to control everything. This boss came to us from the production side and did not understand why we were reactive in our work versus scheduled like production. Repair and Overhaul is just that, we repair or overhaul parts that come back from the field, so cannot schedule it more than the customer lets us know it is broken and we say send it in type thing. Not the point, not the compliance, but giving you a little of how the mindset is.
Anyway, about a month after said boss comes in, we have a customer representative who is talking to engineering regarding the product I was working on. The customer had a question regarding a specific failure we continued to see, and wanted to talk to the technician (me) about it. So engineer brings customer to me, and I answer customer rep's question. Should be easy, right? Wrong!
Boss says I did not have the authority to answer the question and that customer should have been brought to him or Quality Assurance (QA). At the next morning stand up, boss reiterates to entire group that no one is to talk to anyone not a part of our company without either boss or QA there for conversation. I asked for this in writing, and got an email within minutes after the stand up.
Fast forward about a month, I am not talking to anyone without boss or QA and we have an ISO 9001 audit. The audit is scheduled, and somehow when the auditor is on the repair floor no one is around but me, so naturally I get audited. Should be easy, right? Auditor asks me what I am doing. I reply I am not allowed to talk with personnel who do not belong to my company without my boss or QA present. Auditor asks me if I know who they are (I do, they introduced themselves as they came up to me.) I let them know I have been given instructions and cannot talk to them. They ask me if I can show them the instructions. I had sent the email to the printer as soon as I knew I was going to be audited, so asked auditor to please wait one minute and went and got the email. Auditor thanks me, and leaves.
Next morning at stand up, boss comes in with regional management. Boss apologizes to us technicians and lets us know we are allowed to talk to people from outside the company without boss or QA. I raise my hand, boss says email has already been sent. Found out from boss' aide, boss was put on PIP (personnel improvement program) for this.
i am certified Quality manager for ISO 9001. this is exactly how an audit work. you ask questions to field workers. 9 on 10 they already know the solution to the problmes that puzzle the management. so, while it is counterintuitive, workers LOVED to be audited by QM. Because 1) they feel listened, and 2) we cast their words with a credibility that they don't have themselves.
I've been that worker. But I've also been his boss, and often could not get budget approved to fix various issues until somebody external like an H&S or security audit said it HAD to be done.
Then again if we had fixed it first then auditors would have just dug deeper until they found something to put in the report!
While auditors will dig deeper if they don't find stuff initially because they're there for a fixed time and will make use of the time. The difference, at least in my field, is that the smaller stiff is a "recommendation" to fix rather than a demand
You are absolutely correct.
There are various matrices (levels) of 'fix it's!' on reports.
I've found that the better you're able to feed them on their budget, the better off they feel.
One pissed-off auditor who hadn't had coffee, or didn't sleep could shove the org into a lower 'fix-it' level.
BUT
Since auditors canNOT legally accept anything except coffee/tea/cocoa/water, a few snacks/donuts/bagels/fruit, well, when those items are inexpensive and within reach, the better they feel about how well-run the org is.
I've gotten coupons from local sandwich/dinner/lunch places and left them in their 'Welcome' Binder (which tells them who's who and what's where). Things from our local flyer, online papers, and mass mailings; things that they could find but wouldn't have time to.
Everything on the up-and-up, the org only paid for coffee/tea/fruit/a few snacks/a few sodas, because how can auditors bring these things to an org when they're staying in a hotel?!
I even show them the receipts and cost breakdown for all their yummies! I mean, 1 cent per cup of coffee when we make gallons: 9 cents for a bottle of water when we buy it by the case: 11 cents for a piece of fruit: bagels and cream cheese and snacks for cheap, courtesy of getting by the case from Sam's Club or Costco...
You get the picture.
I was the Admin for a non-profit, and not only did I know what all the auditors wanted, knew who they'd talk to, and the paperwork (BINDERS OF PAPERWORK!) of documentation they'd want, but I could make it happen VERY quickly and digitally, vs. photocopying, hole-punching. and putting info into binders.
AUDITORS:
OSHA: CalOSHA: CARF: State of California Department of Rehabilitation: Regional Center of Orange County (contractor for the State of California providing funding for persons with disabilities), and the Federal Department of Labor.
Simple. Think outside the box but within local, State AND Federal guidelines, Lynners. With a little research....
Since providing the necessary information digitally was acceptable to all entities, I'd not only make a set of CD's, but put the information in a special folder on our server that they could access on their laptops.
