Modern Management or the Command System?

[anchorman]

Again it has been said by Capt. A, Capt. Fran, my self, and others. Your company is suffering from bad communication,

Fair enough, but then a background of what we've been doing to address this. I did make a strong pitch here on the necessity for increased transparency. Good communication does translate from transparency. Increased transparency is the result of good communication. I am sure you will agree this?

First thing between shore-ship. We made it understood that all communication from the office will be addressed to both Master and Chief Engineer. There is no secret communication and no secrets to hide. All telephone conversations in which the Office management suggests something to the Captain or the Chief will not carry weight unless there is a written confirmation: We are carrying out this..blah blah..as per our telecon on so and so date. This is extremely important if you realize. I cannot tell the Master or Chief Engineer something on the phone and leave hhim holding the baby if something goes wrong, while i hide behind plausible deniability.

But guess what, the maximum opposition to the 'end of secrecy' came from which quarters? No prizes, and it was not the Chief Engineers. We also have very smart Captains, who do realize and moan the fact they are being held responsible for IOPP violations. If you are hauled up in a court in South Korea on an IOPP violation, what are you going to tell 'his honor'? I trusted my Chief wrongly, plead guilty? No you are going to say, 'i should not be signing this. And do so only because it is mandated by law/ flag state requirement etc. The person ruly in charge and responsible for this is the Chief Engineer and he is paid for this'. But guess what the Chief does'nt have to sign on the ORB.

Some of this responsibility stuff is good on the golf course and it does awe the uninitiated. But in brick and mortar terms it means little. Even the Exxon Valdez Master got back his license and was full absolved. The pitch in the court house is always a different take. And should be rightly so.

If i try and focus on core responsibilities and take away minor, clerical jobs that take critical focus away, i should be encouraged in this task. Critical redundancy factors are mandated by class on some basic stuff. Operationally over the years, the scope increases over and above the basic minimum that the class recommends. Some engine rooms are difficult to run. Engineers are saddled with sometimes very poor ship designs, radical revamps on these machinery will cost most companies money they cannot afford. The moment ou run those DC ward leonard type cranes, you're talking 100% load on all generators. Charterers don't want delays. On such vessels i am totally dependent on the Chief to keep things moving. Not the Master. If the cranes have to be stopped due to breakdowns, we don't blame Masters. Target the Chief, not ask Master to ensure that breakdowns don't occur. The older a ship gets engineering reliability factors come down drastically. These don't effect the Master on board, they do entail more hardsip and understanding on the Chiefs part. Ofcourse a Master can say i ran a 30 year old ship for 4, 6 months without problems at the end of the day or contract. Looking through the subjectivity of 'running a ship" and identifying who is how critically responsible for what across the board is essential.

Look at it this way, if the Master is caught by law on IOPP, and the Company holds he C/E responsible there is a conflcit. I don't want the Masters signature on the ORB because i don't want him to be responsible for that. The Company cannot fire the Master in case the ORB is not maintained correctly. Masters questioning C/Es superficially on the ORB breeds onboard resentment. And no ship Master can monitor ever IOPP transfer record. Chiefs also cannot, but because he monitors the system extremely closely he is in the right position to be absolutely sworn responsible in the act.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the above statement in RED?
That is about the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

[Allwyn]

At any time GPS satellites can be turned off, that is why Celestial navigation is still practaced up in the wheelhouse. Have you ever heard of someone with "average" intellagence being able to do Celestial computations without the aid of a computer program? I dont know how your officers are tested on this subject for there license, but the <acronym title="United States Coast Guard">USCG</acronym> makes us prove that we can accomplish this task with a simple calculator and a pencel.

Ok let me assume you're correct.. Tell me then, why the USCG wants merchant mariners to be skilled at CN, while the US Navy, Airforce and the rest of the world airlines don't follow it anymore or teach it anymore. Or do you think the GPS would be switched off selectively only for Merchant ships. I am cerain there are thousands of planes in the air too any moment relying on GPS data.

Also I would like to add, Google is not the place to prove your knowage of Maritime terms.

Google is not the place to improve one's maritime knowledge, i am aware. But it is a tool used by people all over the world to learn and gather information about any subject. A tool. Like your sextant. Incidently google is not based in Seattle which is the MS HQ but in California.

