Job Interview

[plthijinx]

[tw]

Originally Posted by plthijinx

oh yeah, while at the shop Za showed me exactly why he wants Larry and i working for this client. get this: the lead designers are not using standard electrical symbols which throws off the guys in the shop. for example: use this legend notice on the upper right center of the legend you see a toggle switch called spst or single pole single throw. that is what you would use to represent a light switch. they are using what's called a n.o. contact or normally open contact. in the case of the reference legend it's shown top dead center of the sheet labeled here as non-polarized. not only is this incorrect it shows what kind of job they are doing.

More confusing is text that does not use capital letters at the start of every sentence. What was posted could take two different interpretations. Without knowing, with certainty, what you are saying, well, that legend is standard electrical symbols for generations (except for the fuse symbol). Either you were saying engineers were using those symbols or saying they were not. It's not clear.

NO and NC contacts do not exist for a SPST switch. NO and NC contacts only exist on momentary switches. Either I am contracting what you posted, or am clarifying confusion for others.

Also every terminal connection typically has a number or letter to uniquely identify each connection.

That is what ECNs or ECOs are for. After a prototype, the shop provides an engineer with corrections to eliminate any confusion or to add any missing terminal identification.

QC is a program for failure. QA means an engineer has attitude and knowledge as taught by W E Deming. Else this confusion only continues. QC is a bureaucracy created by management to fix quality because management is the actual problem.

Bad management creates a wall that designs are thrown over when management, instead, makes decisions from spreadsheets. When management does not come from where the work gets done. Then QA does not exist. Then QC is created by management to mask a real problem.

You may want to consider that job with greater caution. It sounds, in some ways, like you would be hired to be the enemy of a problem that you cannot solve.

[plthijinx]

NO and NC contacts do not exist for a SPST switch. NO and NC contacts only exist on momentary switches. Either I am contracting what you posted, or am clarifying confusion for others.

you are clarifying for others. sometimes i get ahead of myself and forget to explain or assume that they know what i'm talking about. it's a fault i have. ty. the contact symbol that they used to designate a switch is in fact the symbol used to designate a relay contact. those can be either N.O. or N.C. for clarification there are relay contacts, PLC contacts (programmable logic controllers) as well as many other contacts, each one drawn a unique way to identify said contact. then it is given an "address."

You may want to consider that job with greater caution. It sounds, in some ways, like you would be hired to be the enemy of a problem that you cannot solve.

you make a very good point. however, i can fix this. i have almost 20 years experience. i'm confident. enemy? maybe. end result? it will work. like i said, i have looked over the schematics and wiring diagrams. all they need are clarification. point well taken tw.

Also every terminal connection typically has a number or letter to uniquely identify each connection.

i agree and that is one of the problems that is occurring with the present designers. they are not specifying addresses or contact numbers. they're lazy and want the field contractor to either figure out what they don't know or they just don't care. time to go guys. let the "A" team in. i know what i'm doin'.

[plthijinx]

More confusing is text that does not use capital letters at the start of every sentence.

not to be rude, get over it. not gonna happen. not with this pos (piece of shit) keyboard.

[tw]

Worked on a million dollar machine once because one RF function did not work. Determined how to rewire the entire subsystem so that everything worked. Then sent marked up prints to the engineer in charge of that machine.

Some months later, a duplicate machine arrived with the same problems. They called me in. Did a long diagnosis. Then suddenly realized it was the exact same screw ups. The engineer had never bothered to update any prints.

Somehow my boss and his boss went up the line to the president. Normally I never see that. That engineer was fired. So many people came running up to me with what was generally regarded as good new - to everyone but me. He was making the mistakes. But he was not where the problem should be solved. I felt real bad about it. He was making those mistakes because that was the attitude in that engineering department. He was only a victim - from my perspective.

