EthelAnne
Well-known member
<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote"><strong>btdtret said </strong>
EthelAnne et al -- Thanx for the view of what happened in your office.
" the carrier on her primary assignment does not get paid to train RCAs, so refuses to do it."
-- Maybe manglement could have told the regular " You don't want to train your sub, fine, she is no longer your sub. She'll go to another route." After all, the sub belongs to the USPS.
-- Don't know if manglement ordering a regular to train a sub is a legal order. -- anyone??
" she got fired for insubordination when the PM initiated a discussion with her about performance inadequacies and she decided to give him an earful."
-- Well, good for the sub although it cost her a job. Apparently the PM had no idea what kind of "training" the sub had received.
-- A good bet that the "earful" just went in one ear and out the other!
-- Did the sub finish her probationary period?
-- You probably should have suggested the sub write a letter to the PMG, describing her experience at the post office. It would have been interesting to see in the PMG still holds to "keep RCA's at all costs." The PMG "inviting" your PM to DC at his / her cost to explain what happened to the sub would have been interesting. </blockquote>
No, she had not completed probation, I just got involved because she contacted me and I told her all I could do is speak with the PM on her behalf and she could be terminated for any reason or for no reason during probation and she did not have any recourse, but I would (and did) speak to the PM.
I hope I did not convey that the RCA was blameless in this situation. Her in-office training did suck; but she made things a whole lot worse than they had to be with her attitude and failure to respond to guidance/correction. I just brought up the incident in my office as an example of training that goes wrong, even in what I consider a pretty good office.
EthelAnne et al -- Thanx for the view of what happened in your office.
" the carrier on her primary assignment does not get paid to train RCAs, so refuses to do it."
-- Maybe manglement could have told the regular " You don't want to train your sub, fine, she is no longer your sub. She'll go to another route." After all, the sub belongs to the USPS.
-- Don't know if manglement ordering a regular to train a sub is a legal order. -- anyone??
" she got fired for insubordination when the PM initiated a discussion with her about performance inadequacies and she decided to give him an earful."
-- Well, good for the sub although it cost her a job. Apparently the PM had no idea what kind of "training" the sub had received.
-- A good bet that the "earful" just went in one ear and out the other!
-- Did the sub finish her probationary period?
-- You probably should have suggested the sub write a letter to the PMG, describing her experience at the post office. It would have been interesting to see in the PMG still holds to "keep RCA's at all costs." The PMG "inviting" your PM to DC at his / her cost to explain what happened to the sub would have been interesting. </blockquote>
No, she had not completed probation, I just got involved because she contacted me and I told her all I could do is speak with the PM on her behalf and she could be terminated for any reason or for no reason during probation and she did not have any recourse, but I would (and did) speak to the PM.
I hope I did not convey that the RCA was blameless in this situation. Her in-office training did suck; but she made things a whole lot worse than they had to be with her attitude and failure to respond to guidance/correction. I just brought up the incident in my office as an example of training that goes wrong, even in what I consider a pretty good office.
