…check out the treatment a concrete inspector for Aggregate Industries NE received from superiors when he conscientiously voiced concern
In an interview yesterday, Daniel Johnston, a fourth whistle-blower who filed suit in 2006 and will receive $75,000, said he was a concrete inspector for Aggregate on the Big Dig when he began to suspect that too-old concrete was being recycled and delivered as new.
When he questioned the practice, he said, Aggregate personnel told him, “This is how business is done.” He said later that he was warned his questions could cause him to wind up “in a hole.”
Johnston said he was worried that the substandard concrete was creating a safety risk.
How about this utterly mind-boggling refusal to act by NASA officials?
NASA officials at least twice disregarded warnings from flight surgeons and astronauts that crew members who were getting ready to go into space appeared to be drunk?
I’d like to invite fellow BMG readers to offer any thoughts on:
What is going on with us when 1) you have one of world’s most expensive and complex public works projects – the Big Dig – and vendors think it’s OK to cut corners on *safety* and *quality* to save money or time and 2) you have one of humankind’s most expensive and complex flight endeavors – manned space flight – and officials apparently think it’s OK to allow *drunk* crew members to fly in order “to keep up with demanding flight schedules?”
Has it always been thus or are we getting worse? Why/why not?
Thanks.
P.S. Most of the Big Dig has gone “right,” I suppose, as has most of what NASA does. Their accomplishments are prodigious. But it rankles that any in positions of authority, such as those described above, could exhibit such low ethical and professional standards pertaining to their roles in the success and safety of the Big Dig or space flights.
P.P.S. Not to mention the loose highway grates on 128. I wonder if someone said, “Gee, boss, I don’t think those’ll hold under regular traffic. Boss? Did you hear me, boss?”
Aside from appearances, is it really a safety risk is the astronauts are drunk during shuttle launches? The launch sequence (IIRC) is pretty much computer controlled anyway, and the astronauts are just along for the ride.
The estimable Charles Krauthammer seems to agree with you that boys will be boys. And if they’re just a tad hung over later, a bit less alert, what the heck! While we’re at it, let’s have clergy members offer sermons in their underwear, college professors burn books they don’t like and rascally presidents call the Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper.”
David Callahan, The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead
I never worked or lived anywhere that wasn’t full of honest people and didn’t have at least one deal-breaker problem — for example, a company with a drunken tax accountant or two, and other people covered up for him/her.
<
p>
NASA and the Big Dig were and are massive undertakings, so they have bigger problems and are more visible.
<
p>
This state’s infrastructure problem, though, I have no rationale for. I’m still shocked over that.
…I had a roommate who had a commercial pilot license (that was not a license that would allow him to fly airliners, a grade below). He said that their mantra was “24 hours between bottle and throttle.”
<
p>
More recently, I read that the mantra had changed to “12 hours between bottle and throttle.” Interesting change.
<
p>
On the subject matter of the NASA portion of the post, unless it was the pilot or the co-pilot, I’m not sure that it matters just how sober the crew members appear to be when they board the shuttle craft.
but on rare occasion I’ve been still drunk 12 hours after my last drink.
<
p>
AFAIK, I’ve never been anything but stone cold sober 24 hours after my last drink.
AFAIK, I’ve never been anything but stone cold sober 24 hours after my last drink.
<
p>
The hangover can last seemingly forever, even with the same “proof” as Schmirnoff. You can still be debilitated, even if your blood alcohol level is ganz null entirely zero.
NASA, the Big Dig … both are public sector projects. I would posit that the public sector has far more waste, screw ups, crashes, failures and unaccountable players than the private sector.
<
p>
Substandard concrete in a Big Dig shear wall? No problem. But try to do that on my project (I build buildings) and we’ll catch you and then it’s your cost to fix. I’m diligent and vigilant because … it’s my money and I want it done right. Profit motive at work.
<
p>
Who “owns” the Big Dig? Everybody! Nobody! There’s no one individual with a personal financial interest in ensuring the concrete breaks at or above 5,000 psi, as designed. You can blame Becthel all you want, but ultimately it was the “owner” of the project, the Mass Turnpike Authority, that should have been responsible. Instead, fingers point elsewhere. “Not my fault,” says the MTA.
<
p>
Diligence and vigilance costs money, and by having profits driving an endeavor, those costs are supportable and protect profit.
<
p>
Since there is no profit in the public sector, diligence and vigilance are costs, burdens to be absorbed. Sometimes you get diligence and vigilance, most often you don’t, or at least not enough.
<
p>
This is why the private sector is so much more efficient than the public sector. Event he worst insurance company is 2x or 3x more efficient than any Massachusetts department or agency.
<
p>
Seriously, I think the private sector could provide many of the services the state current delivers — road maintenance, MIS departments, tax collection and airport operations, for example — at half or even a third of the cost.
<
p>
I know — why doesn’t a state government agency hire a contractor to big a really complex series of tunnels and roads. We’ll call the project the “Big Dig.”