[Allwyn]

Anchorman, please go ahead and explain why you consider it the dumbest thing you read in a long time. I would have appreciated if you could ask me phrase it better or something, but i will now wait for your explanation, why you consider it so 'dumb'.

[Allwyn]

I am appalled that you think that the wheelhouse crew is made up of morons that follow a line on the GPS.

I don' think so one bit. Reminded me of a quote by Peter Drucker:

“No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.”

Achieving a Management Sysem that does that effectively is the big task. The ideal for shipping management is a layman should be able to enter he bridge and safely navigate the vessel or to be more PC..a non-Engineer should be able to come into the ER and able to operate and run the Engines. The present ultimate ideal thats not going to be achievable in the near future is boot out all kinds of Mariners. Masters or Chiefs.

So the next best workable ideal is Druckers, that we organize things on board in such a way, that even if an Incompetent Master or Chief Engineer finds his way and slips through, the system makes it sure that the Silvermans paradox holds sway over Murphy for the period they are their. When people override the system with misuse of command authority or other means, all the plans go for a six. Murphy's laws will override Silvermans..

[anchorman]

Anchorman, please go ahead and explain why you consider it the dumbest thing you read in a long time. I would have appreciated if you could ask me phrase it better or something, but i will now wait for your explanation, why you consider it so 'dumb'.

It needs explaining? I don't think experience can be explained, but using an example of a crane breaking down at the dock is a luxury compared to losing a main engine while underway. If you think mechanical break downs don't effect the master, maybe you know nothing about being a master. While the C/E has the luxury of concentrating efforts to get things running, the master has the burden of saving the ship and those on board. I have been in situations like this......obviously you have not. Neither has many Chiefs.
I have also lost thrusters that could not be fixed at sea and I was forced to work with less while the C/E was drinking his coffee waiting for the part to arrive.
I can go on and on, but you should get the picture.

I'm starting to wonder if you're one of those office jockeys types that think you can read about practical experience.

Some of your statements are valid - I'll give you that. I'll also admit the ones that have merit are so blatantly obvious that my first thought is "no shit".

[Stareed]

In times of a National Security Emergency the government can disable the commercial GPS signal. That is why the USCG requires it, also if there is a major electrical problem onboard that causes the electronic navigational equipment to malfunction it is still necessary to find your way home. I am sure such a major problem would not happen or be unable to be resolved with your mentally superior Engineering staff that you employ on your vessels.
As to why the US Navy does not require it any longer is not a subject that I can speak of, as I am not in the Armed Forces

[Allwyn]

I have also lost thrusters that could not be fixed at sea and I was forced to work with less while the C/E was drinking his coffee waiting for the part to arrive.
I can go on and on, but you should get the picture.

Fair enough, Anchorman. It's really great you worked through with lesser capability than what a given for those circumstances.

but using an example of a crane breaking down at the dock is a luxury compared to losing a main engine while underway. If you think mechanical break downs don't effect the master, maybe you know nothing about being a master. While the C/E has the luxury of concentrating efforts to get things running, the master has the burden of saving the ship and those on board.

There was a reason why i gave the example of the crane breakdown. Because i wanted you to appreciate the trouble shooting and analytical abilities essential to solve some problems which many take for granted and easy quick fixes.

I am a bit surprised how easily you think the C/E has the "luxury" of getting things running, while without propulsion you're doing some heroic maneovers avoiding reefs and pirates to save souls. Come off it. There are established procedures in every company for such events very clearly laid out in checklists. In case the vessel is indeed hitting reefs, rocks and Engines are unavailable, there is you or anyone can do if you cannot use your anchors or Engines. Your best bet certainly lies in the Chief and his team being able to sort the problem out before you some how ground or hit. And if you're mid ocean. Relax, have a beer or soda while he Chief goes about his thing.

[Allwyn]

also if there is a major electrical problem onboard that causes the electronic navigational equipment to malfunction it is still necessary to find your way home. I am sure such a major problem would not happen or be unable to be resolved with your mentally superior Engineering staff that you employ on your vessels.

I would like to honestly ask you if you are aware of the redundancies built in to the GPS unit on board you operate? Have you checked what voltage it runs on in the first place and where it's emergency supply is from? Do try and take/ consult the Chief Engineer in case equipment on bridge fails. My honest request.