They only had access to that specific path, but they LOVED it, AND the CD's to take with them.
(My boss was in charge of IT and Risk Management, so I was able to chat with the VP of IT and he got me the specific one-time only login for the auditors, plus worked with Risk Management to figure out what specifically the auditors would be looking for, plus suggestions for other things that could come up.
Oh, yes...
Since digital copies were allowable vs. paper copies/binders, we started storing all our reports, data processing, stuff concerning our part of the company on CD's as well. Of course, those documents were pdf's and digitally signed by whoever was responsible for those records.
Saved a SHITTON of paper and storage fees for the boxes and boxes and file folders and boxes!
Sounds like you did a phenomenal job on this - and made your company look great too. I hope you got some recognition from upper management for creating this streamlined process :)
Oh, HELL yeah, EVERYBODY knew who did it!
I mean, my boss got credit for the process going so smooth, but the higher ups KNEW exactly who did it (as did the Board of Directors! One of them was listening to the debriefing and said to another Board member, "That sounds like Lynne".).
I found this out re: the Board member's comment from our CFO.
I'm some times the external "expert". I get paid to listen to the lowest level manager say what they actually need. Then I confirm it with the people who're going to do the work. Then I make sure the suggested procedure won't be illegal/dangerous/dumb, and then I present it in a spiffy report with a bill attached.
It's dumb, but C-levels tend to pay a lot more attention if it's some external "expert" who tell them what their own employees have been saying all along.
I had the annoying situation once where a project install wasn't going well at a customer site for all sorts of complicated reasons but it boiled down to them incorrectly configuring something on their network. We had to have that changed for everything to spring into life, bt they refused to change a thing.
I wrote it all up with executive summaries, detailed steps and proof that this was the issue but they point blank refused to do anything because it wasn't affecting them (because they didn't currently use the functionality we were trying to enable, duh!). I was the lead techie but because I was in khakis and a (corporate) polo shirt to do my grubbing around they would not listen to me.
In the end we got a 'senior consultant' guy from our org to meet with them, in his suit and with his grey hair and little round glasses. I talked him through it all on the way to the customer site because he knew very little about it. In the meeting he regurgitated MY report to them while I sat in the back row in case any hard questions came up. At the end of that they happily accepted that they needed to change the thing I'd been telling them they needed to change for WEEKS and as if by magic everything started working.
Very frustrating. I also lost a lot of respect for that customers management.
I think this is sadly very common. The lack of respect for people “below them” (as in the guys on the floor who knows everything) seems like a bad parody but I’ve seen it too many times to count. Really really stupid. And they’d run the company into the ground before they would listen to those work minions. Would be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.
Well, at least you actually listen to the people who are on the floor and know what needs to be done. A lot of these external consultants are hired to conclude whatever the one who hired them wants. Or I’ve seen that exact scenario a couple of times, but could be wrong.
Yeah, I've been part of many ISO audits in the last 40 years. Part of this is making sure the ones doing the work understand the process. Refusing to answer questions is a fail. I've seen companies schedule dumbasses to be out when auditors are there to make sure the company can put their best foot forward. You'd have better success refusing to answer on a PCI audit, just say the wrong person was scheduled for the interview.
But if the OP had talked to the auditor then that would have been a fail because they had been specifically instructed not to talk to externals without supervisor/QA present. Showing compliance with procedures is important.
I was equipment maintenance for a number of years. Operators also love it when maintenance comes to them and asks what's wrong with the machine. They may spot on or dead wrong but either way I listened to them because what they saw, heard and know about how the machine is suppose to operate is invaluable when troubleshooting a problem.
indeed.
there was this mechanic that was chief mechanic in his former job (boss run away on day will all the money). he was in charge of 20 engines in a petrochem factory. he would stop a station, put the motor to pieces, clean each piece and replace the worn out one, then remount it. while all other workers was nervous about deadline and production, he was quiet and composed.
His usual quote was "i take my time. you keep running". after his first month, all his engines was working smoothly without any trouble ever. he was essentially resting while all others was still running.
And you know what ? I followed the prescribed process .
Correct, except the bit about the auditor wandering around unaccompanied makes me suspicious. See my other comment.
If it is a one day audit, no it won't happen.
But i have conduct an audit in a police zone for three months. By day three i was on the right side of the blue line. It took 2 weeks for a precinct chief to ask me what the hell i was doing wandering in her precinct. By week 3 i was entering high security forensic labo and justice hall heart.