<
p>
Since its a private sector company, they’ll be able to do it at half or even a third of the cost. It’s true — bostonshepherd says so, and no subcontractor or employee has ever pulled off substandard work on his watch because he’s both diligent and vigilant.
Spare me, please. There are plenty of instances where private companies have done things better and cheaper than their public counterparts, and plenty of instances where the exact opposite has happened. There are also plenty of instances where privatizing has lowered cost and level of service. Beating the drum of Grover Norquist won’t work around here, and doing it with universal outlandish claims is even less effective.
My point is that I own my projects, so it’s my investment to lose if I am not diligent and vigilant.
<
p>
Who “takes ownership” of the Big Dig? Nobody! Everybody!
<
p>
There’s no PRIVATE SECTOR OWNER to care about it, just the Mass Turnpike. No ownership, no accountability, no financial performance, no profit motive.
<
p>
It’s amazing the Big Dig got built. In the meantime, the private sector does amazing things everyday, at earns a return on investment.
The same standards of logic can be applied to any no-longer-small business.
<
p>
<
p>
Who “takes ownership” of the new flavor of soda being developed by Coca-Cola? Nobody! Everybody!
<
p>
<
p>
Continuing on this example, there’s no PRIVATE SECTOR OWNER of this new flavor. There’s stockholders, but they don’t even know about this product development. No ownership, no accountability, no financial performance, no profit motive held by nearly any employee working on the project.
<
p>
<
p>
It’d have been even more amazing if a private company had been responsible — after all, which company would (a) front that kind of money, (b) have the authority to do the work, including easements, eminent domain, etc.? None.
<
p>
And by the way, the private sector also has tremendous failures every day, filing for bankruptcy or otherwise posting the burden of their failures on others. Just as those failures don’t imply that all of capitalism is a failure, individual failures in government projects don’t imply that all of government is a failure.
…Bechtel Corp., the general contractor on the Big Dig project, was a private corporation. So private that it is still (ta da!) privately held.
<
p>
Get off your “private sector is better” silliness.
I think bostonshepherd points out a very real accountability issue. “diligence and vigilance are costs, burdens to be absorbed”- that applies not just to new construction, but to existing construction as well. I think we are all this week very familiar with the state of bridges in this state and country. Same thing- vigilance is a cost with no clear upside. That doesn’t mean public management can’t manage these things properly, but it’s a fundamental reason why it often doesn’t.
<
p>
Of course, selling off our bridges, tunnels, etc. to the private sector to own and operate is probably not a good solution. Talk about monopolies with high barriers to entry! I’ve had enough poor customer service with Keyspan (a local monopoly), thank you (and that was when I was trying to get natural gas service!).
<
p>
So, inevitably we are left with some sort of public-private interface, and that is the crux of the problem. I have a pdf of a paper called “Sowing and Reaping at the Big Dig: The Legacies of Neomanagerialism” that’s an interesting read. It’s by Domonic Bearfield, Texas A&M University and Melvin Dubnick, University of New Hampshire; I can’t find it online (where I had stumbled across it). It’s an interesting paper; here’s a choice quote or two:
<
p>
<
p>
So much for that theory. And…
<
p>
<
p>
Just like in the private sector, it’s all about ‘culture’. The structural problem is that for-profit groups with bad culture tend to eventually go away, while public groups with bad culture can hang around a little longer.
<
p>
But that doesn’t mean government can’t do this stuff well. It’s just more likely to do it more badly for longer…
The article by Bearfield and Dubnick is found at http://mjdubnick.dub… — click on article title for download.
Surely you people didn’t know anyone “working” on the Big Dig. Everyone that I knew bragged about how little they did, and they all made more than 6 figures! (And you want to trust our health system to the “government.” Boston Sheppard is correct. Haven’t any of you been to the Post Office or to the Registry of Motor Vehicles lately?
As far as Nasa is concerned: we don’t know when this drinking took place, but I am sure that if it was before the Bush Adminstration, the matter will be quietly dropped by the media.
A software engineer, working on a small technical piece. He loved his job and worked very hard at it.
<
p>
So I don’t know, maybe you shouldn’t generalize about a project so large?
but the clerks and carriers working for the USPS in my town have always been friendly, polite, and working efficiently when in my eye shot.
<
p>
And, I take notice — my father worked at the USPS in my home state for many years.
I think there’s something in here about the relationship between “individual self-respect” and “group self-respect,” the latter related to leadership from the top (e.g. public, explicit enunciation of values combined with leading by one’s personal behavior).
<
p>
It has been said in the past about the Mass. legislature that no deal there was on the level – there was always had to be an angle or payoff for someone. On the national level, John Dilulio exposed George W’s “Mayberry Machiavellis” in Esquire in 2002, saying that when they accidentally strayed into actually working on good policy they would quickly catch themselves and go back to focusing on political expedience.
<
p>
Is it always thus or is it worse? Are we spiraling downhill? How can we get our groove back?
Or was worse — it’s already getting better since we took over Congress.
Those weekly surrender votes that Pelosi comes up with is really going a long way to fix infrastucture.
How about all the money lost in contracts there that neither the Bush Administration nor the Republican majorities in Congress cared about?