As to why the US Navy does not require it any longer is not a subject that I can speak of, as I am not in the Armed Forces

Ok convenient. Civilian Aircraft?

While i do acknowledge there is no equipment not capable of failure, it is important to understand redundancies built into it. If you're not using sexants, CN and have not used them before. How big a deal is it to learn using the equipment for the first time? One day? Two days? Months? The big deal is not the complexity involved in using it, but the accuracy of the plot. Am i right? Ready to stand corrected though.

[anchorman]

I have also lost thrusters that could not be fixed at sea and I was forced to work with less while the C/E was drinking his coffee waiting for the part to arrive.
I can go on and on, but you should get the picture.

Fair enough, Anchorman. It's really great you worked through with lesser capability than what a given for those circumstances.

but using an example of a crane breaking down at the dock is a luxury compared to losing a main engine while underway. If you think mechanical break downs don't effect the master, maybe you know nothing about being a master. While the C/E has the luxury of concentrating efforts to get things running, the master has the burden of saving the ship and those on board.

There was a reason why i gave the example of the crane breakdown. Because i wanted you to appreciate the trouble shooting and analytical abilities essential to solve some problems which many take for granted and easy quick fixes.

I am a bit surprised how easily you think the C/E has the "luxury" of getting things running, while without propulsion you're doing some heroic maneovers avoiding reefs and pirates to save souls. Come off it. There are established procedures in every company for such events very clearly laid out in checklists. In case the vessel is indeed hitting reefs, rocks and Engines are unavailable, there is you or anyone can do if you cannot use your anchors or Engines. Your best bet certainly lies in the Chief and his team being able to sort the problem out before you some how ground or hit. And if you're mid ocean. Relax, have a beer or soda while he Chief goes about his thing.

No heroics, just a little experience.
You really have no idea. There is no debate there. You really don't.

Check list? What checklist? There is a checklist for experience, or every event that could possibly happen? If you had any sense at all, you would know that an Engineer is provided with equipment manuals that are far more useful in their profession than checklist are for the Captain. Most checklist are CYA documents originating from people like you.

Can anyone provide a checklist (or an engineer with the knowledge) of the correct procedure if you were on an AHTS in 2500 meters of water pulling 210mt of bollard pull while running out an 18mt Stevpris anchor on a PCC wire with approx. 3500 meters of of 4" wire and 1000 meters of 3 1/2" chain between you and the rig and your starboard engine catches on fire. You lose the engine and shaft generator which also sheds your fwd drop-down and bow tunnel?
Who's decision would it be to release CO2 in this space?
Answer.....the CAPTAIN. Only the Captain could make that safe judgement.

[cmakin]

As much as I dislike your idea, I will give you props for bringing it here were it can be vetted by those who it would impact most. I just wish some of the engineers around would way in on this.

We are too busy. . . .

[Allwyn]

Anchorman, i am not disagreeing with the fact there are decisions like CO2 release that the Captain has to make. But you also must realize that if you have critical decisions to make regarding safety and running of he ship, so does the Chief. You cannot absolve that fact. And you can never win a subjective argument that a Captain has more critical decisions to make than a Chief Engineer, simply because every critical piece of equipment that you intend to use is in service because the Engineer is in charge of it. Including testing of the CO2 systems.

I want to bring this on track with the management issues. Shore crane operators work at times on cranes. Being operators they are in 'command' when they are operating this equipment. However on a particular occassion it came to our notice they were not using the normal 'close grab' function but a test button for closing the grab in air, without load. We requested them not to use that. But they continued, since we do not have policing facilities and they insisted that it is for normal use. Since the manuals said nothing, but engineers deduced his would burn the motor at a future point of time for certain, we consulted the maker. It was indeed, prohibited for such use. We then disconneced simple wiring for preventing use the next time. This is a simple example. Indeed if the wire snaps, the cargo/ grab/ jib is about to fall onto someone and the operator takes action, he does so based on his judgement alone. No questions there. But the tendency of some crane operators as in this particular case to undermine advise given by Engineers can lead to a major problem.

Have you seen massive rig structures being loaded onto empty barges at yards? A delicate operation indeed, Engineers do these sort of things, they design all these too, they troubleshoot on them, define tolerances. Have you seen ships without power being towed into drydocks floating or otherwise? Yard Engineers (many with Marine experience) do these on a daily basis pretty safely. The do not hire Masters for these.

