Anyone have short term disability? - Page 2 - Brown Cafe

11-27-2007, 08:59 PM

I was hurt on the job, I followed the entire request per doctor's, per union, per company. upon my release back to work. I reported to work and they said they have nothing for me until I can lift 70 lbs. (I have had a spinal surgery, never going to happen) I have been to the union and the company and I have not been helped by either. I cannot believe that I do not qualify for at the very least short/long term disability. I asked both and both union and company both said I would not qualify. I was hurt on the job! I can not believe I do not qualify for some support after 19 years service. So after reading some of these post I wonder if each state is different. I've done nothing wrong and did not want to drag a lawyer in this, but I am running out of options. I think we all thought if we are hurt on the job we will be taken care of! Wrong!!!!

11-30-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upsgrunt

I checked into it several years ago and to get $4000 a month coverage was close to $300 a month premium.

Call your local they may have some phone numbers of some insurance companies with good rates. I have a policy that costs me $22.00 per week for $2000.00 per month payable for 2 years on any injury or illness on or off the job. The premium is taken out of your paycheck weekly. I was out 6 months for knee surgery and between workers comp and policy took home $3600.00 per month. Better to have the insurance and properly heal than to rush back to work because you need the money.....

12-02-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPS Houston

I was hurt on the job, I followed the entire request per doctor's, per union, per company. upon my release back to work. I reported to work and they said they have nothing for me until I can lift 70 lbs. . .

Workers Comp varies state to state. Search online for yours.

Tens of thousands of UPS employees have been told there's no work for them unless they are 100% healed. That is probably illegal (depending on the details)! Click these links . . .
http://www.

.com/
http://www.ada.gov

P.S.
HOLY COW!
I just tried to include a link to a major Class Action Lawsuit on the subject but the posting software Censored it automatically! The lawsuit has already been certified as a legitimate class action by a Judge, so it is not a frivolous or groundless lawsuit. And the class of covered UPS employees going back several years is in the tens of thousands. Everyone who is in the specific circumstance is automatically included in the Class by law, you don't have to know about it, or specifically join, or sign up, or approve. That's how class actions work. Three specific individuals are suing on behalf of all employees similarly situated. The Lawsuit will proceed with or without the knowledge of BrownCafe readers. If the Lawsuit is successful, notices will be posted, letters will be mailed. All effected employees will know. (As well as everyone else.) So why censor a certified lawsuit that seeks to force UPS to obey the Americans With Disabilities Act. Isn't obeying The Law a good thing? Isn't clarifying the meaning of the language of the law a good thing?

No one censors me when I post the website that documents endless Teamster wrongdoing:
http://www.irbcases.org

scratch · 12-02-2007, 03:06 PM

jonfrum,
I just moderated your last post myself, and it was not censored by myself or another moderator. I read the link as "www.censored.com", please correct me if I am wrong. I can't contact you since you will not register as a regular member. We do use filters to keep out spam and bad language, but I don't know why that link had the "censored Smilie" on it, I have never seen that myself since the word "censored" is not on the banned word list. We do not ban certain links regarding lawsuits as a rule, the only exception may be if a lawyer is trying to spam the site looking for clients.

moreluck · 12-02-2007, 03:19 PM

I checked out www.censored.com,
and it says explicit adult content !!

I didn't enter.

tieguy · 12-02-2007, 04:25 PM

Screw him. He should have very limited access rights anyway as an anonymous poster. He won't show respect to Cheryls handi work by registering but yet has the gall to try to acuse the site of favoritism? You should refuse his future posts for even suggesting such a thing.

govols019 · 12-02-2007, 05:09 PM

Damn, give it a rest.

satellitedriver · 12-02-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moreluck

I checked out www.censored.com,
and it says explicit adult content !!

I didn't enter.

More, I did enter. It is a porn site for any kind of kink.
It has no place or value to the discussion.
PAX

govols019 · 12-02-2007, 05:37 PM

I believe whatever software the forum uses to filter is what caused the link to show up as www.censored.com. I don't think that was what he posted.

rod · 12-02-2007, 05:42 PM

Oh great- the wife already thinks I'm porn surfing when I'm on here. (hey wait a minute- as long as I'm being accused of it.............)

tieguy · 12-02-2007, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by govols019

Damn, give it a rest.

why? its bad enough he pisses on cheryls work here by not registering but he then has the gall of accusing the moderators of being biased?
Time to call you out . Are you supporting this site or defending other peoples right to piss on it?

12-02-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scratch

jonfrum,
I just moderated your last post myself, and it was not censored by myself or another moderator. I read the link as "www.censored.com", please correct me if I am wrong. I can't contact you since you will not register as a regular member. We do use filters to keep out spam and bad language, but I don't know why that link had the "censored Smilie" on it, I have never seen that myself since the word "censored" is not on the banned word list. We do not ban certain links regarding lawsuits as a rule, the only exception may be if a lawyer is trying to spam the site looking for clients.

Hi Scratch,
Like I said, the BrownCafe posting software automatically censored my link the instant I tried to test-post it.

