Pushed by supervisor

[splozi]

Was is mud or jello. I hope for jello, so lie to me if ya have to.

Chocolate pudding.

 

[trickpony1]

If this were me, I would have requested a meeting with the center manager, the supervisor, myself, shop steward and/or BA upon the sup's return from his suspension.

Is this the Upstate that has such a disdain for the Union but wants the shop steward and/or BA included in this meeting?

 

[Covemastah]

Hmmmmm ??? What Would Clint DO ????

BROCK LESNAR vs. Clint Eastwood - YouTube

 

[UnconTROLLed]

So it's not the act itself to you that counts but its the measurement of "damage" done? So if a drunk driver crashed into another person and no one is hurt then the judge should be lenient. The sup crossed the line and should be punished to the full extent.

In the eyes of the law, yes a judge will be more lenient for a drunk driver who crashes their car and no one being hurt, rather than crashing a car and killing a family of 4. Strawman.

I don't disagree with the fact the supervisor should be given more than a two-day vaca as punishment, but your argument angle doesn't work.

 

[Bubblehead]

I personally like discriminating people better than mindless automatons and so did Asimov.

It doesn't matter what you or Asimov like, nor does it matter what Upstate or myself like.
The company policy is ZERO TOLERANCE.
There is no room in that policy to discriminate.
This isn't Asimov's world of science fiction.
This is the world of UPS and constant friction.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

We had a couple of drivers nearly come to blows this morning. One of the drivers is a bid driver and the other a cover driver. Both were working adjacent routes. The cover driver needed help so a third driver made one of his pickups and the bid driver took some work off of him. The cover driver beat both drivers in--he was 2 hours earlier than the bid driver who took some of his work.

 

[Catatonic]

It doesn't matter what you or Asimov like, nor does it matter what Upstate or myself like.
The company policy is ZERO TOLERANCE.
There is no room in that policy to discriminate.
This isn't Asimov's world of science fiction.
This is the world of UPS and constant friction.

If you can stop being an automaton for a minute (quit beating Capp), look up the definition and implementation of "Policy".
Policy is not a dumb rule that is applied unilaterally ... a Policy is an over-arching guideline that drives decision making, actions and tactics. It allows for thoughtful consideration in implementation.

I know this is not a thought process found in the Teamster's Union and consequently the employees it represents.
UPS has the right and implied responsibility to consider each Non-Union employee situation in a thoughtful and forward-looking manner.
That is what happened here and I can guarantee you that this non-Union employee is on a short leash and careful consideration in future events.

Now, with that said, continue to blabber away like a teenager as I am enjoying these unthoughtful postings.

 

[Indecisi0n]

In the eyes of the law, yes a judge will be more lenient for a drunk driver who crashes their car and no one being hurt, rather than crashing a car and killing a family of 4. Strawman.

I don't disagree with the fact the supervisor should be given more than a two-day vaca as punishment, but your argument angle doesn't work.

No you missed my point. A drunk driver gets charged with a DUI. A judge shouldn't say "well you didn't kill anyone so here is a seatbelt ticket." He was driving drunk so he will be charged with that crime. If I take your example (him killing people) then he gets charged with drunk driving plus murder or manslaughter.

The sup broke the law and physically assaulted someone so he should be charged like anyone else. Assault.

 

[Johney]

We had a couple of drivers nearly come to blows this morning. One of the drivers is a bid driver and the other a cover driver. Both were working adjacent routes. The cover driver needed help so a third driver made one of his pickups and the bid driver took some work off of him. The cover driver beat both drivers in--he was 2 hours earlier than the bid driver who took some of his work.

That's just wrong. Of course the next time said cover driver cries in the a.m. it will most likely fall on deaf ears.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

That's just wrong. Of course the next time said cover driver cries in the a.m. it will most likely fall on deaf ears.

...which is exactly what happened this morning...

 

[Returntosender]

@ The OP. Go to ussearch.com type in the Supervisor full name. If you want pay the fee and you get the following information. [h=4]US Search reports include:[/h]

• Full Name
• Age
• Recent Address
• Address History
• Phone Numbers
• Aliases
• Maiden Name
• Misdemeanors

• Relatives
• Neighbors
• Death Record
• Associates
• Properties
• Home Value
• Bankruptcies
• Felonies

• Tax Liens
• Judgements
• Lawsuits
• Marriage
• Divorce
• Email Address
• Social Network Search
• Criminal Records

What you are looking for is past criminal records that happend at a previous employement of SUP. If their is any criminal report of prior workplace violence you may have UPS by the balls. UPS background checks their employees, a violent employee should have been red flag in the system. It's called negligent hiring.
Negligent hiring is a claim made by an injured party against an employer based on the theory that the employer knew or should have known about the employee's background which, if known, indicates a dangerous or untrustworthy character. Pre-employment background checks, employee drug testing, and employment physical exams are some of the ways negligent hiring claims can be avoided.

Out of spite. You file a report with Police take it all the way to court. Make if hard for the SUP to find another job if UPS lets the SUP go.