The goal of any management including yours undoubtedly, is to bring about as much standardization as possible. While i admit and fully agree with you, experience is wanted and indeed the market also demands it, standardization is also important. There have been plenty silly incidents, accidents involving very experienced people.

This is why i quoted Drucker on a post to that effect. We're not looking at Genius's and Heroes to run things. We're looking at making our management systems such that the chance of hypotheticals (like those quoted) is reduced to such low probability that Silvermans paradox to Murphy kicks in. I understand it looks absolutely stupid to remind experienced Masters and Chief Engineers to follow procedures for Arrival port and departure, or Economizer waterwashing, blackout, grounding, hot work, working aloft, starting a Generator and so on..but believe me it does make a massive difference.

The management has no guarantee they will get as good a Master as you in handling AHTS vessels, when you leave. So as in our case, specially when there is tremendous shortage in the market, we do our best to get in as much standardization in operational processes as possible.

The moment someone walks into the HO saying " I have 30 years experience as Master/ CE and i don't need your procedures lists, i know this stuff inside/ out" any manager in the right senses will show him the exit door ASAP.

While i agree everything is not standardized, and possibly cannot be. The reason why experience does count is still valid and above par for the course.

[anchorman]

"Anchorman, i am not disagreeing with the fact there are decisions like CO2 release that the Captain has to make. But you also must realize that if you have critical decisions to make regarding safety and running of he ship, so does the Chief. You cannot absolve that fact. And you can never win a subjective argument that a Captain has more critical decisions to make than a Chief Engineer, simply because every critical piece of equipment that you intend to use is in service because the Engineer is in charge of it. Including testing of the CO2 systems."

I already know the importance of the Chief, and I've had some fine engineers, but at the end of the day, it's the master of the vessel that must have total situational awareness of the engine room and the deck to make effective operational decisions. The master must make sure that the Chief is tending to his duties, particularly the one that you pointed out in regard to safety. This in not a two way street and it never will be, for good reason.
There is no reason to exemplify the importance of anyone's duty on board any vessel. Any reasonable and experienced Captain would know that the most important person on a vessel at any given time can be the cook, or the green OS because they may be the person that pulled the general alarm saving everyone.
There is no subjective argument to win, as you put it, there is only decisions based of fact. Your job as Master is to get the facts straight and the fact is you're trying to mitigate the Master's authority with your posts. How do you explain this reaction?

"Have you seen massive rig structures being loaded onto empty barges at yards? A delicate operation indeed, Engineers do these sort of things, they design all these too, they troubleshoot on them, define tolerances. Have you seen ships without power being towed into drydocks floating or otherwise? Yard Engineers (many with Marine experience) do these on a daily basis pretty safely. The do not hire Masters for these."

I know engineers do these sort of things, actual mechanical engineers or naval architects. I watch the Discovery Channel.....and it sure as hell is not a ship engineer. Hell, we can even say that Captain's fly Boeing 747's if you want to start talking apples and oranges.

[Capt. Nemo]

Allwyn,

What are we talking about here? Ship's engineers or Civil Engineers, or Electrical Engineers, or Mechanical Engineers or what?

There's a lot of difference in them, their duties, education and experience.
You seem to equate a structural engineer with a Chief Engineer.

I'm sure glad I don't work for your company.

Oh, by the way, airliners can navigate using "old-fashioned" methods as well as GPS. There's not an airliner flying that's not equipped to do so. In fact, the final phase of flight uses ONLY conventional navigation. Ever heard of an ILS?

And the U.S. Navy DOES use celestial navigation.

Talk about what you know about, which apparently isn't much.

Nemo

[Allwyn]

The whole reason that an engine dept was put on board was because it was becoming to much for the Master to keep up with.

That is one Gem i will remember always.

but at the end of the day, it's the master of the vessel that must have total situational awareness of the engine room and the deck to make effective operational decisions.

I agree. And the Master can only have very macro type situational awareness of machinery and equipment on board. In the short contracts that are doled out, even the C/E on board rarely have the time to develop complete and total situational awareness of E/R. Forget it, i don't believe that Masters institutionally do so or are capable of it. The Deck is again made up of Steel, Machinery and Cargo or ballast. Again your knowledge monopoly on that is susceptible to questioning.

