Looks like OC Transpo is all over the news today.
Turns out the bus driver that flipped out on a passenger has been fired. Apparently like the passenger in question had autism. I wrote my initial opinion on this incident in a blog entry - OC Bus Drive loses it... - in which I thought, without knowing the full facts of the situation, that this was a tough situation to judge. My conclusion was that this was more a reflection of how poorly we as a society manage mental illness.
While autism is not a mental illness, my conclusion still stands in the sense that as a society we are not equipped or social aware of how to manage behavioral issues that some people may exhibit. The public transportation system has a lot of mentally ill passengers, this is their primary way of getting around, and whether or not the bus driver's behavior was beyond reproach, in my opinion, really comes down to the extent to which drivers are trained to deal with those with mental illness.
If they are not trained in this area, then in my opinion, it's to be expected that when faced with extreme behavioral issues, some drivers are going to flip out.
Anyway, from the story in the National Post there was little detail on what exactly happened prior to what we saw on the video. So who knows what actually lead to the decision to fire the driver. From a PR perspective, firing the driver is neither good or bad, but not explaining the rationale behind said action is not good.
OC Transpo's public comment was:
“The collective agreement provides for a process of grievance which may be exercised by the individual/union and is a matter of labour relations. As a result, there will be no further information on this matter.”
As I've mentioned in previous posts, for those starting out in PR, one of the best things you can do is befriend the lawyers in your organization. Not so much for working relationships down the road, but rather, to understand how their mandate will conflict with your mandate. When you see bad PR (such as we saw initially with the whole Murdoch fiasco), I would say that about 50 per cent of the time it's the result of lawyers getting involved.
In other OC Transpo news, one of their drivers has been told to stop singing.
I'd be willing to bet that most people would enjoy a singing transpo driver. Comments across the Web seem to suggest this is the case.
However, we do live in a era where a couple complaints can cause an uproar. In addition, as all businesses attempt to maximize productivity, behavior that is not within the strict confines of protocol becomes a no-brainer to prohibit.
I can appreciate how this is a tough call for the city though. Afterall, what if a bus driver wants to sing who is a horrible singer? Does OC Transpo then have to start assessing their driver's singing abilities in deciding who can sing and who can't? Or what if a driver wants to rap instead of sing?
I think there is actually a solution to this, but ironically, I'd bet that it would be the OC Transpo union that would never go for it.
The solution would be to simply enable the public to rate a driver. Enable passengers to go online, use their OC transpo pass number to verify that they are a customer, and allow them to rate (positively and negatively) any driver. Clearly, in order to do this OC would have to inform passengers about who their driver was, but that's not hard to do (simply flash the info in the overhead displays thingy).
Then you simply have a rule that if a driver receives a certain amount of negative customer feedback, OC management looks in to what is going. This way, if you have a 'singing' driver that people like you'll receive positive feedback and said driver can be allowed to continue singing.
Such a system engages the public and helps identify good drivers from bad drivers (allowing you to optimize your workforce and reward those doing a good job). In the end, it's a win-win for everyone (well, everyone except bad drivers).
From a PR perspective I think the public would be ecstatic over such a system.
Unfortunately, I don't think the union would ever allow that level of customer-feedback to occur. I'm not against unions in general, but in situations like these, unions can definitely inhibit a business from growing and evolving.
While OC Transpo might take a lot of flack for telling the bus driver that he can no longer sing, I'd be willing to be that the reason they have to make that call is because of the ramifications associated with the union if they didn't. They'd inevitably have some bus driver whose singing would give you a headache that they wouldn't be able to shut up because the union would say "If you let Frank sing then you've got to let Charlie sing."
The only way to get around that is to essentially hand the power over to the customer. Engage the customer and find out if they like Frank singing. If you can collect that data then you are in a position to say 'Charlie's BAD singing should not prohibit Frank's GOOD singing that everyone likes."
Turns out the bus driver that flipped out on a passenger has been fired. Apparently like the passenger in question had autism. I wrote my initial opinion on this incident in a blog entry - OC Bus Drive loses it... - in which I thought, without knowing the full facts of the situation, that this was a tough situation to judge. My conclusion was that this was more a reflection of how poorly we as a society manage mental illness.
While autism is not a mental illness, my conclusion still stands in the sense that as a society we are not equipped or social aware of how to manage behavioral issues that some people may exhibit. The public transportation system has a lot of mentally ill passengers, this is their primary way of getting around, and whether or not the bus driver's behavior was beyond reproach, in my opinion, really comes down to the extent to which drivers are trained to deal with those with mental illness.
If they are not trained in this area, then in my opinion, it's to be expected that when faced with extreme behavioral issues, some drivers are going to flip out.
Anyway, from the story in the National Post there was little detail on what exactly happened prior to what we saw on the video. So who knows what actually lead to the decision to fire the driver. From a PR perspective, firing the driver is neither good or bad, but not explaining the rationale behind said action is not good.
OC Transpo's public comment was:
“The collective agreement provides for a process of grievance which may be exercised by the individual/union and is a matter of labour relations. As a result, there will be no further information on this matter.”
As I've mentioned in previous posts, for those starting out in PR, one of the best things you can do is befriend the lawyers in your organization. Not so much for working relationships down the road, but rather, to understand how their mandate will conflict with your mandate. When you see bad PR (such as we saw initially with the whole Murdoch fiasco), I would say that about 50 per cent of the time it's the result of lawyers getting involved.
In other OC Transpo news, one of their drivers has been told to stop singing.
I'd be willing to bet that most people would enjoy a singing transpo driver. Comments across the Web seem to suggest this is the case.
However, we do live in a era where a couple complaints can cause an uproar. In addition, as all businesses attempt to maximize productivity, behavior that is not within the strict confines of protocol becomes a no-brainer to prohibit.
I can appreciate how this is a tough call for the city though. Afterall, what if a bus driver wants to sing who is a horrible singer? Does OC Transpo then have to start assessing their driver's singing abilities in deciding who can sing and who can't? Or what if a driver wants to rap instead of sing?
I think there is actually a solution to this, but ironically, I'd bet that it would be the OC Transpo union that would never go for it.
The solution would be to simply enable the public to rate a driver. Enable passengers to go online, use their OC transpo pass number to verify that they are a customer, and allow them to rate (positively and negatively) any driver. Clearly, in order to do this OC would have to inform passengers about who their driver was, but that's not hard to do (simply flash the info in the overhead displays thingy).
Then you simply have a rule that if a driver receives a certain amount of negative customer feedback, OC management looks in to what is going. This way, if you have a 'singing' driver that people like you'll receive positive feedback and said driver can be allowed to continue singing.
Such a system engages the public and helps identify good drivers from bad drivers (allowing you to optimize your workforce and reward those doing a good job). In the end, it's a win-win for everyone (well, everyone except bad drivers).
From a PR perspective I think the public would be ecstatic over such a system.
Unfortunately, I don't think the union would ever allow that level of customer-feedback to occur. I'm not against unions in general, but in situations like these, unions can definitely inhibit a business from growing and evolving.
While OC Transpo might take a lot of flack for telling the bus driver that he can no longer sing, I'd be willing to be that the reason they have to make that call is because of the ramifications associated with the union if they didn't. They'd inevitably have some bus driver whose singing would give you a headache that they wouldn't be able to shut up because the union would say "If you let Frank sing then you've got to let Charlie sing."
The only way to get around that is to essentially hand the power over to the customer. Engage the customer and find out if they like Frank singing. If you can collect that data then you are in a position to say 'Charlie's BAD singing should not prohibit Frank's GOOD singing that everyone likes."
Comments
Post a Comment