Okay, but ... really, that's a different kind of scenario, and unusual in the world of auditing. Sounds like a gig I'd like to have, though.
It was like collecting stone into a walk. You dont really know what you are searching but that stones has a meaning.
And then you discover that the stones come from a big rock that you have walk around a dozen of times. It explains why the paths are curbed : they contourn the rock.
I've been working at two companies trying to get ISO 9000 certified back in the 90's. In both cases they hired the auditors to come out on multiple occasions for consulting in getting ready for the final audit. Lets just say when auditors come out multiple times for a week at a time everyone gets comfortable with everyone so yes they were walking around by themselves. These were smaller companies so auditors were on a first name basis with everyone from GM down to the lowest production person.
Personally it's a smart move by the company. In both cases only a couple minor issues were found on the final audit. Not sure if that's because the auditors did such a good job instructing us or because it would reflect badly on them if they did find more then a couple minor problems.
I work in IT, infrastructure specifically. Make it work, keep it working fix it when it breaks - my job in a nutshell. Sometimes we have projects as well, but those often start as research into both what's the actual problem (as opposed to whatever solution the requestor brings to us, which is usually wrong) and what's the proper solution. And once the once the project is over, there's the inevitable indefinite support of it whenever something happens, since this is all internal. But most of my day-to-day is at least semi-reactive based on who needs what when.
About 10 years ago my group got a new manager, Bill (not his real name, but his real name is considered a 4-letter word by those of us who are still here so let's use one). Bill had no management experience, but had a project management background. To Bill, everything should be treated like a project. See the problem?
For reasons I still don't have an answer for to this day (other than the assumption that he was related to someone), I have no idea why a) he was hired in the first place or b) why the VP who had the authority to fire him stuck his head in the sand about the issue until after Bill's 3-month probation period ended. They finally fired him after 5 months of him ignoring more than the first 2 sentences of emails, refusing to communicate to his direct reports via email despite being in different states from some of them, and repeatedly pushing solutions that had been discarded months previously. Oh, and having one of our top engineers quit and the rest having a dead pool posted on the wall in their cubicle area about who was going to go next...
The analogy I used to describe him is this: What do you need to do if you want to cook a meal? To Bill, you would grab the ingredients you needed and the cooking tools, mix things together and cook them, and then you're done. But that's not how it works - first you need to plan what you want to cook, then go shopping for the ingredients if needed, and only then can you do the cooking. And the project doesn't end there - you still need to do the dishes and put away any leftovers. Infrastructure works in much the same way, but he had no concept of (and no willingness to learn or at least acknowledge) the fact that there's more to it than just put it together (having been defined before the project started) and hand it off to the client when it's done...
Back in the 80’s IT was known as MIS - Management Information Systems. We called it Make It So. The boss didn’t care what it took to do it, just make it so that it works
My first job was working on an MIS Dept. My boss told me before named MIS, they were EDP - Electronic Data Processing. 😊
EDS = "Ed's Department Store"
A lot of people working for EDS always seemed to have the latest computer equipment in their homes. Most of the equipment was missing the serial numbers, too . . .
I think that was the terminology in the 70’s. I did IT back then, but I was still in the military. Being retired from 47 years of doing that stuff is really nice🤣
Thanks for reminding me about MIS, I had forgotten about that phrase.
Thanks. My company's IT department was called MIS until just a few years ago, and I never did get a clear answer on what it stood for.
Is that why IT is so full of mis-managers?
🤣👍
Sounds like he was a bad project manager too
"I asked for this in writing"
---Control freaks are so oblivious to the fact that the sole entire purpose for the request is to use as a devastating and deserved takedown against them in the very near future... and that it will be a takedown entirely of their own making.
That's what I thought! Any rational person, when hearing "Can I have that in writing," would do a double-take and maybe some research to see if their "new" policy is actually workable.
But OP boss was probably so pissed off by that request, their ego got pricked, and they angrily fired off that email muttering to themselves "Oh, you want this in WRITING, well here you GO peon! Whatcha gonna do now? Showed him. I'M THE BOSS!"
A more generous and still valid take is that the request is merely for CYA purposes for when the shit hits the fan. However, the requestor knows it will be a take down if they need to use it. It seems pretty rare that the requester mentions why the request is in writing. Justifiably so. If the subordinate explained, the bosses (or other kinds of counterparts) would be less likely to send the order in writing.
