Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
100 % medical release
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Load Stand" data-source="post: 80561"><p>Michael, I am not making this up as I go..we are following the law...granted, there may be some mistakes we make along the way and for those we will pay dearly for....UPS and management in general do not have anything against those that have a disability...we too are real people!...if an employee is disabled according to the definition of the ADA then we have a process in place....I know several UPSers gong through trying times with personal health issues and work-related health issues...Jeff, your story is sad and it hurts to hear such a thing....I fear the day will come when I am told I have some terrible disease and I am told by UPS that unfortunately we cannot keep you on the payroll and must administrately terminate you....but I also see the employers' point of view in regards to what are they expected to do and for whom do they make a reasonable accomodation towards....</p><p></p><p>What started this conversation was a sniff for instances in which UPS says you must have a 100% percent medical release....I believe there is nothing wrong with having such a release, albeit the wording should be "can you meet the Essential Functions of your Job"....Michael, I am curious, under what auspices would you feel that this 100% medical release policy would be deemed a violation of the ADA...are you interpreting such a release to mean that one must be perfect and disability free? If so, that is a misinterpretation. Again, we simply must know if the employee is capable of meeting their Essential Job Functions...the 100% medical release terminology is simply a miscommunication regarding the ability to meet the Essential Job Functions 100% ...and I fear lawyers like you are trying to twist such miscommunication around to advantage yourselves and take shots at a company that overall does things responsibly and ethically...</p><p></p><p>As for tossing employees aside after their backs and knees give out....we do anything but....we provide benefits that compensate for such conditions...our Workers' Comp costs are pretty evident of that and we pay our fair share for on the job injuries....this is labor intensive work and yes stuff happens...but at least we own up to our responsibilities when our employees are truly injured on the job....try working as a FedEx Ground Contractor and see what happens when you are injured...what a set up that they have that we must compete with - totally unfair and truly unfair to those that are "contractors".....</p><p></p><p>We all chose our career paths and for the most part, the career path for a package employee at UPS involves medium to heavy duty work....when employees can no longer do such work, what is a company to do? Try and create jobs for all those that can't do the EJF's? If you ran a labor intensive operation such as ours, what would you do Michael? How do you chose who should be accomodated and who should not? What is your understanding of the definition of a disabled individual according to the ADA? Furthermore, how does your law firm handle such cases? In a less labor intensive environment I would imagine you do have truly more opportunities to find other jobs for your disabled workers...but how does your firm chose or determine who gets the accomodation and who does not? Does the person that have Parkinson's get the accomodation or does the person that can't lift a box of printer paper get the accomodation? Does the person that has MS get an accomodation or does the person that has frequent migraines often get it? </p><p></p><p>As for other supporting cases there is Hutchinson v UPS in the midwest in the mid 90's I believe that also supports our understanding of QID and involves a UPS driver that was given permanent lifting restrictions and argues they were a disabled person and we should make an accomodation...the court agreed with our handling and understanding of the ADA law....I suspect there may be cases that others will point out in which we wrong, and if we were, we most likely paid the price and more and shame on us....there is no blanket policy that is err, but there are admitted some mistakes along the way...this 100% medical release is really not one of them I believe...it's a misinterpretation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Load Stand, post: 80561"] Michael, I am not making this up as I go..we are following the law...granted, there may be some mistakes we make along the way and for those we will pay dearly for....UPS and management in general do not have anything against those that have a disability...we too are real people!...if an employee is disabled according to the definition of the ADA then we have a process in place....I know several UPSers gong through trying times with personal health issues and work-related health issues...Jeff, your story is sad and it hurts to hear such a thing....I fear the day will come when I am told I have some terrible disease and I am told by UPS that unfortunately we cannot keep you on the payroll and must administrately terminate you....but I also see the employers' point of view in regards to what are they expected to do and for whom do they make a reasonable accomodation towards.... What started this conversation was a sniff for instances in which UPS says you must have a 100% percent medical release....I believe there is nothing wrong with having such a release, albeit the wording should be "can you meet the Essential Functions of your Job"....Michael, I am curious, under what auspices would you feel that this 100% medical release policy would be deemed a violation of the ADA...are you interpreting such a release to mean that one must be perfect and disability free? If so, that is a misinterpretation. Again, we simply must know if the employee is capable of meeting their Essential Job Functions...the 100% medical release terminology is simply a miscommunication regarding the ability to meet the Essential Job Functions 100% ...and I fear lawyers like you are trying to twist such miscommunication around to advantage yourselves and take shots at a company that overall does things responsibly and ethically... As for tossing employees aside after their backs and knees give out....we do anything but....we provide benefits that compensate for such conditions...our Workers' Comp costs are pretty evident of that and we pay our fair share for on the job injuries....this is labor intensive work and yes stuff happens...but at least we own up to our responsibilities when our employees are truly injured on the job....try working as a FedEx Ground Contractor and see what happens when you are injured...what a set up that they have that we must compete with - totally unfair and truly unfair to those that are "contractors"..... We all chose our career paths and for the most part, the career path for a package employee at UPS involves medium to heavy duty work....when employees can no longer do such work, what is a company to do? Try and create jobs for all those that can't do the EJF's? If you ran a labor intensive operation such as ours, what would you do Michael? How do you chose who should be accomodated and who should not? What is your understanding of the definition of a disabled individual according to the ADA? Furthermore, how does your law firm handle such cases? In a less labor intensive environment I would imagine you do have truly more opportunities to find other jobs for your disabled workers...but how does your firm chose or determine who gets the accomodation and who does not? Does the person that have Parkinson's get the accomodation or does the person that can't lift a box of printer paper get the accomodation? Does the person that has MS get an accomodation or does the person that has frequent migraines often get it? As for other supporting cases there is Hutchinson v UPS in the midwest in the mid 90's I believe that also supports our understanding of QID and involves a UPS driver that was given permanent lifting restrictions and argues they were a disabled person and we should make an accomodation...the court agreed with our handling and understanding of the ADA law....I suspect there may be cases that others will point out in which we wrong, and if we were, we most likely paid the price and more and shame on us....there is no blanket policy that is err, but there are admitted some mistakes along the way...this 100% medical release is really not one of them I believe...it's a misinterpretation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
100 % medical release
Top