Do you feel that supervisors should see to it that team leads should be able to cover for them? (employee, job)

[mdlee3_46041]

Ok first of all, this is about an industrial workplace.

Do you feel that a supervisor should see to it that a team lead, or whoever is directly under the supervisor, should be trained in a way so that person can effectively run the department in the supervisor's absence?

I work in a warehouse and in my department, there are just 2 people, but my boss is over 2 departments and about 12 people total. The boss is constantly watching over the team lead's shoulder and will often run reports that the team lead has already run for him. This supervisor has no interest in learning even the basics of my department, but he did know how to check whatever we processed because his former position required him to do it every once in awhile. He knows what we are expected to do, but admits that he really doesn't care about how we do it. The team lead, OTOH, has helped out our department quite a bit, but the supervisor refuses to allow him to get trained in the job that can help us out the most. The supervisor recently took off for 2 weeks and made it nearly impossible for any of us to do anything because the dock was full and the team lead didn't have the proper training to check our work if we processed anything. So instead, we'd process something and it would still be sitting there when 1st shift came in and they needed room to unload trucks. Since nothing was getting checked the way it should have been, it would sometimes take 2-3 hours for 1st shift to get it off the floor when they should have already had that space opened up to unload a truck.

Anyway, the supervisor came back and there were emails sent to him asking why nothing was getting checked and why trucks were being unloaded late. He came to me and my coworker first and asked what the deal was, but he couldn't say much to us because he could look on the system and see that we did quite a bit of work during his time off. So he went to the team lead and asked what the problem was. Well, it's simple. The problem is him not allowing his team lead to be trained in a way that would have allowed the department to function in the same way it does when the supervisor is there.

Any thoughts?

[Hemlock140]

Here, when a manager or supervisor is off, the next one above is responsible. As a manager myself, there are certain semi-technical duties that I delegate to a lead person and have trained him thoroughly on it, but as far as schedules, assignments, problem solving etc. my director is responsible. I usually take 3-4 weeks vacation a year, 1-2 weeks at a time, and have never had any problems when I get back. If a lead person assumes all of the supervisor's duties during an absence, they should be paid more during that time. Most likely that is what's preventing the lead from getting management training.

[mdlee3_46041]

Ok at my job, on my shift, there are 2 supervisors. If one supervisor takes off, the other one on the shift is in charge, but lets face it, that really only means approving time off, if an employee has a medical issue (injury, illness, whatever), and passing along information from their bosses to employees and from employees to their bosses. My supervisor is over Inventory and Receiving with me being in Receiving. The other supervisor is over a department called Replenishment. Replenishment has about 25-30 people in the department.

They do limit who can check our work when we process something because they say that cuts down on errors. I can understand that because that's the point of checking what we do, but also, there are times when we are right and the checker will make an error while checking it. We can't check out own work because obviously if we missed something the first time, we probably won't catch it the 2nd time. I do double-check my work to make sure that what I'm turning in is right, but that's just for my own use and has nothing to do with the company. Our team lead is actually Inventory's team lead. We did have our own lead, but he went to first shift when another lead retired and the company chose not to replace him since there are only 2 of us in Receiving on the shift. So the Inventory lead has assumed the roles of the former Receiving lead, but can't check our work because he hasn't been trained on it.

So, I'm not saying that the lead should accept ALL responsibilities of the supervisor, but that he should be trained in things that will allow the department to function normally when the supervisor is gone.

[jertheber]

As a long time technical lead I can attest to the utility in union contracts with regard to the question of just how these scenarios should work when everyone knows their job description limits. During my time as a lead we were cautioned about the tendency toward overreach on the part of both leads AND supervisors. Supervisors are there to maintain the necessary aspects of discipline, schedules, overall performance of labor metrics, and the leads were there to serve the company in a technical capacity, essentially aiding the supervisor and providing them with a better understanding of the technical issues, also helping the crew in the same manner.

Never was there any doubt about roles and the limits to those roles. I know many people have very negative views regarding unions, but, a labor contract sometimes allows for strict demarcations to exist for reasons of expediency, and moreover, everybody knows the drill, no messing around with those who have a tendency toward assuming roles.