So the boss goes with their own reasons such as the one you bring up. That they are still in I'm the god boss mode. Another reason could be that the bosses think the requestor IS asking for CYA purposes, but for protection from others, not from the boss issuing the orders (who will go in denial mode once they realize they fucked up). I'm sure there are other notions of why the request for a writing is made. But their boss's egos can't fathom that is is setting them for a fall they deserve.
Danm. Your boss got chewed out for that for sure.
PIP = Performance Improvement Plan. In the UK, that's the first step to firing someone. "Your performance is unacceptable, improve over the next month / X months, or you're fired".
If someone has worked for a UK company for at least 2 years, they can't just be fired. Well, they can be, but then the employee sues and wins. Very major problems (like being caught stealing from the company) are grounds for immediate firing. Minor problems require the employer to give the employee a chance to improve first, which is what a PIP is. Very different from the US.
Many companies do this exact same thing in the US. This is not a uniquely UK thing.
The only difference is that PIPs are usually a matter of policy rather than a (theoretically) good faith opportunity to rectify an issue that is enforced by law and the threat of lawsuit.
Even so, US PIPs do add precedent to a termination that can make it difficult for a worker to receive unemployment benefits (which the company is required to pay).
I have never seen anyone come out of a PIP without a severance package.
Nor have I.
I know what a PIP is. Im sure the boss also got chewed out on top of that.
Eta we have PIP here too.
I didn't, so I'm glad they explained.
We have PIP's in the US too but it's not required, I work in a right to work state which means I can quit anytime I want and the company can fire me anytime they want. But things like PIP are put in place by HR's to prevent now fired employee from successfully suing the company for termination which can and does happen even in right to work states.
I do like companies with PIP's for two reasons. One reason is it gives a struggling employee who is actually trying an actual written guideline to follow on what they have to do to keep their job. Without a PIP in place depending on how good your boss is you may or may not have a clue of what you are doing wrong and how to go about fixing it.
Second reason PIP's are good is because it gives you the exact timeline you have to find another job. No guessing if you'll be employed tomorrow or not, you've still got X days/weeks/months of income coming in while you look for work.
I've never been on a PIP myself and likely never will but I feel bad for employees who get hired into a job that turns out to be more then they can handle. At least the PIP gives them a chance. Where I work now job description is not even in the same ball park as job reality leaving us with many struggling new hires. On the flip side we have capable people also go on PIP but that's because they refuse to do all the job requires because it wasn't what they thought they were signing on for. The one tries and unfortunately usually fail the other just riding that pony until they find another job.
PIP ?
performance improvement plan
Thanks !
Also known as we might fire you and this is the paper work if you don't shape up.
any time
I prefer “Paid Interview Period”. 9/10 companies say PIP when they already decided to boot you, but need a longer paper trail.
I just realized this gives a whole new perspective to the phrase “pip pip cheerio”.
Performance Improvement Plan (or something like that). Basically, you have x number of days to fix this or you're fired.
Has anyone survived a PIP?
I have. It wasn't valid, just my boss being a dick because he didn't know what my job was. I followed the letter of the requirements in the PIP (report activities every hour and a half, which mostly involved me saying "continuing to work on this task that will take a month" which showed them that I shouldn't be updating that often) and never heard about it again after that boss left and I got a manager who actually knew what they were doing.
I (in HR) have put a few people on a PIP before, and all survived it because it wasn't approached as a pipeline to termination, but a true attempt at helping them improve to move up in their role. If I'm going to terminate someone (Canadian laws so hoops to jump through), I'm going to give them their termination, have them walked out, and pay them what they are entitled to. Their RoE will reflect accurately with or without cause. I'm not going to waste time and effort on a PIP if I know you're going to be terminated.
A well intentioned PIP has very clear and very achievable performance improvement metrics
One designed to be a paper trail to use to fire has vague or near-impossible goals, and subjective metrics
So yeah it very much depends on the company, or on how much your manager likes you (most of the ones I've seen, "HR" wants to fire the person, but the manager fights to get a PIP to give them a chance). Also depends on how niche the position is, and the PIP can help refocus the role to better fit the needs of the company, saving the company the time and expense of onboarding someone new for stuff you already know how to do
If a company is using a pip only for justification to fire you... That's really not somewhere you want to work anyway. Including for the people who don't get put on one.
I've seen the well intentioned PIP both survived and failed before.
At least at my company very few do. Once you get placed on PIP, it’s time to start hunting for your next job. PIP is the legal channel to get rid of you. “We’re giving you a chance. Sort of.”
