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
class action lawsuit against UPS
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="Iconoclast" data-source="post: 179057" data-attributes="member: 8906"><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Whats the matter sparky looking to start a fight? I already made the point above that teamsters were automatically enrolled and had to opt out. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: black">I didn't appear to me that you made that point. You stated that </span><span style="color: blue">"There should be a process as there is outside of California where possible litigants are informed and have to physically do something to join the lawsuit."</span><span style="color: #000000"> That can be a misleading statement - and you make it sound like people were not informed of their options. </span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: #000000">Why do you take that personally? If you post something on a message board, expect that people will comment, discuss, argue, tear apart, what you write. Again, they are not attacking you personally, only the issues you post and the manner in which you post them. </span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: red">Iconoclast - How on earth do you know that? How could you possibly speak to the number of grievances filed specific to this issue in the state of California? You have absolutely no way to quantify or validate this statement, it is a sweeping generalization on your part and pure conjecture.</span></span></span></p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: #000000"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: blue">Ok perhaps you are right. Prove it. </span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="color: black">I can't prove it, that was my point - neither can you. We don't know what was done as far as the grievance process went. Again, that is why I took issue with what you posted. I can only surmise that there were grievances filed on this issue, it is just too widespread not to have been addressed in that system at some point or another. Perhaps someone from California can enlighten us on this fact, but I certainly can't speak to those specifics, but... neither can you.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Your argument that employees were afraid to file a grievance but somehow found the courage to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit is a litte far fetched, don't you think. In either case my point has been that we have a contract and they should be forced to abide by it not do so when convient for them.</span></p><p> </p><p>The entire impetus for a letter going out to inform employees of a suit is because that most employees who were affected by class action have no idea it is being filed. Class action is generally filed on all encompassing issues where the court would be loathe to hear cases individually of people whose rights have been violated on the same issue. </p><p> </p><p>Most of these people don't have a clue that the action has been taken until after they receive notice of such. Most people deal with this lunch issue the best way they can every day, many of them bring a small plastic igloo cooler and eat a few sandwiches randomly between stops. Still, they shouldn't have their time adjusted illegally.</p><p> </p><p>It also doesn't mean that the people who collaborated with the attorneys and started this process didn't go through the grievance process first and received absolutely no resolution. You and I have no proof of that whatsoever. </p><p> </p><p>Again, if the illegal pratice didn't go on, and UPS isn't culpable for its actions, they would not have settled, period. However, This is not a black and white issue, there is a lot of grey.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Interesting point from someone who has never managed or worked in an operation. The lunch rules have also been coerced by our drivers many of which would like to skip lunch and get home sooner. A real management person working this issue would know that you can find five drivers each day who would love to skip lunch for every one who complains about not having the time. You really need to do your homework before making this argument. </span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Some history on this -A few years ago, Tie and I were in a discussion on this board about the ERI. At the time I was working in virtual office, taveling 90% of the time. I participated in the ERI with other members of my group who were also working virtually on the same initiative/special assignment, but I didn't receive direct feedback because I had nobody reporting to me, (unless you count customers of course) and TIE ran with the fact that UPS didn't trust me to lead people, and he has made assumptions on that very point whenever that scenario fits his argument, like right here.</p><p> </p><p>UPS is not going to put me in the operation for the same reason they probably won't put you in Business development-it is way outside of each of our core competencies. You have no idea who I have reporting to me and what my responsibilities are, and I have no idea about yours, which is why I don't make sweeping generalizations about what you do every day.</p><p> </p><p>That doesn't mean that we are not both informed about the way the company works and each of us has equal right to comment on the issues-</p><p> </p><p>Why is everything a personal affront to you TIEGUY???</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">The rest of your post is being argumentative simply for the purpose of being argumentative and requires no response.