You're the electrical maintenance manager for a three-shift manufacturing plant that is currently in a scheduled shutdown. The new division vice president is a micromanaging budget cutter. Instead of letting you use the electrical services firm you had decided on after several hours of interviewing firms, he had his assistant find one via the “lowest bidder” method.
You objected that you had not interviewed anyone from this firm, and — upon visiting their website — you found they had no industry credentials or certifications listed. The VP's reply was somewhere along the lines of: “I've made my decision, and that's the end of it.”
Three days into the shutdown, one of your electricians witnessed two of their crew falsifying electrical testing data, and he secretly captured that on video. Another electrician secretly videoed the cable testing techniques being used by a crew from this firm; the tests were completely invalid. You presented this evidence to the plant manager, who promptly fired that firm. He said, “Start calling those other firms you interviewed, and see if anyone is available.”
The firm you had originally selected was just finishing a job not far from your facility. They said they could have a crew onsite once they had the incident energy and approach boundary information figured out. They estimated two days before they could do the studies and then another two days to complete them. You reported back to the VP that there would be a four-day delay in the electrical testing and explained why. He told you to use the other firm's incident energy and approach boundary information, and he wasn't going to pay twice for the same studies. Then he threatened you with termination if you “racked up unnecessary expenses.” What do you do?
First, you can't risk the safety of the testing crew. They need accurate safety information. So make sure those studies get done.
With the cost issue brought up repeatedly, you know this VP won't spring for extra crew or equipment to possibly perform the work in the shorter window. There is also the problem that not doing the maintenance required during this shutdown would result in an unsafe plant because poorly maintained equipment is unsafe equipment.
If you can defer some less critical maintenance to another shutdown that isn't far off, you might squeak by. But if the next shutdown is a long way off, you'd have to jam two weeks of work into one week of time safely — and that's simply not possible. That makes the issue one of managing up.
Here are some suggestions to get through this sticky situation. Write out a one-page note that outlines the safety issues, budget issues, and time pressure (in that order). Then e-mail this (as an attachment) to the VP. Include another attachment with carefully chosen excerpts from the company's written safety policy. In the body of the e-mail, ask the VP how to resolve the issues without violating company policy. Ask the plant manager to send something similar, and review each other's messages before sending either one. Do this without any judgmental language, threats, or other even low-level hostility. You are merely getting clarification from an upper level manager. This gives the VP a chance to correct his error without seeing you as anything but helpful.
If you get a reply that violates the company's written safety policy, the VP has staked a losing position. Copy the correspondence to the company's legal counsel, and ask them how to proceed. This step is essential to protect your job and the company's interests while protecting those workers.
