[reaperexpress]

I politely disagree here: if you’ve really never found yourself in a mental space where you have allowed yourself to do things of which you knew that they were absolutely wrong (and for which you probably already felt deeply ashamed the moment your emotions cooled down again), you may throw the first stone…

One of the expectations of a job with a safety-critical function or public-facing element is the ability to remain cool under pressure and continue to make rational decisions. Think for example about air traffic controllers and pilots, who are extensively trained to keep their emotions under control so they can remain effective in high-pressure emergency situations.

A locomotive engineer has a significant safety-critical component and some minor public-facing components as well, so I think that even with the incomplete information that we have at this point we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the employee in question failed to do their job correctly. What we need to do about that is another question. Was there inadequate training? Inadequate screening of candidates? Insufficient oversight? etc.

 

[micheal_can]

^ All of this discussion greatly distorts the reality of what process and consequences the employee may face, and how the consequences will be determined and meted out.
And it ignores what the employee may already have admitted, or explained, or accepted responsibility for, or apologized for, to the employer and possibly to the passenger themselves..
I think we all agree that passengers should not receive the treatment that we've seen on the video, and I doubt that VIA condones it either. So I'm confident it is being addressed. However - I give VIA credit for not going further in public about any of this. There have been cases in other companies where egregious behaviour by a worker has immediately been seized by the C-suite and made into a PR event. VIA has not gone that route.
We may read about this one day in the CROA archives - but until then, the process is properly private and should be respected for that.

- Paul

Let me ask a simple question. This is for everyone who wants to defend anyone or any organization here.

Of all of the mess, what was done right? Who did the right things?

Now, if no one can answer that then there is no point beating this dead horse....

If there are some good, then lets hear them.

 

[crs1026]

Now, if no one can answer that then there is no point beating this dead horse....

You have hit the nail on the head, for once.

We don't have enough information to make a meaningful analysis

Here is an off the top of my head list of questions that none of the posters can answer with authority.

- Was the train properly inspected before it began its runs, as per regulations and proper practice
- Was any defect known or discovered before the train began its run, and if so why was it not removed from service
- What was the defect or failure that brought the train to a stop
- When was this defect first noted and how was this communicated to the proper authority
- What corrective action was initiated, by whom, and under what timeline
- What contractual or regulatory requirements and responsibilities exist relevant to this equipment failure
- What remedial options were proposed, or requested, that were not actioned, and why
- What was the timeline and substance of the communication between the train, the CN control center, and VIA operations
- What was the timeline and substance of the conditions passengers experienced? (Did the hvac and toilets cease functioning, when and for how long, what food and water/beverage was available and offered, what exactly were passengers told and by whom, how much mobility did passengers actually have throughout the stop, how warm or cold did the train get)
- Were requests made to CN and other stakeholders/support agencies for assistance and what response was received
- What action was taken to secure alternate transportation, by whom, when, and with what result

You can add your own, but you can see that this really does demand factfinding.

My gut says that plenty of deficiencies and could have, should have's may eventually come out. But this is why we let investigations happen before we draw conclusions.

- Paul