Re: Continental want-ad: LOW PAY!

From:         rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date:         01 Jun 94 14:35:02 
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1994.1277@ohare.Chicago.COM> matthew@phoenix.princeton.edu (Matthew Meisel Sigelman) writes:
>In article <airliners.1994.1270@ohare.Chicago.COM> rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>>
>>If I have people operating heavy machinery near my $50 million airplane, I
>>want people who are smart, in addition to the other criteria.  A recent
>>
>While all of the accidents you list are obviously quite expensive, the
>potentiality for such accidents is actually quite low.  

I suspect that's what we're debating here.  If "free market" types dictate
personnel requirements, I posit that the rate of such accidents will increase.
A point of the Boeing article is to increase training and take other workplace
measures to stop such incidents.  I would have my doubts as to how much 
training the airlines will exert on a person making $4.65 an hour, not to
mention how effective that training would be on a person who would accept
such a job.  


>It really
>doesn't take too much to avoid any of those accidents-- or others for
>that matter.  Most of them are merely the product of carelessness -- and
>I know plenty of well paid people who are careless.  

I don't believe that "carelessness" is an acceptable answer here.  You're
using it as a euphemism for human error, but human error is demonstrably
a function of personnel selection and the operating environment.  


>Come on:  you don't
>need "people who are smart" to be sure that your fuel door is getting
>closed or that the brakes are being hooked up or that you don't have
>trucks banging into the aircraft on the apron.  

You do need people who care.




--              
Robert Dorsett                                                       
rdd@netcom.com