I have. I was struggling in a role I'd been forced into. My boss got me on a PIP but you're given specific tasks and closely monitored while you're on it. He had my back and gave me tasks from the role I should have been in so I smashed it. When the PIP final review was held it was impossible for the higher ups not to see that moving me to that role was better for everyone and that I was worth keeping on.
I was given a six page pip with only one deliverable that wasn't overdue and the rest already completed, all in the name of giving me a 0 raise 0 bonus on my annual review.
I quit on the spot, effective immediately.
There is the occasional story of this in /r/sales.
Pernicious Insufferable Prick
Performance improvement plan
I love it.
This is my niche.
No company worth their salt doesn't have QA accompanying the external auditor. And all management would be informed that it's non-negotiable for all employees to be subject to audit.
Also, no auditor worth their salt just says "okay" and leaves without sampling from the production floor. They would have to discontinue the audit if the organization refuses to comply.
I find this hard to believe, but I also worked in an AS9100 repair site, so I've seen some wild things.
I have a hunch the ‘OK’ was an auditor realizing they wouldn’t be able to override the email. Why fight the symptom when the problem is elsewhere, and you’re going to bill for every hour wasted anyways.
After they walked back to their assigned bullpen, the message you speak of went straight to the Director/VP overseeing QC and everything started flowing downhill, as described.
Sounds like an "OK, I'm now going to go cause big problems for someone higher up than you" to me.
It's not over, just going in a different direction.
This is how I read it. Not as "Aw dang, guess I'm not auditing anything" but as "This is a problem, but clearly not your problem. Off I go to roll some heads."
If this was an internal auditor or consultant, I would understand that.
But for a certification audit? I would be shocked if the CB tech review would allow that slide.
For an auditor, there is no overriding. If the conditions aren't suitable for an audit and the organization isn't willing to budge, the auditor is literally supposed to stop the audit.
That level of discussion usually doesn't hit folks on the floor. But this gentleman states he was the only person on the floor during an external audit. I, in my professional experience, would never let my only sample dip out. I would go to my poc, explain the situation, and then go right back to the employee I originally wanted to speak to.
I take this story with a grain of salt, because sure, never say never. But I just don't buy it.
Most likely the auditor DID stop the audit, that's why the boss got chewed out and PIPed. They then came back a bit later and redid the audit.
If I was OP I would have done the same thing, which when the auditor can't get answers they would cancel the audit and trigger red flags probably up the the C suite level.
I doubt they got their cert revoked immediately but probably were told by the audit company 'fix this dumb rule so we can redo the audit or you WILL lose your cert'
The comment was ‘the auditor thanks me and leaves.’
There’s no additional note they came back or moved to the next department, just ‘they left.’
That’s not inconsistent with stopping the audit - which would happen behind the scenes, ‘upstairs’. There’s no reason why the auditor would try to threaten a floor worker into violating a written instruction just to save the company additional audit fees.
Indeed, you are probably absolutely right it killed that particular attempt at the audit, but that’s separate from the fact there’s no motivation for the auditor to attempt to either out-yell or out-lawyer a printed policy email on the spot, in real time. You might convince me that a ‘red team’ security test will try to social engineer their way past written instructions, but that’s not a QC auditor that I’ve ever met.
I have neither the grace nor patience but at most, the auditor might say ‘can you call the author to explicitly confirm this applies today? I’ll wait over here 5 minutes, rather than leave… but the clock is ticking.’
Failure to escalate and create a scene on the shop floor just shouldn’t (imho) induce skepticism. The story indicates there were indeed consequences and follow up - elsewhere.
pen testing of any flavour is a very different beast to a QC audit, and quite a bit more expensive. The more sophisticated the company wants them to be the more the price goes up, rapidly. At the cheap end you're lucky to get the output of some Kali tools run by a script kiddie with little to no explanation or consideration of whether you need to worry about what they show.
I'm an auditor, if something similar happens I'm not going to waste time arguing with a floor worker, I'm going to have a one way conversation with management.
No auditor worth their salt will bother arguing with the low level grunt who was told not to talk to them and can prove it. It's obvious someone at a higher pay grade had a meeting with the auditor that was, to quote Marcellus Wallace "very far from okay."
You got my attention....wild things you saw?
Favorite part of the story!
I love you.
Sweet!
Pure brilliance
boss on PIP?
time to rig the game.