So many did not understand that by constantly identifying failures traceable to him, I was not accusing him. He was not a best worker. But he did his job. Instead, I was accusing a system that had him doing what he was doing. He was only doing what they wanted him to do. Attitude and knowledge.

I so remember so many people running up to me with smiles on their faces because he was fired. I remember how sad I considered it. Did not realize until then that so many people did not see as I saw it.

Fixing a system by fixing the prints may be equivalent to stopping a flood. Solution must start at the reason why those prints are wrong or confusing. Some politics cannot be changed from below. Be prepared for much frustration. Good news would be that you know what need be done before attempting it. That at least gives you a good shot.

[plthijinx]

ok first off and i apologize for what i'm fixing to say...i was wondering if you were serious here or if you were trolling. with this post i see now. and again i apologize. my fault. now that's said and done....

That engineer was fired. So many people came running up to me with what was generally regarded as good new - to everyone but me. He was making the mistakes. But he was not where the problem should be solved. I felt real bad about it. He was making those mistakes because that was the attitude in that engineering department. He was only a victim - from my perspective.

let me ask you this because i have seen it so so SO (had to pound on the keyboard for caps btw) many times....engineers tend to be fixated on the job they are on at the moment. when they are given mark-ups from a previous job they toss them aside. it is their job to make sure said mark-ups get done or at least pass them to someone who can cad them up. why then, don't they implement the changes from the prior job to the next? i've got a thousand excuses for them but it all comes down to the wire. they didn't implement them because they were lazy. imho. not to mention the engineering god complex some of them get. sheesh.

[tw]

Originally Posted by plthijinx

let me ask you this because i have seen it so so SO (had to pound on the keyboard for caps btw) many times....engineers tend to be fixated on the job they are on at the moment. when they are given mark-ups from a previous job they toss them aside. it is their job to make sure said mark-ups get done or at least pass them to someone who can cad them up.

To make changes means one must have a job shop number. That account was closed by accounting. Cannot be reopened. No job number to charge to. Then no changes can be implemented. Even if he tried, he has no CAD operator to process the changes. No account to pay for filing that ECN which included sign offs by other departments.

Another problem is a 'you must have this done now' attitude. Means no time for the previous job. In that example, a second system was constructed just like the first because management assumed the first system was done. Management made no provisions for 'learning' from those mistakes because that was never done before and because they did not work where the work gets done. Best was to remain in denial because it will only increase costs – make management look bad. Engineer does not even know a second system is being assembled. In every case, it is a question of who is in charge. That is not the person with information.

How did Iacocca save Chrysler? He simply made engineers responsible. So Chrysler engineers fixed thousands of defects just in the first year. Defects were known. But they were not permitted to fix them. In but three years, Chrysler went from massive losses to record profits. No new model did that. Chrysler engineers were finally permitted and also encouraged to fix the little things. But moreso, Iacocca put the engineers back in charge.

And finally, some engineers are only doing a job. That is not a problem as long as they know what that job entails. These engineers do not take initiative - to even subvert the system in order to accomplish something. See that word 'encouraged' in the previous paragraph? It also belongs here.

You want an annual raise? Do only what accountants can measure. Just do the job as told. They really cannot be blamed for doing so. Sometimes confronting reality or dealing with an unpopular truth can only get your fired. Especially when bosses are only working for their bosses; not working for the employees.

Many if not most engineers I worked with were so beaten down that it was only a job. Many would rather have been doing something else. What they were creating provided no satisfaction. Not what they originally got into engineering to do. But they needed the paycheck. Had few to no options. If the boss does not tell them to update the prints, then don't rock the boat.

Iacocca told them to do what they got into engineering to do. It changed everything resulting in record profits in only three years.

Why would any engineer take initiative to fix problems when a system is all about reducing costs; the product be damned? Print errors do not appear on spread sheets as increased costs. Just a few suggestions why they would not bother to fix prints. In every case, these problems start at the top.

Why were GM cars so innovative in the 1950s and 1960s? Because division presidents owned their own engineering departments. And therefore protected their engineers from corporate and accounting subversion.

