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 Union Issues
Members of Local 396, I urge you to vote NO on this proposal!
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="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1136467" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>In retrospect, given the T.A. in front of us, that deal would have been better for all our families and coworkers. Despite all the tough talk from HOFFA/HALL/H, the language that comes back is WEAK at best and harmful to all of our members.</p><p></p><p>The article 6 language of the national master is particularly disturbing... For all the tough talk about "preventing" technology from harming us, the language comes back WORSE than what was written back in 2008 that I complained about.</p><p></p><p>The removal of the words "FIRST OFFENSE" and the inclusion of the words "ANY INTENTIONAL ACT" make article 6 a deadly combination for ALL DRIVERS in a package car or feeder rig. Lets talk about some possibilities:</p><p></p><p>Lets say that the center manager tells you that you <strong>CANNOT </strong>drive more than <strong>1/2 mile</strong> off route to get lunch, and you disapprove of this "directive" and deliberately drive <strong>1.5 miles</strong> for lunch anyways. GPS calculates the 1.5 miles and the manager calls you into the office to discuss it. He asks you if you did drive the 1.5 miles despite the directive and you respond with "yes i did, I had to get my lunch".</p><p></p><p>This will be considered a<strong> "TERMINABLE" </strong>offense. You committed<strong> "AN INTENTIONAL ACT"</strong> that was <strong>CORRABORATED </strong>by GPS.</p><p></p><p>The reality is that there is NO NEED for the company to prove you were trying to be dishonest, and instead, the "INTENTIONAL ACT" stands alone from dishonesty.</p><p></p><p>If the language said "any intentional act that demonstrates dishonesty" , then we would have a different meaning.</p><p></p><p>GPS technology and DIAD are the two biggest tools ( next to H , Hall & Hoffa ) that affect our package and feeder drivers. ( feeder has ivis)</p><p></p><p>Lets say you open a NDA package on the wrong street and drive to the location to avoid being late. You close the stop and come up fine on time, yet, when you get back, the manager asks to speak to you about this.</p><p></p><p>He asks if you opened the stop on the wrong street and you respond with "yes, I did", you confirm you drove with the stop open and made it to the destination late, but come up within the time guidelines for air commit. </p><p></p><p>At that point, he can discharge you for both "an intentional act" and "defrauding" the company. ( dishonesty ) </p><p></p><p>This is the NEW article 6 for 2013.</p><p></p><p>READ IT folks.</p><p></p><p>Peace</p><p></p><p>TOS</p><p></p><p>p.s. for those who will respond with "they have to observe you first", better read it again, that applies to "OTHER" dischargeable offenses and require additional corroboration.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1136467, member: 17969"] In retrospect, given the T.A. in front of us, that deal would have been better for all our families and coworkers. Despite all the tough talk from HOFFA/HALL/H, the language that comes back is WEAK at best and harmful to all of our members. The article 6 language of the national master is particularly disturbing... For all the tough talk about "preventing" technology from harming us, the language comes back WORSE than what was written back in 2008 that I complained about. The removal of the words "FIRST OFFENSE" and the inclusion of the words "ANY INTENTIONAL ACT" make article 6 a deadly combination for ALL DRIVERS in a package car or feeder rig. Lets talk about some possibilities: Lets say that the center manager tells you that you [B]CANNOT [/B]drive more than [B]1/2 mile[/B] off route to get lunch, and you disapprove of this "directive" and deliberately drive [B]1.5 miles[/B] for lunch anyways. GPS calculates the 1.5 miles and the manager calls you into the office to discuss it. He asks you if you did drive the 1.5 miles despite the directive and you respond with "yes i did, I had to get my lunch". This will be considered a[B] "TERMINABLE" [/B]offense. You committed[B] "AN INTENTIONAL ACT"[/B] that was [B]CORRABORATED [/B]by GPS. The reality is that there is NO NEED for the company to prove you were trying to be dishonest, and instead, the "INTENTIONAL ACT" stands alone from dishonesty. If the language said "any intentional act that demonstrates dishonesty" , then we would have a different meaning. GPS technology and DIAD are the two biggest tools ( next to H , Hall & Hoffa ) that affect our package and feeder drivers. ( feeder has ivis) Lets say you open a NDA package on the wrong street and drive to the location to avoid being late. You close the stop and come up fine on time, yet, when you get back, the manager asks to speak to you about this. He asks if you opened the stop on the wrong street and you respond with "yes, I did", you confirm you drove with the stop open and made it to the destination late, but come up within the time guidelines for air commit. At that point, he can discharge you for both "an intentional act" and "defrauding" the company. ( dishonesty ) This is the NEW article 6 for 2013. READ IT folks. Peace TOS p.s. for those who will respond with "they have to observe you first", better read it again, that applies to "OTHER" dischargeable offenses and require additional corroboration. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Members of Local 396, I urge you to vote NO on this proposal!
Top