Leaves the Bridge. Yes that is your core responsibility. Operating the equipment their and safe navigation.

Out of 3 main areas i see the Chief might be possessing better situational awareness in 2, than the average Master. If i introduce say a Cargo Engineer, who does all the mates cargo ops work, the Master is left with the Bridge equipment and operations. 2 Radars, ARPA, a chart table with charts. Core competency back again. Navigation. You get help their once again, as pilots drop off ships to almost deep sea, and then pick them once again well outside in safe posiitons to bring them back to berth.

This is how Industry discussions go. Brutal, i have to show savings. I have to show safety, i have to show results, and i have massive limitations. Don't wave me 'Command'. Wave me competence. Prove me why someone cannot 'command' you as a Navigator only. Don't hide behind laws that were laid down last century as sacrosanct. Prove to me that Navigators in 'command' alone can run ships most effectively. Prove to me that an Engineer (i might install another Engineer, apart from the Chief) in 'command' cannot run a ship as safely as a navigator . And you will have a discussion going.

Don't quote me about 'Command responsibility' when the Exxon Valdez Master can walk free and fully in charge. I've seen dozens of absolutely incometent Masters. I've gone on board and asked Masters about manual release of CO2 followed with blank stares and murmered calls for support. I've asked Masters to show me the Emergency battery room..and they don't know where it is on board. Masters who've made the Bridge chart table a pub at sea. Many of these have so much experience as Masters you will feel ashamed. Yet talk about command, and an idyllic vision permeates and every souls safety comes into the picture, including abandoning the vessel and more. If the reality were not so tragic, it would be amusing. Indusry discussions can be hard nosed. Thats the wa outsourcing works. Can you do this better for me? No you cannot? Sorry different model. No sentimentalism.

I know engineers do these sort of things, actual mechanical engineers or naval architects. I watch the Discovery Channel.....and it sure as hell is not a ship engineer.

We have in our company plenty of people who have been Mecanical Engineers. A few decades ago I have done 4 years of Naval Architecture myself. In my second semester itself i did Naval Arch problems more complicated than you would have for your extra Masters today. And there are many Engineers who are sailing that have more capabiliy than you think they have.

Your poor and insulting opinion on Marine Engineers does not reflect well that you know what goes into the running and operation of ships. If you are in 'Command', i begin again first post: Are you worthy of it? Can we have a better system? Can we enhance safety further? Can we make a better anti-pollution effort? Can we try a different Model?

I believe yes we can. And certainly he solutions do not involve those who feel burdened by Marine Engineers or too enamoured/ romantic by 'Command'. Go ahead, prove me Mechanics can replace Engineers, prove me that Navigators in command are really indispensible.

[Allwyn]

Ever heard of an ILS?

An ILS (Instrumented landing system) has nothing to do with GPS, and is exactly as the name suggests. An Instrumented landing system. With categories and aids. Cat 3 is fully automated, hands off for example. Everything modern and non traditional about it.

The Instrument Landing System (ILS) is a ground-based instrument approach system that provides precision guidance to an aircraft approaching and landing on a runway, using a combination of radio signals and, in many cases, high-intensity lighting arrays to enable a safe landing during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), such as low ceilings or reduced visibility due to fog, rain, or blowing snow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system

And the U.S. Navy DOES use celestial navigation.

Any links. I got one, and it shows they've abandoned it. Even teaching it.

[kzoo pilot]

Ok, so we have the engineers in the hole making sure the noisy thing that turns the screw keeps making noise and the coffee drinkers up in the brain box making sure we don't hit anything and the heavy or wet stuff in the hold goes on the dock . . . sounds simple, right?

I cannot begin to comment on the myriad new US and Int'l regulations regarding SMS etc as I don't think I can adequately comment on something that I think is BS . . . either a ship is safe or it is not. The MASTER is in charge and if he, in close cooperation with the C/E and C/M, do not promote a culture of safe and seamanlike work, the whole thing falls apart. (I think I just commented!) No matter how much paperwork the office and IMO/USCG want to demonstrate that a vessel is operated safely and in compliance with the law, it is only that; paper. As a pilot I have witnessed deck officers working on chart corrections, passage plans, and safety audits while underway in coastal waters and poor visibility. They are very insistant that the ISM code requires the completion of such paperwork to show a safe operation. How safe is it when the watch officer is buried in paper up to his arm pits and not keeping a proper underway watch? Would the airlines allow this to happen when flying? I think not.

