telematics

[dcdriver]

The question is, why are you worried about it? There is nothing you can do to about it but work with it, so why waste time worrying about it?

exactly

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Would you consider this to be a form of harassent or a teachable moment?

We had a demonstration as part of our PCM Thursday morning. Telematics showed that one of our drivers backed 300' feet on a main road. He had driven past the delivery point and rather than turn around decided to back. The on-car and center manager had us assemble in the parking lot. The on-car had two cones---he kept one and had the driver in question take the other one and start walking in the other direction toward our safety chair, who had walked off the 300' distance earlier that morning. When the driver reached that point he stopped, put down the cone and stood next to it. The on-car then described the scenario, relayed what the driver had done and gave what he felt were safer alternatives, which included walking it off. I have to admit that the demonstration was effective----it is one thing to hear 300' but to see it is quite another. It is the length of a football field and to back up that far on a main road is simply unsafe. The driver in question readily admitted that he had made a poor decision and the demonstration clearly showed that he had.

Back to my question----would you consider this to be harassment or a teachable moment? I saw it as a teachable moment. As I said above, hearing 300' is not the same as seeing it; but, I also feel that the objective could have been achieved without embarassing the driver in question.

 

[CFLBrown]

Would you consider this to be a form of harassent or a teachable moment?

We had a demonstration as part of our PCM Thursday morning. Telematics showed that one of our drivers backed 300' feet on a main road. He had driven past the delivery point and rather than turn around decided to back. The on-car and center manager had us assemble in the parking lot. The on-car had two cones---he kept one and had the driver in question take the other one and start walking in the other direction toward our safety chair, who had walked off the 300' distance earlier that morning. When the driver reached that point he stopped, put down the cone and stood next to it. The on-car then described the scenario, relayed what the driver had done and gave what he felt were safer alternatives, which included walking it off. I have to admit that the demonstration was effective----it is one thing to hear 300' but to see it is quite another. It is the length of a football field and to back up that far on a main road is simply unsafe. The driver in question readily admitted that he had made a poor decision and the demonstration clearly showed that he had.

Back to my question----would you consider this to be harassment or a teachable moment? I saw it as a teachable moment. As I said above, hearing 300' is not the same as seeing it; but, I also feel that the objective could have been achieved without embarassing the driver in question.

Teachable moment to everyone but the harassed driver. The demo could have been done without naming names.

 

[oldngray]

He shouldn't have been pointed out in my opinion, but I do agree its OK to remind drivers if you go past a stop walk it off or go around the block. Definitely never back like that on a main road unless there was some other reason we don't know about.

 

[barnyard]

Our center is doing similar. Instead of naming the driver, google earth maps are printed that include street names. Trace shows drivers driving into very short driveways, many times within sight of a cul de sac. Because the street names are on the maps, it is pretty easy to know which driver it is.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

He shouldn't have been pointed out in my opinion, but I do agree its OK to remind drivers if you go past a stop walk it off or go around the block. Definitely never back like that on a main road unless there was some other reason we don't know about.

There was no other reason---the driver drove past the stop and rather than walk it off or turn around decided to back up. In other words, he took a shortcut.

 

[3 done 3 to go]

Do things the way they want. It will make u money. It keeps your pace at a consistent speed.

 

[barnyard]

To answer your question, I don't see anything wrong with it. He got his nose rubbed in it. Better than a warning letter or suspension.

 

[stink219]

I feel by singling out the employee in front of his peers was 1. Against the UPS Code of ethics. 2. Against Article 37 and 3. OSHA could define this behavior as psychological violence.
I believe that this demonstration was an effective tool. But the manager could have chosen a random volunteer instead of the "offender". Watching or participating, the point was made clear.

 

[soberups]

Back to my question----would you consider this to be harassment or a teachable moment? I saw it as a teachable moment. As I said above, hearing 300' is not the same as seeing it; but, I also feel that the objective could have been achieved without embarassing the driver in question.

Depends upon the context and manner in which it was done.

Was the driver singled out, or anonymous?

Is the company consistent in its questioning of drivers who show 300' backs, or is such behavior conveniently overlooked when committed by bonus drivers who come in under the planned day?

Was the employee given an opportunity to explain any mitigating factors or circumstances regarding his decision to back that far?

Was the employee threatened with discipline, or simply questioned?


Telematics is neither good nor evil, the problem(s) lie in the manner in which the company chooses to utilize the data.

 

[soberups]

To answer your question, I don't see anything wrong with it. He got his nose rubbed in it. Better than a warning letter or suspension.

Or backing up over a child.

 

[soberups]

I wonder how the company will choose to prioritize the conflicting metrics when the drivers who are being instructed to achieve 85% or better ORION compliance start showing a huge increase in their total backing events as a result. Will it be a "teachable moment" for management when the problem of conflicting metrics is explained to them, or will they just mindlessly chase whichever number happens to be the current flavor of the week?

 

[oldngray]

The flavor of the week is brown of course. Don't ask where it comes from

 

[hellfire]

The drivers that were shocked by it the most in my Center were the runners. Now they have to wear their seatbelts, shut the engine off at each stop, shut the bulkhead door, and they have to take their lunch. They also don't clock out before 5:00 anymore. I haven't had any problems with it. I do make more money than I used to because I walk off more stops.

where does the lunch factor in pops,, i punched out at 348 friday

 

[scratch]

where does the lunch factor in pops,, i punched out at 348 friday

We aren't allowed to take Code 5 in my Center, I wish we could. If you are punching out at 3:48, you must not have any pickup accounts. Maybe you should try out for the Olympics!

 

[barnyard]

Was the employee given an opportunity to explain any mitigating factors or circumstances regarding his decision to back that far?

Very good point.

For every rule, there can certainly be a valid exception.

 

[cosmo1]

I wonder how the company will choose to prioritize the conflicting metrics when the drivers who are being instructed to achieve 85% or better ORION compliance start showing a huge increase in their total backing events as a result. Will it be a "teachable moment" for management when the problem of conflicting metrics is explained to them, or will they just mindlessly chase whichever number happens to be the current flavor of the week?

I was talking to my on-car last week, and she pretty much said that we are going to have unlearn a lot of what we've been instructed to do in order to meet that 85%.

 

[soberups]

I was talking to my on-car last week, and she pretty much said that we are going to have unlearn a lot of what we've been instructed to do in order to meet that 85%.

Or... we can continue using our experience and area knowledge to go out there and get the job done in the safest and most efficient manner possible, and learn to tune them out when they bitch and whine at us for failing to generate 85% compliance. That 85% isnt a holy writ from God almighty, its just a random number that some IE guy pulled out of his ass and decided to get excited about. It doesnt mean anything in the real world.

 

[1BROWNWRENCH]

Or... we can continue using our experience and area knowledge to go out there and get the job done in the safest and most efficient manner possible, and learn to tune them out when they bitch and whine at us for failing to generate 85% compliance. That 85% isnt a holy writ from God almighty, its just a random number that some IE guy pulled out of his ass and decided to get excited about. It doesnt mean anything in the real world.

Just like we are expected to have a 5% or less failure rate all the time. NOT GONNA HAPPEN.