That depends on whether you think the boss is teachable or not. Because you don't want to trade in one that's learned for one that is untaught or unteachable.
What’s the difference between EDP, MIS, and SysAdmjn? Circa 1987…
In the 80’s my BF was the SA for GAW (General Automotive Warehouse), their server room, it was regional, all the GAW stores west of the Rockies needed it UP to check warehouses for parts and ring up sales. Inventory was attached, the company was at a standstill without the server room humming along. I thought his job was so cool bc he didn’t have to go in on a schedule, no set days and times, he was basically on call 24/7. He wore a pager 24/7. He did make meetings and go in at least every other day—2-3 times a week for full salary, but then once, I saw the importance of his job. BOOM! The call came, he left. He was gone for nearly four days. He said there is only one option. Make It Work. No breaks or lunches, no sleep, life as you know it stops until it is up and humming. I had no idea. At the end of Day 2, I took him food. The room was huge, the servers were tall, fridge sized, all lined up, a lot of them. I remember it was hot. I wasn’t supposed to be there so I didn’t stay long, just got a tour.
He came back looking gaunt and haggard, same clothes, starving and exhausted. Had barely eaten, rested on a cot babysitting a dead server room (or part, not sure) until his parts came in and he could rebuild/replace whatever was broken. The entire company hundreds of employees waiting for him to finish. I gain a lot of respect for him that week. It was wild watching the news about a national company’s computer being down for 3+ days and knowing My Man was fixing it.
THANK YOU TO ALL THE IT PROS!!! - And—Thank You Stan Foster in Seattle for teaching me that it’s NEVER a good idea to piss off your SysAdmin/IT… They can hold your business hostage.
Showing company email is a communication to an outside source. You were technically still violating policy.
Yeah, but it's the results that count.
Not according to the post. Boss said talking, nothing about anything else.
The intent of the directive was not to divulge information to outside sources but to allow chain of communication to flow through proper channels instead. "Talking" is semantics ignoring the intent of the message. I'm communicating through text to convey these thoughts and ideas, a form of speech.
Nah. Words have meaning.
Auditor and QA Manager here. I call shenanigans on this story. In my experience, the cardinal rule of external audits is that the only time the auditor is left alone is when the toilet is required, and even then, if access to the nearest toilet is through a work area, safety requirements dictate that all visitors will be escorted while on premises. I would probably raise a safety finding if I was allowed to wander the floor unaccompanied, as that would violate written policy.
Additionally, we prepare for external audits by carrying out internal audits that are part audit, part coaching session. Everyone needs to know how to respond to the auditor, from the executive who answers Clause 4.0 questions to the technician on the floor, so the idea that the technician had zero communication about being audited other than the instruction not to speak to external people is implausible at best.
So, either this story is entirely untrue, or the bit about the auditor is "embellished for effect", but from the perspective of a professional in this field, this story doesn't make sense.
Also, OP's profile has ... clues ... that would support my hypothesis.
While I understand what you are saying, I also maybe rushed my original post for brevity. First post, and I was excited to get it out there and see how people reacted.
Auditor was escorted, though not by boss or QA. Audit was scheduled (as noted in original post), and first sign of auditors on floor was day 3 or 4 of 10 workday audit. This auditor finds me on floor while most of shop is at lunch around 11AM (I worked a flex shift at the time from 3AM until Noon and had already taken my "lunch"). Auditor had audited my work the last time they came through between 18 to 24 month previous, so I knew who the auditor was.
When I asked for the new "Boss or QA" policy in writing, I did it for just this reason. I had survived 4 previous bosses at this point, and knew boss putting it in writing would ultimately end up getting said boss in trouble.
I survived this boss too. About 2-3 months after this incident, this boss was moved back over to the new unit production side.
Okay then. Thanks for the extra info.
Wow very cool, thanks for sharing?
Repair Stations are always sketchy. Our HQ was a repair station but our sub station was all us working with our own licenses. Non licensed executives were always trying to get us to pencil whip things to get airplanes back up. We'd tell them to kick rocks. I heard all kinds of sketchy shit went on back at the repair station.
Something about the difference between C-suite and the management hired to supervise those of us who were license holders never added up. We all fell under the same FAA guidelines, but they always seemed to forget that when it came down to making the repair. For them it was all about the bottom line, and for us it was all about putting verified working equipment back into service.
Well done.
[deleted]
Are you reading the comments? Many similar stories. Great value in this post. Simmer down.