Seafaring is not the safest job in the world but time tested methods exist to keep it safe: proper watchstanding, scheduled maintenance, and well trained (and rested, but that is another thread!) crew. If a Master cannot trust his officers to carry out their assigned duties, there is a problem somewhere. We have all worked with questionable characters but then we can fall back on the "trust but verify" approach. Nonetheless, it is not expected that a deck officer will have any more than a passing understanding of major engineering systems anymore than an engineer can be expected to understand tide and current tables, the combined RoR, or how to plan a "full and down" load.

Each department must be staffed with the best available officers and crew to keep the ship afloat, moving, and on schedule. Communication, communication, communication. They push, we point.

On a final note, I have to write a little bit about the comment that deckies merely "follow the line" on the GPS. Fifteen years ago the line I was sailing for was running up against a labor contract deadline. Our owners came to the boats and made comments about manning levels which were, to say it charitably, BS. The owner stated "I pay eleven men to stare out the window, that has to change." Mind you, we used to have a mate and two AB's on every watch which allowed a two man bridge watch during the day in good visibility with an AB available for lookout duties in restricted waters or poor visibility. At night, the mate, wheelsman, and watchman were in the pilothouse keeping, what I consider, a proper watch. That company is sailing vessels today, some built in the fifties when the layout of the bridge was designed for a multiple man watch, with only the mate during the day and a mate and AB at night. I have been back periodically over the past ten years as a relief and have wondered how fast I could get from the front window around to a caged wheelstand and alter course in an emergency. I am still thinking that one through!

Back to the main topic . . . It all comes down to a good working relationship between departments. The Master and Chief have to find a way to work together. If that is not possible, the shore side management cannot be hesitant to adjust the crew to find combinations of Masters and Chiefs that can work with each other. Ships are too big an investment (historically and legally trusted to the Master) to let conflict interfere with the authority and responsibility of command.

[john]

Well said Kzoo!

[Capt. Nemo]

It's an "Instrument Landing System", not "Instrumented", and the fact that it's not dependant on GPS was my point. It is a conventional system, using radio-based navaids.

And a "hands free", as you mistakenly call it is "autoland". Cat 3 approaches can be hand-flown with HUD.

Again, talk about what you know about. But that might be difficult. It shouldn't be, though, for a naval architect like yourself.

Sounds like you've got a bunch of highly qualified engineers and a bunch of idiot captains working for you. Maybe you should look at your recruiting department.

Also, I don't know how it works where YOU are, but here pilots are put aboard ship in an advisory capacity only. The captain is still in command of the ship and can override a pilot at any time. Go to Port Fourchon, Louisiana or Reedville, Virginia and try to find a pilot being taken on or off a ship...or an engineer trying to put one to the dock. Good luck.

If you are representative of the people your company employs, it's no wonder you're looking for another way to do business.

[anchorman]

You are a piece of work.

Tell you what. Use you're position and do what you think is right and report back here with the results. That would be interesting......retaining a captain.
I don't have to prove anything to you. The proof is up to you. You're advocating change in command structure based on mechanical knowledge over practical command experience. I certainly have not read anything that even 1% of the maritime community would advocate. I will say that I have enough engineering knowledge to know when the Chief is blowing smoke up my ass, and that alarm just went off.

Please don't mistake my "poor insulting opinion" on engineers. That opinion stays here with you, but realize that my opinions are grounded in facts, not hypothesizing change. I have more respect for the guys in the engine room than you have for those in the bridge....without question.

I'm tired of a moot discussion, because that is exactly what it is.

[injunear]

"Our biggest shortage are Engineers. They seem to be leaving fast and retiring early from sea life."

This is the same old "pecker measuring" I've witnessed for the past 39 years.

The reason I and many others have opted for early retirement is the shrinking engine room crew with an exponential increase in office personel, increased work load, piles of new regulatory record keeping, ongoing audits and vettings taking up valuable port time for maintainence and repairs, (my favorite) elimination of overtime because we're not supposed to exceed 36 hours in 72 and when this is pointed out to management, we're admonished and told to learn to manage our time better.

Now, I've finished my rant and have to clean the morning's catch. You all can go back to your measuring...Maybe my first pension check will come in today!!