Be careful who you give your cell phone number

[Jones]

Re: New question

OK, let's take this to a new level:

Is finding the drivers number in the dealers phone, and the arrest of the driver, enough for UPS to insist on a drug test?

Absolutely not. A drug dealer having your phone number does not fit the reasonable cause definition.

He must be observed by 2 members of management, slurring speech, blood shot eyes, smelling like alcohol/drugs etc the list goes on, but having a cell phone number is not one of the criteria.

We had a situation similar to this happen in our building.
Driver was at a house where a drug bust went down (this was off the clock, on a weekend). Driver was not arrested, but he was questioned about who he was, why he was there, where he worked, etc. One of the cops knew the security manager at our building and told him about it. Security then interviewed the driver to confirm what the police had told them, and then insisted that he take a piss test. Driver refused, based on the contract language cited above. He was terminated for refusing to follow instructions, and that decision was upheld at panel.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I would think the difference there being the driver you spoke of was in the house at the time of the drug bust while the driver in the OP had his cell phone number on the suspected drug dealer's cell phone. I agree that both merit investigation but the driver who was at the house does warrant the urine test and his refusal to submit to the test justifiably led to his termination which was upheld at panel. While I don't think that the OP was involved with drugs I do this he was making a buck on the side by working with the dealer. JMHO.

 

[Jones]

I would think the difference there being the driver you spoke of was in the house at the time of the drug bust while the driver in the OP had his cell phone number on the suspected drug dealer's cell phone. I agree that both merit investigation but the driver who was at the house does warrant the urine test and his refusal to submit to the test justifiably led to his termination which was upheld at panel. While I don't think that the OP was involved with drugs I do this he was making a buck on the side by working with the dealer. JMHO.

Obviously the panel agreed with your reasoning, but the point is that the contract language is very specific as to what constitutes reasonable cause, to wit:

Reasonable cause is defined as an employee's observable action, appearance, or conduct that clearly indicate the need for a fitnes-for-duty evaluation.

The employee's conduct must be witnessed by at least two (2) supervisors, if available. The witnesses must have recieved training in observing a person's behavior to determine if a medical evaluation is required.

Keep in mind that this guy was never arrested or charged with anything.
Based on that, the driver was on solid contractual grounds to refuse a urinalysis and I think the panel decision was a mistake because it establishes precedent for the company to act outside of the agreed upon language and conditions.

 

[trplnkl]

I would think the difference there being the driver you spoke of was in the house at the time of the drug bust while the driver in the OP had his cell phone number on the suspected drug dealer's cell phone. I agree that both merit investigation but the driver who was at the house does warrant the urine test and his refusal to submit to the test justifiably led to his termination which was upheld at panel. While I don't think that the OP was involved with drugs I do this he was making a buck on the side by working with the dealer. JMHO.

Wouldn't this, by definition, be "involved"?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Wouldn't this, by definition, be "involved"?

Poor choice of words on my part. How about "doing"?

 

[trplnkl]

Poor choice of words on my part. How about "doing"?

Now that I will go along with.

 

[probellringer]

its really hard to EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED in this case....thats why i drive down street stopping randomly and honking horn when no one is around...jk interesting to see how this unravels

 

[705red]

Re: New question

We had a situation similar to this happen in our building.
Driver was at a house where a drug bust went down (this was off the clock, on a weekend). Driver was not arrested, but he was questioned about who he was, why he was there, where he worked, etc. One of the cops knew the security manager at our building and told him about it. Security then interviewed the driver to confirm what the police had told them, and then insisted that he take a piss test. Driver refused, based on the contract language cited above. He was terminated for refusing to follow instructions, and that decision was upheld at panel.

He was terminated for refusing to work as directed. AT that point he should have taken the test and argue the results were found without reasonable cause. IMO

 

[tieguy]

Re: New question

He was terminated for refusing to work as directed. AT that point he should have taken the test and argue the results were found without reasonable cause. IMO

I'm guessing he willingly takes the test if he is clean?

 

[705red]

Re: New question

I'm guessing he willingly takes the test if he is clean?

If he takes the test and fails you could argue that it did not fit the reasonable cause criteria! If he refuses its the same as a failed test.

