"How to do the right thing" but not be yelled at? 1

[caluna]

Hi, I am puzzled and would like to hear what you think of this situation. Thought I did the "right" (was?) also a close friend.

We work on petroleum tank farms and had occasion to be selecting an old tank for re-use as a slop/spare/odds and ends tank in a new facility. This tank would not be connected to the normal tankage and piping system. Petroleum tanks need to be ULC at new one was not ULC approved. (The adjacent one was ULC, so it would not be impossible to get that one out.).. My colleague recommended that we use the non-ULC one, and advised contractor.. Colleague also mentioned vaguely about having to find out whether using non-ULC was correct....I suspected we should be using the ULC tanks but did not know for sure to be able to contradict my colleaugue on site, which might have been a tricky "diplomacy" situation..so I emailed the fire marshal..of course he says we cannot use non-ULC tanks. My e mail and answer were copied to my colleague, who was not at work.. I phased my Fire Marshal email as a question not mentioning anything particular about my colleague's decision on site..

THEN I get an earful from my colleague who objected to me checking with Fire marshal..."you should not have done this, we have other situation where this decision might apply so it opens up a can of worms, we always did it this way... "

It was upsetting to me as we usually get on famously..Normally the colleague is a stickler for code adherence so why this? I am an engineer and colleague is not.

I told my boss and copied him on emails.

I am thinking maybe I should have told my colleague i was going to ask the Fire Marshal (on behalf of all ur section-so we know what to do about the ULC non ULC question) but I KNOW my colleague would have told me "no" - then I would have been crossing them another time...Or would there have been a better way to handle this?

 

[MikeHalloran]

The Fire Marshal might be upset with you as well, because asking your question via email limited the set of possible answers to the one that is strictly legal and defensible in all courts, including the media's kangaroo court.

"We always did it this way.." implies the existence of some kind of informal arrangement or understanding that probably meets the spirit but not the letter of the law, and you made it inoperable, at least in this instance, maybe forever.

Email, you see, is neither transitory nor secure.

You might as well have asked the question on the floor of Congress or in the city room of the Times.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[caluna]

FM not upset-was pleased to clarify the Fire Code requirement to which we should be adhering. .. We are Gov't and all our projects get reviewed by FM. He is Territorial Authority Having Jurisdiction-comparable to a State Gov't Fire Marshal if you have a similar system.

I do not see how a "knowing" contravention of the National Fire Code could be something a Fire Marshal would be party to, nor do I wish to be...

 

[MikeHalloran]

Of course you wouldn't be a part of a knowing violation of any law or code. Nor would I. Nor would the FM.

My point was that your email removed his option of _not_ knowing.

... which is a widely accepted means of "cutting a little slack". I'm not arguing that it's right, but it does go on.


Your colleague's strong reaction suggests that you accidentally overturned somebody's applecart. In this case, it probably means that he'll have to fill out and file more forms than he used to, and he'll be perceived as less speedy or effective than he used to be, because of the delays associated with the extra paperwork.


I hope that's the extent of the flap, but I'll offer a few words of warning for the future.

A strong reaction like you encountered can be a sign that you've stumbled into something that you don't want to know about, e.g. that you've almost exposed, and thereby shut off, a stealth compensation stream, if you get my drift.


I suggest that you immediately cease using email for anything but forwarding inoffensive jokes; it's a very dangerous medium.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[GMcD]

Caluna: I think the reaction you got from your colleague was because you seemed to go behind your colleague's back and contacted the Fire Marshal directly. So, in my opinion, you did NOT do the right thing, as the "right thing" would have been to discuss the situation with your colleague first, and make your case that the Fire Marshal should verify what your intentions are with the old tank. While the end result- Safety and Code Compliance - is the right thing to think about, it's your process that was flawed.

 

[jmw]

Excuse me guys, I am at a loss to the responses.
Caduna referred to a colleague, not boss, inferring some degree of equal status.
Caduna says

Colleague also mentioned vaguely about having to find out whether using non-ULC was correct....

That doesn't suggest his colleague, "normally a stickler for code adherence." had any previous experience with this situation.

So why was he upset?
I'd suggest that Caduna should be upset that his colleague is dressing him down for a perfectly reasonable action.

By declaring his uncertainty, but not saying "I'll find out." he left the door open for Caduna to find out.
In fact you could argue that Caduna had an obligation to find out, if only for his own protection. There is nothing worse at a disaster enquiry that two parties each assuming the other did something that in the end neither did.

Frankly, also, the vague statements suggest nothing more than that Caduna's colleague made the wrong decision at the wrong time.
1) he should have deferred the decision
2) if he was going to make a decision without clear knowledge he should have played safe and chosen the UCL approved tank.

Now there may be some dubious practices going on but the colleagues behaviour doesn't indicate it. He would not have drawn attention to the situation, he'd simply have said "take that one." and if queried would have said, "No, its OK for this, I've done it before." Better yet, if there were any shady dealings going on the decision would have been taken without involving Caduna.

Which leaves us wondering if there isn't some external cause for his concern.... is there some competition for promotion here? did his cat die on his day off?

So OK, go let the guy know you are upset that he is upset at you amd ask him what his problem is and let us know.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[TenPenny]

If you are the engineer, and colleague is not, and you are involved in this project, then you need to make sure that the works that YOU are involved in are up to appropriate standards. That is your responsibility.

By referring to him as a colleague, I interpret that to mean he is not your boss. In which case, all you need to do is remind him that your professional reputation and standing would be at stake.