<
p>
Between “surrender votes” (such inventive invective!), Congress has finally turned on its oversight switch.
I’m sorry you miss Rummy.
<
p>
And I know that’s not what you said.
All George W. Bush offered in Iraq of late is incompetence and repeated defeats. We have been fighting there longer than it took the Democrats to lead us to victory in WWII. Why should we stay with a Commander in Chief who can’t win.
Haven’t any of you been to the Post Office or to the Registry of Motor Vehicles lately?
<
p>
…yes.
<
p>
Longer answer is that they are some of the nicest people that we’ve dealt with in government. Both the USPS and the DMV.
<
p>
They do what they can do with the resources that are provided them. We were amazed to learn that our little USPS in Wellesley Hills began work at about 4AM, to sort the mail that had come in over night. The office didn’t officially open until something like 7AM, and the office was open until 5PM. Not bad for 41 cents a letter. Try getting that out of Federal Express.
All post offices start early in order to sort the mail deliveries. Just try to buy a book of stamps in my post office at 10 A.M., however. The crew generally ignores the long line waiting for service at the one counter that is open. For me the Post Office is the closest reminder I have of having lived in the old Sovok. (Soviet Union). I agree that the RMV has improved over the years, but there are still many surly, unhelpful people working there.
you write a letter.
…be prepared to pay twice as much to post a 1st class letter in the USofA. That’s about as much as it costs here in Germany. Seriously. And, here in Germany, we get excellent service–next day delivery (or at most two day service), even for packages.
I have been to the Post Office and the RMV recently. I generally get efficient, competent service at both.
<
p>
Are you thinking of the RMV of 20 years ago? That was a mess.
He’s got enough on his plate already.
<
p>
NASA lost the right culture decades ago. There are some great documentaries on the Apollo, Gemini, etc. missions- those guys were good.
<
p>
The Space Shuttle is a fundamentally unsafe design that never should have been launched.
<
p>
NASA is doing OK with some of the unmanned stuff, however.
<img src=http://www.foxnews.c… align=”right” clear=”right”>Who’s in charge of NASA anyway? Oh.
Karma for not hitting preview, I guess…
<
p>
The space shuttle is actually a good example of what the government is bad at. Most of the problems with the shuttle are the result of setting the requirements based on what can get enough support in congress rather than what makes sense for trying to accomplish something useful. Most of the cost of the space shuttle is in maintaining the trained work force required to service it after each flight. You can’t cut their jobs, because their congressional representatives wouldn’t get reelected if NASA fired them, so there is no incentive to find less expensive ways to maintain the shuttle. NASA never lost the culture that brought you Apollo. They just got overpowered by the congressional budgeting process.
<
p>
If you want a good space program, you have to cut out the earmarks. Just give NASA a budget and tell them to explore space. It’s the same with the rest of the federal budget. How many bridges could have been repaired for the cost of that bridge to a tiny island in Alaska?
<
p>
The current budget process is completely broken, because spending is determined by what will win votes instead of what is useful. Each memeber of congress is encouraged to spend as much as possible within their district. If conservatives (or anyone else) actually cared about lowering spending, they would be trying to change the budget process to make it harder to insert earmarks. Cutting taxes has been proven to have little or no effect on spending.
… but real aeronautical engineers don’t use Powerpoint.
The Space Shuttle is a fundamentally unsafe design that never should have been launched.
<
p>
…but the shuttle was a compromise among a number of solutions to a number of problems, military and civilian and all of those compromises were flawed. It should never have been launched in the first place. NASA should never have gotten involved in a US military design, but they pitched it as a “do everything” solution.
<
p>
Frankly, I believe that manned space flight is a waste of money. To give an example, it would probably have been cheaper, in the long run, to send up another “Hubble telescope” than to have repaired the first one (after the first one sat on the ground for 10 years after having been readied for launch because of delays with the shuttle).
<
p>
If your goal is near term safety and cost management, then you’re probably right. But if your goal is long term safety and cost management, then improving the abilities of manned flight may lead to manned missions to Mars, and in the long term, space colonization.
<
p>
Not only does Congress and the President meddle too much in NASA’s work, but they also jerk around their budget too often. How do you plan 10-15 years out when you know your budget will go up and down [in different NASA departments] 10-15 times?
I suppose that NASA should be split in two, one part to provide for science and the other to provide for manned space exploration. That kind of thing has not been unheard of–remember when the Atomic Energy Agency, was divided into two parts–one, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency to actually regulate atomic energy plants, and the other (continuing to use the old name) which was supposed to encourage use of atomic energy). Maybe the “science” aspect of NASA should be shuffled off to NSF (National Science Foundation). I sincerely doubt that that would result in a net increase in science–the US government hasn’t really been interested in supporting science research since the 1960s cold war era, but it might help clarify where its priorties are.
<
p>
On the issue of a manned expedition to Mars, it isn’t going to happen any time soon. There was an interesting article in SciAm a couple of years ago that indicated that cosmic rays would essentially fry an astronaut going to Mars. That’s not exactly how the authors put it, but it’s close enough.