 

[Bubblehead]

If you can stop being an automaton for a minute (quit beating Capp), look up the definition and implementation of "Policy".
Policy is not a dumb rule that is applied unilaterally ... a Policy is an over-arching guideline that drives decision making, actions and tactics. It allows for thoughtful consideration in implementation.

I know this is not a thought process found in the Teamster's Union and consequently the employees it represents.
UPS has the right and implied responsibility to consider each Non-Union employee situation in a thoughtful and forward-looking manner.
That is what happened here and I can guarantee you that this non-Union employee is on a short leash and careful consideration in future events.

Now, with that said, continue to blabber away like a teenager as I am enjoying these unthoughtful postings.

Ok Dad, what does policy mean when you attach the term zero tolerance?

Don't get me wrong, I like it your way.
Unfortunately, it only works that way for management.
Had it been the driver who pushed the supervisor.
Game over.

 

[Catatonic]

Ok Dad, what does policy mean when you attach the term zero tolerance?

Don't get me wrong, I like it your way.
Unfortunately, it only works that way for management.
Had it been the driver who pushed the supervisor.
Game over.

This is UPS's interpretation of what is meant by a policy of zero tolerance with respect to violence in the workplace:

If an investigation reveals that this policy has been violated, such conduct will be dealt with appropriately. This may include
disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment of person(s) in violation of this policy.

No way to say for sure so this is an empty bet but ... I bet you $10,000 that a higher percentage of Union employees get their job back than management gets to keep their job.


Like I posted earlier in #44 earlier in this thread:
Of course, over half of the ones (Union employees) I know of got their job back.
Management do not get their job back, so the final decision has to be made up front.
That's part of the Double Standards equation.

​

 

[Bubblehead]

This is UPS's interpretation of what is meant by a policy of zero tolerance with respect to violence in the workplace:

If an investigation reveals that this policy has been violated, such conduct will be dealt with appropriately. This may include
disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment of person(s) in violation of this policy.

No way to say for sure so this is an empty bet but ... I bet you $10,000 that a higher percentage of Union employees get their job back than management gets to keep their job.


Like I posted earlier in #44 earlier in this thread:
Of course, over half of the ones (Union employees) I know of got their job back.
Management do not get their job back, so the final decision has to be made up front.
That's part of the Double Standards equation.

​

Agreed, if we are talking about overall terminations.
In regards to workplace violence, no way.
That goes for dishonesty as well, as we get discharged and managers get promoted.

 

[Catatonic]

The next time he comes near you pee yourself, start crying, and go home. Seek therapy and file for a permanent disability.

Did that work out well for you?

 

[Inthegame]

No way to say for sure so this is an empty bet but ... I bet you $10,000 that a higher percentage of Union employees get their job back than management gets to keep their job.

​

And I'll bet you $10,001 100% of union employees would be fired instantly with no chance of returning for assaulting a sup.
​

 

[Catatonic]

Zero tolerance means zero tolerance, not .2 tolerance. It's black and white, no shades of grey. By UPS not terminating this guy immediately it's just showing what everyone knows, UPS doesn't abide by their own rules which leads to negligence the next time something happens and the lawyers come a calling

This is UPS's interpretation of what is meant by a policy of zero tolerance with respect to violence in the workplace:

If an investigation reveals that this policy has been violated, such conduct will be dealt with appropriately. This may include
disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment of person(s) in violation of this policy.

Notice the "may".
Neither you nor I get to define the policy ... UPS does.
​

 

[Catatonic]

Agreed, if we are talking about overall terminations.
In regards to workplace violence, no way.
That goes for dishonesty as well, as we get discharged and managers get promoted.

One of your Brothers provides evidence to the contrary in post #41:

I've never heard of two union employees exchanging physical aggression without both of them getting fired.
At least in the last 30 years ... once everything started getting PC.

I know of two instances where its happened at my hub. They all got their jobs back.

 

[Bubblehead]

This is UPS's interpretation of what is meant by a policy of zero tolerance with respect to violence in the workplace:

If an investigation reveals that this policy has been violated, such conduct will be dealt with appropriately. This may include
disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment of person(s) in violation of this policy.

Notice the "may".
Neither you nor I get to define the policy ... UPS does.
​

The may enables them to fulfill their hypocratic oath.

 

[bigblu 2 you]

]
Being a histrionic drama queen over a "push" is not a good response, jmo. Your post drew funny images in my mind, though.

The problem is that some posters, in this thread , (not mentioning names), have taken the physical alteration beyond a "push". I could see if it was a POWERFUL push, legs and all, causing the person to go flying across the belt.

This sounds like a heated exchange with a small amount of contact - nothing different than we see in pro sports between players and refs (not that I really watch sports or TV, but it goes on I am aware)

There is no reason to embellish in the moment or overreact. Equally as guilty are the "come on hit me" ambulance chasers. The majority of times, anyway.

thats true but some time ago i saw a hourly employee escorted off the property for pointing a finger in the chest of a supe.he went to the panel and was reinstated but without backpay.lost nearly a months pay.was that a fair punishment?