 

[caluna]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. This colleague is not my boss- I do not report to them.... They are in a somewhat similar job to mine, more senior but not an engineer. ..Not that I suspect any shady dealings but I bet it's one of those things no one asked because they suspected the answer they would get wasn't one to their liking.. In an ideal world I guess I should have told them my intentions BEFORE going to the Fire Marshal but frankly was a bit concerned about being bullied or confronted ....

 

[caluna]

OK finally the story is coming out-something happening I was not aware of..and I don't think it is very professional either

 

[MikeHalloran]

I hate to say this, but it's time to freshen up your resume.

At least that's how it usually works out for me.




Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[caluna]

Hope not..but I am glad that only a portion of my work is with the petroleum section...

 

[TenPenny]

The biggest red flag for me was

".. We are Gov't and "

In my experience, in gov't work, more time and energy is spent on backstabbing and protecting your turf than is ever spent on productive work. Large corporations with lots of bureaucracy are the same. Your colleague may well go to the ends of the earth to screw you over, because he/she may feel that you stepped on his/her toes.

 

[Ashereng]

I look at it this way.

If going to the fire marshall was your job, then you did it well.

If going to the fire marshall was your colleague's job, then you did go "behind" his back to the fire marshall, and you should have handled it differently.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[caluna]

Part of my job is looking at code compliance ..ergo, I talk to FM, on these and other (building design) jobs...that is part of the project review process

 

[MedicineEng]

Either way my oppinion is you were "politically incorrect".
If I understand well this is the picture:
You work with a colleague that is not your subordinate or superior. Despite not being an engineer, this professional has way over more experience than you. In a discussion over regulations, you had different oppinions. You went over him and asked an expert oppinion by writing. After, you confronted him with the reply.
Where did you fail in my oppinion:
-You should have told you colleague something like this:"My friend, it seems that we have some different oppinion on this issue. My responsibility is to assure that we are complying with regulations, so I must investigate with the Fire Marsahll what is his oppinion"
-Instead of sending an email you should have come to the Fire Marshall personalyl and asked him informally about this issue. As others stated, by asking him be writing, you left him without a choice. What did you want him to reply to you? "Dear Caluna: You assessment of the law is correct, but here we do it differently."I don't have experience working in US, but I already worked in 2 different countries in different continents and I reach the conclusion that sometimes if you follow all the regulations by the letter you simply don't do nothing, because in some ocasions they are even contradictory.

My suggestion:
Go to your colleague and apologize.

 

[epoisses]

Typical example of somebody innocently doing the right thing. You think it's a good thing to sweep the floor, you push the couch aside, the stiff appears, then you get told off: never EVER push that couch! Wrong person gets the blame for the sh* that the rest of the organisation created.

I would certainly not apologize. You did nothing wrong, everthing would be fine if other people had their things correctly organised. Too bad for them if they have more paperwork to do this time.

The problem though is, what to do the next time now that you know there is a dead guy under the couch. If your job is code compliance, then I guess you could give a shot at making code compliance easier. Why is using an ULC approved tank apparently so much more complicated that people tend to bypass safety procedures? If you can turn this in a win-win situation, everybody will (or at least SHOULD imo) be thankful in the end.

If however the place is too rotten and political for somebody who is responsible for code compliance to do his work, that would seem like pretty frustrating to me and a good reason to get your cv up to date (and yes I know 3 out of 4 posters get this advice...)

 

[KENAT]

Caluna, sounds like you handled yourself reasonably and the other guy has other issues.

I get the same, though not normally safety compliant issues. I have to check peoples drawings to make sure they have the information on them required to make the part/assy, that the part made to the print will work (at least on form and fit and for simple things function) and, arguably least importantly, that it complies with company/invoked industry standards.

I'm in a situation right now where someone gave me a print that was based closely on an existing part and basically wanted me to say OK based on that and only look at the changes. I started to do that but then something didn't look right and I dug deeper, did a tolerance analysis with a mating part from a vendor, found problems carried over from the old part and generally opened a can of worms.

It has blown up into a big political issue and my attempts to give him an out have made it worse.

When it comes to safety colleagues feelings are secondary.

That said, upset the wrong person too many times and it can be career limiting, at least at that employer.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[MedicineEng]

I keep with my oppinion. I think you should apologize. Even if you end was honestly right, your way to obtain it was unnecessarily "by the book".
You could have achieved the same result with less conflict.

A completely off-track example:
In my position, sometimes I have to fire persons that do not work (or behave) up to the company's standard. Even if I am honestly convinced that it is the best for the group and the company, I do not make this an occasion to shout to the person (even if in some occasions I feel like) and say:"You're lousy, get out of my sight, etc.". I maintain a friendly atmosphere and explain my reasons in a respectful way to the person. I even had one guy that I fired one time thanking me for the opportunity given.
Different approaches, same end.
That's my point.

 

[caluna]

Well I have aplogized -because I respect my colleague and wish us to stay on good terms. However have discovered all of us on project team (including the project manager) were not aware of the colleague's tactics here... those I still disagree with, and have told them so. If it is a project which I am reviewing and something is done intentionally wrong (-in this case, for a rther minor reason!) then of course the code conflict should be flagged..

 

[KENAT]

OK, just realized my post from yesterday is missing a chunk.

After my first line it was meant to say something like:

"However, you probably should have raised your concerns with your colleague in private once you got off site. Only then if you didn't get a satisfactory answer should you have looked further"

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...