[plthijinx]

i understand your point of view on that engineer however he didn't do his job in making sure the changes fell through to the next installation.

[HungLikeJesus]

tw, you are remarkably lucid today.

[xoxoxoBruce]

New Moon.

[plthijinx]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

tw, you are remarkably lucid today.

he is and because i chatted with someone tonight i shall answer every point he made. hmmm. hun? im being tested.

[plthijinx]

To make changes means one must have a job shop number. That account was closed by accounting. Cannot be reopened. No job number to charge to. Then no changes can be implemented. Even if he tried, he has no CAD operator to process the changes. No account to pay for filing that ECN which included sign offs by other departments.

are you fucking mad? you charge the changes to another job. done it for 20 years. you make do with what you have. and if you get people who are capable of doing a good efficient job then they can handle both tasks. apparently you have no experience multi-tasking.

Another problem is a 'you must have this done now' attitude. Means no time for the previous job. In that example, a second system was constructed just like the first because management assumed the first system was done. Management made no provisions for 'learning' from those mistakes because that was never done before and because they did not work where the work gets done. Best was to remain in denial because it will only increase costs – make management look bad. Engineer does not even know a second system is being assembled. In every case, it is a question of who is in charge. That is not the person with information.

your kidding right? have you no engineering experience at all do you? the shit you are throwing here? it's a fucking wonder you have a job. you're grabbing your facts from the fuckin internet and not personal experience. there is a difference. kinda like getting real pussy and watching someone jackhammer a pussy with a 10 inch dick. for christ sake at least realize what the fuck you are talking about rather than just rant about management. for fucks sake it's not always managements fault. yes sometimes it is but for the most part, in my experience, OVER THE ALMOST LAST 20 FUCKING YEARS, the engineer is to blame. quit trying to protect whatever engineer it was that may have given you the time of day. get over it and fucking move on.

How did Iacocca save Chrysler? He simply made engineers responsible. So Chrysler engineers fixed thousands of defects just in the first year. Defects were known. But they were not permitted to fix them. In but three years, Chrysler went from massive losses to record profits. No new model did that. Chrysler engineers were finally permitted and also encouraged to fix the little things. But moreso, Iacocca put the engineers back in charge.

and you are using the auto industry over the oil and gas why?

And finally, some engineers are only doing a job. That is not a problem as long as they know what that job entails. These engineers do not take initiative - to even subvert the system in order to accomplish something. See that word 'encouraged' in the previous paragraph? It also belongs here.

so do you mean to tell me that they had no idea what they were supposed to do in the first place? fuckin please. pull your god damn head out of your mother fucking ass and apply it. wait what was that i said earlier to the select few? don't feed the troll. damn it i did just that and i totally didn't want to. get your head out of your ass. take the fucking blame if you fucked up. or tell whomever to take the god damn blame. and please dont waste my time.troll.

[plthijinx]

oh i'm not done yet!

You want an annual raise? Do only what accountants can measure. Just do the job as told. They really cannot be blamed for doing so. Sometimes confronting reality or dealing with an unpopular truth can only get your fired. Especially when bosses are only working for their bosses; not working for the employees.

my mother fucking ass. got one every year. usually a dollar or more. point? mine is do your job and quit blaming others for your inadequacies. fuckin runt.

Many if not most engineers I worked with were so beaten down that it was only a job. Many would rather have been doing something else. What they were creating provided no satisfaction. Not what they originally got into engineering to do. But they needed the paycheck. Had few to no options. If the boss does not tell them to update the prints, then don't rock the boat.

then perhaps you should get with some engineers who give a shit then you would have better things to do than troll.

[plthijinx]

AND blame others for your mistakes or inadequacies. fuck off and leave this thread alone. i'm done with you.

[Pico and ME]

Poor tw, I dont think he intends to get under peoples skin like he does. But, boy does he.