I have come to the conclusion that the only thing irrelevent is you and your comments.
+1
I have come to the conclusion that the only thing irrelevent is you and your comments.
You make a good point. Just what is the company's true position on safety? Telematics versus a 3 point harness.
They will spend $800 to "modify" a vehicle with a 2 pt seatbelt by replacing that belt.....with an identical belt that has a sensor in it.
In other words....UPS doesnt give a *****e whether or not the belt actually saves your life as long as they can fire you for not wearing it.
The math is simple. A driver whose brains get pulverized by the windshield will die and he can be replaced by a new hire who will do the same job for $10 an hour less. Factor in the decrease in the new drivers accrued vacation weeks, and we are talking about a savings of almost $25K per year for the company if they can kill off a full-scale driver.
If you drivers would follow your methods,you wouldnt have to worry about getting into a wreck. plus I am sure they've done a risk/benefit analysis
If you drivers would follow your methods,you wouldnt have to worry about getting into a wreck. plus I am sure they've done a risk/benefit analysis
BigBrownWeb,
Thanks for your well wishes and your contribution to this discussion thread. You have brought the sad truth about this kind of thing out into the open. The sad truth is that the corporate executives of UPS probably do a cost benefit analysis of this and as stated above, will not act upon this type of neglect until the financial cost of acting is lower than the financial cost of not acting. UPS executives are well aware of the fact that employees cannot sue their employers for neglect and it will take a lot of worker's comp claims to exceed the financial cost of acting on these items.
You mention legal liability. It is my understanding that when talking about liability we are talking about liability for something such as property damage, injury or death. Where does the risk of property damage , injury or death increase, or become huge, with the installation of any of the accessories I have mentioned? Please let me know. This information will be very helpful to me.
I think your estimate is high. It would probably be more like 15million to upgrade 25000 UPS package cars with the items that I have mentioned in my original post.
Sincerely,
I
UPS did not design or build the package car. If the seat and/or seat belt is substandard the manufacturer is responsible/liable. If UPS redesigns or modifies the seat and/or seat belt they would become responsible. Acknowledging the seat and/or seat belt is inadequate would also subject UPS to liability.
BigBrownWeb,
I understand your point. I do think that this point is arguable based on the fact that these are accessories and not related to the safe operation of the vehicle but only to the safety of the driver and any potential passenger. I still don't feel that you have answered my main question. If you can, I hope you will.
Responsiblity/liability has been brought up as a defense for the company executives of UPS not having theses accessories installed in the older UPS Package Cars while they are still in service. Responsibility/liability refers to property damage, personal injury or death.
Please enlighten me on what is the perceived increase in the likelyhood of property damage, personal injury or death that may result from the installation of these accessories?
The same theory would apply to you own vehicle. If the brakes fail due to a design flaw, the manufacture is liable. If you take it upon yourself to retrofit or modify the brake system and it fails you have taken away the manufacturers responsibility.
I understand you point however I disagree with it being applied to the items that I have mentioned. The main difference here is that the items I have mentioned in no way are related to the safe operation of the vehicle they are only related to the safety of the occupants of the vehicle.
Can you quantify the potential safety improvement of a 3 point over a 2 point system in a UPS vehicle? It seems to me that there are very few injuries that can be attributed to the use of a two point seat belt. Serious injury is often the result of wearing no seat belt, hence the focus on seat belt use and tracking with telematics.
No, I cannot at this time give you a number to quantify the potential safety improvement of a 3 point over a 2 point system in a UPS vehicle. The shoulder harness seat belt is only one of the three items that I believe should be installed. The high back seat and the cushion for the jumpseat are also important safety improvements.
I can speak on quantifying this and I know it may be an extreme, idealistic view but I will share it anyway. If there is 1 employee who has been or ever will be more severely injured in an accident than they would have been had these safety accessories been upgraded like they should be then that is 1 too many.
UPS did not design or build the package car. If the seat and/or seat belt is substandard the manufacturer is responsible/liable. If UPS redesigns or modifies the seat and/or seat belt they would become responsible. Acknowledging the seat and/or seat belt is inadequate would also subject UPS to liability....
.
Can you quantify the potential safety improvement of a 3 point over a 2 point system in a UPS vehicle? It seems to me that there are very few injuries that can be attributed to the use of a two point seat belt. Serious injury is often the result of wearing no seat belt, hence the focus on seat belt use and tracking with telematics.
so you're saying ups deliberately murders the senior higher cost driver with the two point seat belt?
for some reason not one single teamster found fault with your post here.
still looking will I ever find one?
UPS did not design or build the package car. If the seat and/or seat belt is substandard the manufacturer is responsible/liable. If UPS redesigns or modifies the seat and/or seat belt they would become responsible. Acknowledging the seat and/or seat belt is inadequate would also subject UPS to liability.
The same theory would apply to you own vehicle. If the brakes fail due to a design flaw, the manufacture is liable. If you take it upon yourself to retrofit or modify the brake system and it fails you have taken away the manufacturers responsibility.
Can you quantify the potential safety improvement of a 3 point over a 2 point system in a UPS vehicle? It seems to me that there are very few injuries that can be attributed to the use of a two point seat belt. Serious injury is often the result of wearing no seat belt, hence the focus on seat belt use and tracking with telematics.
Red is right. There is no way UPS can factor in the physical and mental stress of doing the job that we do. There are way to many factors involved. Not only do we have to deal with work related issues we have to deal with other issues outside of work that also affect performance. You might be having a bad day because of an argument you had with your wife. It is not going to kill you when you make a mistake and hit the send key on an email that was meant to be sent to your wife and instead you sent it to your co-worker. It is not that easy for us. We cannot, under any circumstances, accidentally make a left turn in front of oncoming traffic.
Upstate is also right. There is no FOOL proof way of avoiding an accident. There is NO 100% method that will protect us from every accident.