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: black">Then why did you respond to it in the first place. Of course it can be construed as argumentative-I disagree with your point of view, the way you present your discussion and the arguments you have developed to support your points, but I am not calling you names, or attacking you personally, only the issues at hand. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Iconoclast, post: 179057, member: 8906"] [COLOR=#0000ff]Whats the matter sparky looking to start a fight? I already made the point above that teamsters were automatically enrolled and had to opt out. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][COLOR=black]I didn't appear to me that you made that point. You stated that [/COLOR][COLOR=blue]"There should be a process as there is outside of California where possible litigants are informed and have to physically do something to join the lawsuit."[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] That can be a misleading statement - and you make it sound like people were not informed of their options. [/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][COLOR=#000000]Why do you take that personally? If you post something on a message board, expect that people will comment, discuss, argue, tear apart, what you write. Again, they are not attacking you personally, only the issues you post and the manner in which you post them. [/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=red]Iconoclast - How on earth do you know that? How could you possibly speak to the number of grievances filed specific to this issue in the state of California? You have absolutely no way to quantify or validate this statement, it is a sweeping generalization on your part and pure conjecture.[/COLOR] [/COLOR][COLOR=blue]Ok perhaps you are right. Prove it. [/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][COLOR=black]I can't prove it, that was my point - neither can you. We don't know what was done as far as the grievance process went. Again, that is why I took issue with what you posted. I can only surmise that there were grievances filed on this issue, it is just too widespread not to have been addressed in that system at some point or another. Perhaps someone from California can enlighten us on this fact, but I certainly can't speak to those specifics, but... neither can you.[/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Your argument that employees were afraid to file a grievance but somehow found the courage to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit is a litte far fetched, don't you think. In either case my point has been that we have a contract and they should be forced to abide by it not do so when convient for them.[/COLOR] The entire impetus for a letter going out to inform employees of a suit is because that most employees who were affected by class action have no idea it is being filed. Class action is generally filed on all encompassing issues where the court would be loathe to hear cases individually of people whose rights have been violated on the same issue. Most of these people don't have a clue that the action has been taken until after they receive notice of such. Most people deal with this lunch issue the best way they can every day, many of them bring a small plastic igloo cooler and eat a few sandwiches randomly between stops. Still, they shouldn't have their time adjusted illegally. It also doesn't mean that the people who collaborated with the attorneys and started this process didn't go through the grievance process first and received absolutely no resolution. You and I have no proof of that whatsoever. Again, if the illegal pratice didn't go on, and UPS isn't culpable for its actions, they would not have settled, period. However, This is not a black and white issue, there is a lot of grey. [COLOR=#0000ff]Interesting point from someone who has never managed or worked in an operation. The lunch rules have also been coerced by our drivers many of which would like to skip lunch and get home sooner. A real management person working this issue would know that you can find five drivers each day who would love to skip lunch for every one who complains about not having the time. You really need to do your homework before making this argument. [/COLOR] Some history on this -A few years ago, Tie and I were in a discussion on this board about the ERI. At the time I was working in virtual office, taveling 90% of the time. I participated in the ERI with other members of my group who were also working virtually on the same initiative/special assignment, but I didn't receive direct feedback because I had nobody reporting to me, (unless you count customers of course) and TIE ran with the fact that UPS didn't trust me to lead people, and he has made assumptions on that very point whenever that scenario fits his argument, like right here. UPS is not going to put me in the operation for the same reason they probably won't put you in Business development-it is way outside of each of our core competencies. You have no idea who I have reporting to me and what my responsibilities are, and I have no idea about yours, which is why I don't make sweeping generalizations about what you do every day. That doesn't mean that we are not both informed about the way the company works and each of us has equal right to comment on the issues- Why is everything a personal affront to you TIEGUY??? [COLOR=#0000ff]The rest of your post is being argumentative simply for the purpose of being argumentative and requires no response.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Then why did you respond to it in the first place. Of course it can be construed as argumentative-I disagree with your point of view, the way you present your discussion and the arguments you have developed to support your points, but I am not calling you names, or attacking you personally, only the issues at hand. [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
class action lawsuit against UPS
Top