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
TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS
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="&#039;Lord Brown&#039;s bidding&#039;" data-source="post: 1150988" data-attributes="member: 32753"><p>Missed the points on the words <em>intentional act of ommision</em> and wanted to comment on them, as it is the over reaction to those words that had gotten me thinking about this in the first place. </p><p></p><p><em>Defraud</em> is the <strong>qualifier</strong> in that statement; in other words, it separates what is serious, and represents a real and present or immediate threat to the company's interests, vs merely being a bad habit that can lead to more serious things if action isn't taken to correct the course. Picking a bad time to legitimately wash windows, or scanning a NDA b4 getting to a stop, where the customer <em>really</em> needs you by 10:30, not 10:32, is something that may be corrected with a simple, "Hey Alan. Customer called about you arriving with their pkg at 10:32, wants a refund. Please get there <strong>by</strong> 10:30 next time." You can't do that when someone intentionally lies to get-read "gain", part of the definition of "defraud"-something while illicitly taking what belongs to the company, which is the time outside the break periods on their vehicles. That speaks to a deeper issue.</p><p></p><p> In another perhaps little-noticed detail, the fraud must be committed <em>against ups</em>; afterall, sheeting up a NDA b4 reaching a customer may defraud the <strong>customer and end consumer</strong> of what was promised, but that doesn't necessarily hurt, or damage UPS; quite frankly it more often than not helps UPS' interests. Now, if a manager was out to get you he could say your actions '<strong>may</strong> cause the customer to go somewhere else, and we'd lose that customer!', except fraud only deals with present or immediate damages, not what may happen. Thus, a good rep should be able toget that overturned. The more specific the language, the more it excludes as reasons/options to use, thus the more difficult it is to pursue a certain action: namely, terminantion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="'Lord Brown's bidding', post: 1150988, member: 32753"] Missed the points on the words [I]intentional act of ommision[/I] and wanted to comment on them, as it is the over reaction to those words that had gotten me thinking about this in the first place. [I]Defraud[/I] is the [B]qualifier[/B] in that statement; in other words, it separates what is serious, and represents a real and present or immediate threat to the company's interests, vs merely being a bad habit that can lead to more serious things if action isn't taken to correct the course. Picking a bad time to legitimately wash windows, or scanning a NDA b4 getting to a stop, where the customer [I]really[/I] needs you by 10:30, not 10:32, is something that may be corrected with a simple, "Hey Alan. Customer called about you arriving with their pkg at 10:32, wants a refund. Please get there [B]by[/B] 10:30 next time." You can't do that when someone intentionally lies to get-read "gain", part of the definition of "defraud"-something while illicitly taking what belongs to the company, which is the time outside the break periods on their vehicles. That speaks to a deeper issue. In another perhaps little-noticed detail, the fraud must be committed [I]against ups[/I]; afterall, sheeting up a NDA b4 reaching a customer may defraud the [B]customer and end consumer[/B] of what was promised, but that doesn't necessarily hurt, or damage UPS; quite frankly it more often than not helps UPS' interests. Now, if a manager was out to get you he could say your actions '[B]may[/B] cause the customer to go somewhere else, and we'd lose that customer!', except fraud only deals with present or immediate damages, not what may happen. Thus, a good rep should be able toget that overturned. The more specific the language, the more it excludes as reasons/options to use, thus the more difficult it is to pursue a certain action: namely, terminantion. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS
Top