There are two posting buttons: Preview Post and Submit Reply. I used the first one to "test" my post to see how it would look, then I planned to use the "real" posting button to actually post to the board. This is how I always post. Anyway, the "test" post was immediately rejected. The stated reason was I had used too many icons (smiley faces and such). Apparently there is a limit of 13 or so. But I hadn't used any at all! The BrownCafe software had taken the middle portion of my class-action hyperlink and overwrote it with so many "censored" icons that the post was rejected technically for too many icons, rather than for the original phrase in the middle of the website address. The censored phrase is not objectionable by any standard whatsoever. It's just the address of a website created to keep people informed about this specific lawsuit. Obviously someone has programmed the software to block the posting of that particular website. This is why I made the point that the lawsuit had been certified as a valid class action by the judge, despite UPS' rejected motions to block it.

Since I still wanted to post the rest of my original thoughts, and add an explanation about why I can't provide a link to the website, I deleated all but one of the "censored" icons and posted as usual, without any trouble.

There was no intention by me (or the posting software) that anyone would actually try to visit a porno site with the word "censored" in it. Look carefully folks, it's the "censored" ICON, not the WORD "censored."

By the way, my email address is still WDesmond@aol.com. I've previously posted my email address and other personal information on several occasions. Scratch, you even emailed me in the past, (but I don't expect you to remember my email address off the top of your head.) It should be in your address book unless you've done a spring cleaning.

12-02-2007, 08:57 PM

From the BrownCafe FAQ:

Why have some of the words in my post been blanked?
Certain words may have been censored by the administrator. If your posts contain any censored words, they will be blanked-out like this:

.

The same words are censored for all users, and censoring is done by a computer simply searching and replacing words. It is in no way 'intelligent'.
http://www.browncafe.com/forum/faq.p...censor_explain

rod · 12-03-2007, 07:05 PM

I hate censorship

govols019 · 12-03-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tieguy

why? its bad enough he pisses on cheryls work here by not registering but he then has the gall of accusing the moderators of being biased?
Time to call you out . Are you supporting this site or defending other peoples right to piss on it?

Time to call me out? What are you, 10 years old?

I don't see Cheryl stalking JonFrum from thread to thread trying to intimidate him into registering. If she has a problem with him then she has the power to deal with it.

I've asked you this before but maybe I've missed your reply, exactly how is he "pissing" on this site? He is well within the rules of this forum by not registering. You might be someones boss at work but here we are all equal. Deal with it.

happybob · 12-04-2007, 09:53 AM

The law suit this is being discussed here is still in the preliminary stages. UPS has appealed the judges decision to alow the case to go forward as a class suit. The 3rd circuit has agreed to hear the appeal. The judge issuing the original decision has also ruled that the cased will proceed, something the company vehemently oposed, while the appeal is working its way thru the 3rd circuit. The company is expected to appeal this decision as well and I have yet to hear if they have.

Cheryl, is there a reason why posters, registered members or not, can not post links to the firm handleing this case, since is does/will have a profound affect on many members of UPS? Just curious, because I have noticed in other posts at this site the the firms name does get censored out of those posts.

12-05-2007, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happybob

The law suit this is being discussed here is still in the preliminary stages. UPS has appealed the judges decision to alow the case to go forward as a class suit. The 3rd circuit has agreed to hear the appeal. The judge issuing the original decision has also ruled that the cased will proceed, something the company vehemently oposed, while the appeal is working its way thru the 3rd circuit. The company is expected to appeal this decision as well and I have yet to hear if they have.

Cheryl, is there a reason why posters, registered members or not, can not post links to the firm handleing this case, since is does/will have a profound affect on many members of UPS? Just curious, because I have noticed in other posts at this site the the firms name does get censored out of those posts.

"On August 28, 2007, UPS also asked the District Court to stay all proceedings until the Third Circuit rules on its appeal. Basically, UPS asked the District Court to order that the trial level proceedings stop and no discovery go forward until the Third Circuit issues a ruling on its appeal. On November 6, 2007, the District Court heard argument on UPS’s motion to stay and denied its request that all discovery must stop. Discovery in this case now will proceed in stages. The District Court also ordered the appointment of a Special Master to assist with issues pertaining to discovery of UPS’s computer systems and specifically to address Plaintiffs' argument that UPS has failed to preserve evidence relevant to this case."
[ Source: Willie the shoeshine boy. ]

scratch · 12-05-2007, 04:31 PM

The owner of this site does not like it being used for free advertising, so that is why links to law firm's websites are not allowed. I know of several times when lawyers have been known to start threads on the Brown Cafe to try to get clients. Personally, I don't see any problems with info on a lawsuit, maybe a case number or something that people could Google or Yahoo themselves for research.
JMHO

JonFrums link was censored by the filter software, I have never seen it done that way. He was not posting links to a porn site, that link just came out looking like that. We do welcome open discussions here, but Cheryl does have a few reasonable rules. And judging by the number of hits on other Discussion Boards of this type, she knows what she is doing.