Friday, June 6, 2014
Interesting issues at LLNL continue. The attachment identifies LLNL management position on Run To Failure of equipment. If I took this Run To Failure tact toward equipment such as my vehicle then that would be a dangerous and more costly outcome.
joe2cool
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9eIrcyRIQxyUXdrYmZqeEd3STg/edit?usp=sharing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Come on folks, pay attention! This is the union-bating thread. Run-to-failure is a purported way to decrease union staffing. This is where you're all supposed to chime in your support for the LLNL unions!
There is no such thing as "Run to Fail" in F&I, except for equipment in facilities that have been designated for future Cold & Dark status, once the people in them have been moved into other facilities. It would be foolish to continue to maintain equipment that is slated to be turned off in less than a year.
Another one of those stinkin' union-busting posts! Why SHOULDN'T we maintain equipment in unused buildings? It's government property, and should be maintained properly. The fact that it's about to be excessed makes no difference. Besides, we need those good union jobs, like the firemen on the diesel trains.
Sorry, I've experienced run to fail first hand. It makes me wonder what world these commentators live. One example - one building had half its air conditioning units fail in the summer. It took about five months to repair. Meanwhile, portable air conditioners were available, but were not utilized. Why? Because those units belonged to a different organization. Real life at LLNL.
Agree with the experience of failed A/C units. A large unit ran to failure causing an emergency shutdown of computer rooms filled with computer servers. It's interesting that these commentors cry union busting but are oblivious to issues.
Oh darn. An AC unit failed. I'd rather have my server go off for a day a year (and fix it when required) than pay a bunch of union guys to sit around shoveling coal into the gas boilers.
Post a Comment