[Mika]

Original auf Deutsch. Well not necessarily sued, but complained at least.

Compact translation:
Due to his speed in delivering, the postman's colleagues made a complaint as according to them, he could not do that by going through the standardized route. Instead, the postman figured out himself which is the fastest way to do his work and did that for many years. His boss confessed that he was aware of his actions and met his silent approval. This seems to have ended up in the court, with a judge questioning the postman in question.

Germans can do the translation better, but that's the gist of it.

As for the commentary, a deep sigh would be enough. But apparently, it is now forbidden to make things more efficient yourself. God help us all!

[0rph3u5]

Acutally, this is more a funny story about the german tendency to put "proper procedure" so far ahead of results that results no longer matter...

[Mika]

Acutally, this is more a funny story about the german tendency to put "proper procedure" so far ahead of results that results no longer matter...

Yes, but we didn't want to say that out loud

[0rph3u5]

That's why I refrained from using a certain quote (attributed to Lenin) I usally put out there when confronted with such scenarios...

[The E]

What mika didn't say or missed was that this was the result of intra-office politics more than anything. A coworker of the postman in question was unable to believe that the dude was able to finish his routes as quickly as he did, and thus suspected him of dumping the mail into the nearest trash. This is, of course, a criminal offense, one that he was proven not to have comitted.

The fact that he violated some unspecified standard procedure to accomplish his time savings is pretty much secondary to the whole thing.

[Mika]

Yes I didn't mention it because I considered that insignificant and actually even more detrimental to the case, i.e. not making things more understandable, but more insidious. Why? Because in order to proceed as far as court in this part of the world, you need to have tangible proof of a postman actually dropping stuff to trash. Instead, what you got here was much better time of delivery. Elsewhere this would not be a cause of concern unless missing mail were also reported, but this certainly didn't happen. Moreover, none of the superiors saw it necessary to defend the guy in question before the case got out of hand by slamming this where it needed to be slammed.

Do you think that this postman in question has any incentives of improving the quality of service in the future, given the **** he just got through? In this respect the point still stands: he just got punished for thinking and working against the proper procedure.

If anything, the guy deserves a raise and a commendation! Irony lies in the fact that I suppose there are a ton of management level dudes that just wish this was never published, instead of case never ending up in the court.

[The E]

Why? Because in order to proceed as far as court in this part of the world, you need to have tangible proof of a postman actually dropping stuff to trash.

Actually, no, you don't. Or rather, knowledge that he deviated from standard procedure AND was much faster than expected constitutes enough circumstantial evidence for a case like this to go into formal prosecution. Messing with the mail is a serious enough offence that there's no pussyfooting around when someone raises an alert.

Moreover, none of the superiors saw it necessary to defend the guy in question before the case got out of hand by slamming this where it needed to be slammed.

This is the part where I have to tell you that we do not know enough about this case to make statements like that with any kind of certainty.

In this respect the point still stands: he just got punished for thinking and working against the proper procedure.

Except, he wasn't. The court proceedings ended in an acquittal. We do not know what happened internally, but it's somewhat unlikely that the company in question took any measures against this. In fact, it would not surprise me if they would quietly change their SOPs.

[Flipside]

Did anyone think of driving down and asking the people he delivered to if they were getting their mail? Would have thought that would clear that question up in under a day....

[Lorric]

Strange one. Especially when the Germans are supposed to be the masters of efficiency.

You'd think if his boss was aware of the route, he would have simply come out as soon as he was aware of it and said "Listen up people. Mr. Whateverhisnameis has found a more optimal way to complete the Whateverrouteitis run. So we're scrapping the old route and implementing this new one."

And everyone is happy that he made everyone's lives just a little bit easier.

[Lorric]

This makes me think of when I once read that a bus route had an impossible time target put on it.

The drivers met the target.

By not stopping to collect passengers.

[karajorma]

As for the commentary, a deep sigh would be enough. But apparently, it is now forbidden to make things more efficient yourself. God help us all!

Although it not applicable to this case I've seen enough episodes of Air Crash Investigations or Seconds From Disaster to have seen the implications of people deciding to make something more efficient by yourself.

It's always worth asking why before changing things to make them more efficient. Sometimes the rules are there for a reason.

[Mika]

As for the commentary, a deep sigh would be enough. But apparently, it is now forbidden to make things more efficient yourself. God help us all!

Although it not applicable to this case I've seen enough episodes of Air Crash Investigations or Seconds From Disaster to have seen the implications of people deciding to make something more efficient by yourself.

It's always worth asking why before changing things to make them more efficient. Sometimes the rules are there for a reason.

One of the many merits of those episodes lie in the fact that they show both cases where circumventing something that was placed there for a reason causes accidents, and the cases where not circumventing something that was placed there for a reason causes accidents. Given the amount of stuff in the episodes, I can't say which represents the majority. Swissair mid-air fire being one of the examples where doing everything by the book caused the plane to crash since the pilot failed to act in time - but was doing everything by the book. The iconic episode of Hawaiian flight were 10 metres of the airplane roof ripped off in mid-flight could have been prevented had the crew reacted on a passenger's comment on the fatigue cracks on the fuselage.

But as you said, sometimes the rules are there for a reason, and my addendum to that is no matter how good or bad the reason itself is.

Did anyone think of driving down and asking the people he delivered to if they were getting their mail? Would have thought that would clear that question up in under a day....

NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!!! Das would be going outside ze company guidelines, and it would be bad PR for ze company to go around asking the people whether they noticed their shipments are missing! It's a lot besser to go through die Polizei channel - and let ze person who has actually done service feel guilty for it!

