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
Socks and Trucks!
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="Mugarolla" data-source="post: 2176150" data-attributes="member: 8481"><p>I don't think "maybe," I think it "should" be the most important issue.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think they should either, and they do not. New equipment comes with all the new safety features mandated by State or the Federal Government, and any options negotiated in the collective bargaining process.</p><p></p><p>And every time a new safety feature comes out, the State of Federal Government does not retro-fit all their vehicles with the new features.</p><p></p><p>They also do not mandate that the current vehicles be replaced with new ones with the new safety features.</p><p></p><p>They wait until the current vehicles need replacing and then replace them with new ones with all the new safety features.</p><p></p><p>The same thing that UPS does.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Do you even have a clue how much it would cost, or if it is even feasible, to retro-fit anti-lock brakes, air bags, collision avoidance, etc, onto vehicles without these? Billions.</p><p></p><p>Or do you propose that UPS gets rid of all the vehicles without the newest safety features and just buys new ones? Tens of billions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They do provide the safest vehicles possible, when they purchase new vehicles. Every vehicle they purchase, at the time, meets the governments standards for safety.</p><p></p><p>Again, it sounds like you want UPS to replace every vehicle every time a new safety feature comes out. This will lead to bankruptcy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree. But there is also a line somewhere. This started because of the 2 point seatbelts still left in the fleet. My "line" is to replace all these with 3 point seatbelts and wait until the useful life of any other vehicles ends and then replace it with a new one with all the new safety features. My line is that the only thing retro-fitted should be the seatbelts, because any of the other features are either cost prohibitive or unfeasible.</p><p></p><p>And in collective bargaining, there has never been, to my knowledge, any bargaining to retro-fit vehicles for safety. It has always been "new equipment shall have." ie cab venting, power steering, ac for tractors, etc.</p><p></p><p>Safety first, but a company also has to stay in business, make money, or safety won't matter. They will be out of business if they cannot balance safety cost and profit.</p><p></p><p>And there is a balance between safety cost and profit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mugarolla, post: 2176150, member: 8481"] I don't think "maybe," I think it "should" be the most important issue. I don't think they should either, and they do not. New equipment comes with all the new safety features mandated by State or the Federal Government, and any options negotiated in the collective bargaining process. And every time a new safety feature comes out, the State of Federal Government does not retro-fit all their vehicles with the new features. They also do not mandate that the current vehicles be replaced with new ones with the new safety features. They wait until the current vehicles need replacing and then replace them with new ones with all the new safety features. The same thing that UPS does. Do you even have a clue how much it would cost, or if it is even feasible, to retro-fit anti-lock brakes, air bags, collision avoidance, etc, onto vehicles without these? Billions. Or do you propose that UPS gets rid of all the vehicles without the newest safety features and just buys new ones? Tens of billions. They do provide the safest vehicles possible, when they purchase new vehicles. Every vehicle they purchase, at the time, meets the governments standards for safety. Again, it sounds like you want UPS to replace every vehicle every time a new safety feature comes out. This will lead to bankruptcy. I agree. But there is also a line somewhere. This started because of the 2 point seatbelts still left in the fleet. My "line" is to replace all these with 3 point seatbelts and wait until the useful life of any other vehicles ends and then replace it with a new one with all the new safety features. My line is that the only thing retro-fitted should be the seatbelts, because any of the other features are either cost prohibitive or unfeasible. And in collective bargaining, there has never been, to my knowledge, any bargaining to retro-fit vehicles for safety. It has always been "new equipment shall have." ie cab venting, power steering, ac for tractors, etc. Safety first, but a company also has to stay in business, make money, or safety won't matter. They will be out of business if they cannot balance safety cost and profit. And there is a balance between safety cost and profit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Socks and Trucks!
Top