The Package Car Safety Concern response from the UPS Help Line is in.
- Thread starter Integrity
- Start date
FracusBrown
Ponies and Planes
Why would there be retribution? No disruption, no expense, not even taken as a serious concern. They probably got a chuckle out of it.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I think the purpose of the call...was to see if the system that UPS claims to have in place to address safety issues is for real, or simply a facade that allows the company to pretend that the safety of its people is a priority.
I do not think that Integrity had an expectation... that the person who answered his call would respond by saying "hey, thats a great idea, I will order those seatbelts today and have them installed by the end of the week." I do think that Integrity was at least hoping...that calling the number would allow him/her to actually speak to a human being who might have the ability to address his/her concerns.
The reality is this; the "help line" was established by UPS to maintain the illusion of concern for safety in order to avoid having to spend any money on implementing the reality of safety.
C'mon, Tie! I might agree with you EXCEPT for their reply:
"The Response:
Thank the caller. Please advise the caller that more specific information will be required to adequately investigate this allegation. Please ask the caller to provide additional , specific information such as job location and type, names of people involved and to whom, if anyone, he or she has reported this information. This call will be closed at this time."
This is a BS response that means NOTHING. They should have been HONEST:
"We're sorry Mr Integrity. We're certainly not going to do anything about your concern. In fact, we're rolling on the floor laughing about it. But thank you for calling."
Why weren't they at least honest? They certainly don't need "more specific information". Why don't they just say "It would cost too much"? I could then respect the honesty. But I can't respect the BS reply the Hotline came back with.
tieguy
Banned
the line is there if the boss is making you perform unsafe acts. Its not there for getting package cars modified.
anyway you twist it the answer will be the same. I don't need someone dressing up in yellow tights and calling himself something he does not have to understand this point.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
So its "safe" to drive a package car that was designed to allow the drivers head to smash thru the windshield in a collision? So its "safe" to intentionally refuse to equip that vehicle with a belt that would prevent this from ocurring?
The help line isnt there to prevent the boss from making us perform unsafe acts. Thats what the contract, the grievance procedure, OSHA, DOT and federal laws are for. The help line is there to allow a bunch of pinheads from Corporate to pretend that they give a damn without having to prove it by spending any money.
FracusBrown
Ponies and Planes
It would help if you could show at least one violation of law, policy, or procedure. Just because one unidentified person thinks its unsafe doesn't make it legitimate. I think riding in any vehicle is less safe than not riding in a vehicle. Should I call it in and expect a resolution? Its an unfounded concern. It's less safe to ride in a passenger car than it is to ride in an old package car. Should UPS prohibit people from driving their own car to work?
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
How is that relevant?
So it's less safe to ride in (or drive) a passenger car than it is to ride in an old package car? Hold on a minute...
To a certain extent, I'll semi-agree with you. These 80's package cars don't start up at a light like passenger cars, don't stop like passenger cars, and certainly don't handle like passenger cars. In any day we're most often driving under thirty mph and any accidents that occur (avoidable or not) are likely to be low-speed events.
(Side note: I live in Massachusetts in the greater Boston area. The drivers in this town are colloquially known as some of the worst drivers in the country, and it's half-true. However, driver accident fatality statistics in MA are actually quite low compared to most other states. Likely because there is so much traffic on our congested roadways that most accidents are low-speed fender-benders...)
We're clearly not popping wheelies and doing burnouts in these package cars, and I'm often amazed at the moves people will pull in front of the GIGANTIC BROWN TRUCK I'm driving. It's just physics, this truck will cream your passenger car, easily, and the package car more often than not will be in service the next day.
But in a passenger car, there are likely front and side air bags, brakes that will do something meaningful in a panic-stop, safety glass all around, three point seat-belts, etc. etc.
A UPS driver in Maine was killed this year waiting to make a left turn at a four-way intersection into oncoming traffic. Someone driving a passenger car hit him so hard from behind that he was pushed into the opposing traffic and lost his life.
If that had happened to someone in a passenger car, they would have lived to tell the tale.
Of course not riding in a vehicle at all is safer than riding in a vehicle, DUH. How is that random fact relevant to UPS drivers who drive eight or nine or ten hours a day on the road? Are you the guy that said the windshields in package cars pop out real easy so don't worry if you slam your head against them?