All kidding aside, even with these explanations, what happened is still wrong, and to me, incomprehensible and indefensible from the side of the company leadership. The strange thing is that the superiors here really haven't had any reason to suspect anything (no missing mails) during the years of service, and lacking post is something that is very quickly noticed and complained about. Common sense says that the new comer is most likely wrong in his assertion, and show him how this can be done faster - assign him to go with the faster guy for a day for example. However, to proceed to court indicates lack of trust towards the employees from the side of the employer. Actually, reversing the situation and doing a claim of groundless denunciation of this case here would actually stand a chance of getting through the court.

Of course, the bigger question is, as somebody pointed out, why hasn't the company replaced the official route by the optimal route a long time ago? This again points out towards the non-reacting leadership, though that problem is quite the same anywhere in the world.

[The E]

All kidding aside, even with these explanations, what happened is still wrong, and to me, incomprehensible and indefensible from the side of the company leadership. The strange thing is that the superiors here really haven't had any reason to suspect anything (no missing mails) during the years of service, and lacking post is something that is very quickly noticed and complained about. Common sense says that the new comer is most likely wrong in his assertion, and show him how this can be done faster - assign him to go with the faster guy for a day for example. However, to proceed to court indicates lack of trust towards the employees from the side of the employer. Actually, reversing the situation and doing a claim of groundless denunciation of this case here would actually stand a chance of getting through the court.

You haven't had to deal with large corporations, I take it.

If one of your workers raises an alert that someone else may be doing something damaging to the company, you sue first and ask questions later. Going into damage control mode is the only possible way to deal with this sort of situation for a large business. Would it have made sense to clear this internally? Sure. It might even be the decent thing to do, but: When your entire business model is built upon trust, and there is even the slightest hint that that trust may be compromised, you do not **** around. You go into damage control mode and pull out all the stops. You talk about trust between employers and employees, but the harsh reality is that the bigger the company is, the lower the risk is these people can take when trusting employees.

A case like this would not be handled at the level where this guy's manager would have any input. It would go straight to their internal revision, and those guys do not, as a rule, go lenient. And given that the thing under investigation is a possible breach of the Post- and Telecommunications Laws, this has to be formally investigated by the state.

And again, mika, you are wildly overstepping the bounds of your confidence here. We do not know nearly enough about the gory details to be condemming anyone's behaviour here.
The person who filed the complaint did her job correctly. She saw a potential risk and reported it up the proper channels. That's how things are done.

[Lorric]

The person who filed the complaint did her job correctly. She saw a potential risk and reported it up the proper channels. That's how things are done.

Wouldn't it have been better for her to just ask him first? I certainly wouldn't see it that way if I was on the receiving end and someone automatically assumed I was scum, without even bothering to check the facts first when I was just getting my head down and doing my job. It would be so easy, just be like "Wow, how do you do your job so fast?" No need to accuse the man.

Although I don't know what this guy was like. I try to be friendly and approachable. If this dude was just a dick or something it would be much more understandable.

I also wonder who she went to. If this guy's boss knew already what he was doing, surely if she went to his boss, it would have stopped there.

How would you see it Mr. E? Would you just shrug it off, or be pissed off that you were being punished for deciding not to be a sheep and use your brain to do a better job for your company and someone rather than give you the benefit of the doubt or at least ask you what was what, just ploughed in with this accusation?

It all seems so stupidly, ridiculously overblown. Court case. All he has to do is hop in his van with the internal investigator, and prove his story. That is, if his boss simply telling that person what was happening wasn't enough. I'd be extremely pissed off with the whole thing if it was me. If I was the boss of that company, I'd be praising him and having him run the rule over the other routes to see if he could enhance efficiency elsewhere, not treating him like criminal scum.

[headdie]

here is one, by not following the prescribed route would the organisation's various Liability and other insurances be valid for any incidents involving the employee?

[karajorma]

One of the many merits of those episodes lie in the fact that they show both cases where circumventing something that was placed there for a reason causes accidents, and the cases where not circumventing something that was placed there for a reason causes accidents. Given the amount of stuff in the episodes, I can't say which represents the majority.

My memory could be playing tricks on my but in general I'd say that there were more cases of accidents caused by someone going against the rules. Especially in cases where the cause of the disaster was mechanical. That said, there were cases where ignoring the rules did help.

Swissair mid-air fire being one of the examples where doing everything by the book caused the plane to crash since the pilot failed to act in time - but was doing everything by the book. The iconic episode of Hawaiian flight were 10 metres of the airplane roof ripped off in mid-flight could have been prevented had the crew reacted on a passenger's comment on the fatigue cracks on the fuselage.

Your memory fails you unfortunately. In the case of that flight she failed to notify anyone and only revealed having seen the crack in a witness statement after the disaster (at least based on the show). I do agree with you about Swissair though.

But as you said, sometimes the rules are there for a reason, and my addendum to that is no matter how good or bad the reason itself is.

Oh I'm definitely not saying that the rules are always correct and should always be followed. What I'm saying is that very often, discarding the rules in order to work more efficiently can sometimes lead to a disaster which you haven't foreseen but which the person making the rules had.

If the postman had a faster route, he should have told his boss about it and gotten permission to use it. For all we know he was using the faster route so he could sit down and rest for 10-20 minutes when his boss thinks he should have been given more work.

[Dragon]

If the postman had a faster route, he should have told his boss about it and gotten permission to use it. For all we know he was using the faster route so he could sit down and rest for 10-20 minutes when his boss thinks he should have been given more work.

That's another problem with corporations. Often, the only reward you get for being more efficient and finishing work early is more work.

[karajorma]

As it should be.

[NGTM-1R]

If you take more than your fair share of objectives, you will given more than your fair share of objectives to take.

Since, y'know, you can.

[Dragon]

I get the feeling that there it should also come with some sort of bonus, but I haven't seen any evidence of that happening.
I guess that Wally really is as smart as he's said to be...