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
The Latest UPS Headlines
3rd Circuit Rejects Certification in UPS Discrimination Case
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="dannyboy" data-source="post: 570380" data-attributes="member: 484"><p>With the rest of the post being hearsay, let me respond to this.</p><p> </p><p>As you well know, job creation at UPS falls under union jurisdiction. </p><p> </p><p>Take a driver that becomes a diabetic after 15 years at UPS. Because of the type and medication, there are rules that prohibit him from driving. In many cases, UPS could and would create a job for that driver. Problem is, after 30 days, that job becomes a permanent full time position, and must be bid on building wide. So in less than one year, the driver is again without a job, and the job now takes on a life of its own.</p><p> </p><p>One of the two edged sword issues of being union.</p><p> </p><p>There are situations where the person could bid on a 22.5 job, but would have to take a steep pay cut to do so. They would also have to have the seniority to take the job.</p><p> </p><p>But what this article addresses is that the what they proposed as members of the class action suit, might not actually be qualified under the ADA. In other words, a diabetic might not be able to have a driving job, but he is not qualified under the law as a member of the class under this suit. </p><p> </p><p>So all they are saying is that they need to go back and make sure all the members of the class actually fall under the ADA rules for disability, and can be part of the class action.</p><p> </p><p>I do find it interesting that there are so many thoughts of bedswapping theorists when it comes to this type of thing.</p><p> </p><p>d</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 570380, member: 484"] With the rest of the post being hearsay, let me respond to this. As you well know, job creation at UPS falls under union jurisdiction. Take a driver that becomes a diabetic after 15 years at UPS. Because of the type and medication, there are rules that prohibit him from driving. In many cases, UPS could and would create a job for that driver. Problem is, after 30 days, that job becomes a permanent full time position, and must be bid on building wide. So in less than one year, the driver is again without a job, and the job now takes on a life of its own. One of the two edged sword issues of being union. There are situations where the person could bid on a 22.5 job, but would have to take a steep pay cut to do so. They would also have to have the seniority to take the job. But what this article addresses is that the what they proposed as members of the class action suit, might not actually be qualified under the ADA. In other words, a diabetic might not be able to have a driving job, but he is not qualified under the law as a member of the class under this suit. So all they are saying is that they need to go back and make sure all the members of the class actually fall under the ADA rules for disability, and can be part of the class action. I do find it interesting that there are so many thoughts of bedswapping theorists when it comes to this type of thing. d [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
The Latest UPS Headlines
3rd Circuit Rejects Certification in UPS Discrimination Case
Top