(If you aren't that guy, I'll apologize in advance...)
Then once again, why weren't they honest? Why didn't they simply say that? "I'm sorry Mr Integrity, but this hotline is not meant to fix that type of concern".
I suppose you could say the boss was making me perform an unsafe act by sending me out in that car, but I would settle for an honest response from the Hotline.
tieguy
Banned
they don't want to completely blow him off , Lord knows he's already turning gnats into elephants. They did encourage him to stop hiding and go talk to the people in his district.
FracusBrown
Ponies and Planes
Its relevant because there has to be some standard to judge when action is warranted. I don't think the line is there to report your opinion on whats safe. Local, state and federal government says they meet safety requirements. Statistics and general knowledge show they are more safe than most vehicles. Of course they could be made safer, just like every other vehicle on the road, but they're already more safe than most. How is "unsafe" to be defined?
Drivers would be more safe wearing long pants and a helmet. Why not call in a safety concern? It doesn't make practical sense.
I guarantee you that given the chance no one would invest a few hundred dollars of their own money for these supposedly necessary safety improvements. Why should the company invest the share owners money if the people most benefited by the expense are unwilling to?
Last edited by a moderator:
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Incorrect.
The vehicles in question did meet the bare minimum safety standards in the year that they were built. They would not meet the minimum standards in place today and they would be illegal to dispatch onto a public road. Essentially, these vehicles are only legal to drive because they are "grandfathered in". In other words...UPS is taking advantage of a loophole in order to avoid having to provide safe equipment for its people to operate.
As to the question of "how is unsafe to be defined".....common sense would be a good place to start. Common sense tells me that if I can buckle the lap belt and still lean forward far enough to rest my forehead on the windshield and my jawbone on top of an unpadded steering wheel...the car is unsafe to drive.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
If you purchased a new car for your wife or daughter to drive....would you choose to eliminate the 3 point belt in favor of a lap belt in order to save yourself $50?
Thats what UPS chose to do.
Most of the vehicles in question were designed from the factory to be compatible with the 3 pt belts that were an option at that time. They could be easily upgraded to modern standards using factory, bolt-on parts.
I did this myself with my personal truck, a 1976 Chevy 3/4 ton pickup. It had lap belts only, but the attachment point for the 3 pt belt was in the roof pillar. I bought used 3 pt belts for that same model from a wrecking yard and had them bolted on. I think I spent about $50 on them. They were a $35 option from the factory in 1976.
And if push came to shove...I would be more than willing to pay for such an upgrade to the package car I drove everyday. My life may not be worth $50 to UPS, but it sure as hell is worth $50 to me and if UPS were unable to afford such upgrades after posting $850 million in profits last year I guess I would just have to dig deep and pay for it myself.
NHDRVR
Well-Known Member
We are not allowed to modify our vehicles in any way. This was made clear to us when, years ago, drivers were tapping into power lines in their trucks to run their radios. In other words, we are stuck with what we are given and we should take it or leave it...
brownmonster
Man of Great Wisdom
They added jump seats, lower hand rails, DIAD holders, telematics equipment, antennas for the early DIADs, new steering wheels with better grip etc. I'm pretty sure they can modify the truck when they see fit.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
They can---we can't.
FracusBrown
Ponies and Planes
I agree that it would be more safe. I just don't see that the risk is significant enough to warrant spending 10s of millions. It's not a $50 issue. If you're really that worried about it happening to you, you shouldn't be driving the vehicle for any amount of money.
I accept the risk, you believe you're entitled to be risk free. It really is your decision. Make a decision and live with the consequences like everyone else.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Thats pretty easy to say when the only thing you drive is a desk.
And your "tens of millions" figure is pure BS. The majority of UPS's package car fleet was built after '95 and already has 3 pt belts. It would not cost 10's of millions of dollars to replace the belts in the older cars. It could be done for less than is currently being spent on making us recite safety acronyms in order to pass Keter audits.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
It could certainly be done for less money than is being spent on that same package car to install telematic sensors. That tells you where the companies priorities "lie".
FracusBrown
Ponies and Planes
I drive lots of different stuff, some very dangerous, some not. I'm afraid of desk work though. It requires handling of unsafe paper .