I am in no way endorsing the use of drugs! I do not do drugs, but I did grow up like many of other teenagers and early 20 years olds that experimented from time to time.

We have a driving job and need to be on our toes at all times because in a split second our lives and others could be changed forever.

 

[jennie]

Re: New question

If he takes the test and fails you could argue that it did not fit the reasonable cause criteria! If he refuses its the same as a failed test.

I am in no way endorsing the use of drugs! I do not do drugs, but I did grow up like many of other teenagers and early 20 years olds that experimented from time to time.

We have a driving job and need to be on our toes at all times because in a split second our lives and others could be changed forever.

Exactly! Red thats everything in a nutshell

 

[bigtoe1111]

arresting the driver at point of delivery is flimsy. to prove his direct involement, they would need recorded talk of him knowing what was in package. if he drove way out of his way might also be a factor. the other fella got blatantly screwed. he could be the "don" of the mafia himself, but he was not on the clock and he was not wearing anything associated with the uniform. he wasn't even arrested. to let this happen means the company owns all your time. and this happened during the weekend. IT WAS NOT ANY OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS.

 

[tieguy]

arresting the driver at point of delivery is flimsy. to prove his direct involement, they would need recorded talk of him knowing what was in package.

I don't know. If the pushers phone records show multiple phone calls with the driver also calling the pusher then it starts to look like there is a connection.


if he drove way out of his way might also be a factor. the other fella got blatantly screwed. he could be the "don" of the mafia himself, but he was not on the clock and he was not wearing anything associated with the uniform. he wasn't even arrested. to let this happen means the company owns all your time. and this happened during the weekend. IT WAS NOT ANY OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS.

Some grey area there. I guess the company made some type of reasonable cause arguement for the requested drug test. To be honest I'm surprised we won at the panel. I could see us winning the right to test the driver on future events but it seems the company took an interpretation that was not previously listed in the language. For that reason I would think the driver should have been able to refuse. I'm not too bothered by it. I think a driver who was embarrassed to have been in a drug house during a drug bust would have gladly submitted to a drug test to prove he was not a user but an innocent smuck in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[trplnkl]

I don't know. If the pushers phone records show multiple phone calls with the driver also calling the pusher then it starts to look like there is a connection.

Many drivers, as already stated, give out their cell numbers to repeat customers simply because it can make the delivery day go a little smoother. I can even see the driver having a steady customer in their speed dial. This doesn't mean they are knowingly involved with an illegal activity.
I can see how the hint of a connection could raise from this but it's hardly proof of any wrong doing.
As far as the driver receiving a call from the pusher and then a return call from the driver isn't enough to predict an improper connection either, just an attempt to align a delivery attempt.
I can see how the police would want to investigate the driver and I have no problem with it. If he is innocent it will come out and if he is guilty I hope they can prove it and throw the book at him.

Some grey area there. I guess the company made some type of reasonable cause arguement for the requested drug test. To be honest I'm surprised we won at the panel. I could see us winning the right to test the driver on future events but it seems the company took an interpretation that was not previously listed in the language. For that reason I would think the driver should have been able to refuse. I'm not too bothered by it. I think a driver who was embarrassed to have been in a drug house during a drug bust would have gladly submitted to a drug test to prove he was not a user but an innocent smuck in the wrong place at the wrong time.

To me, this scenario isn't as gray as the first one. Not having ever been in a "drug house"(to my knowledge), I can't say for certain that it would be obvious if you ended up in one innocently but I would think it would be noticeable. So, to me, it makes sense that this person would at least be a suspect in distribution.
Just based on what has been posted here, I'm not convinced that a drug test is legit. I'm just thankful I have never had to face something like this from any angle.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

"Drug houses" aren't going to look like a grocery store for drugs, but just a regular house, like you and I live in. Not talking about "grow" houses, which are different. IMO, if I had a cell phone, which I don't, but if I did, I wouldn't give out the number to anyone on my route for the purpose of "making life easier". You drive, you show up, you deliver/pick up. You can always go back if they have more pick ups or aren't ready for the delivery.

I used to call my pick ups, to see if they had anything going out. I would call from my first afternoon pick up. I don't do this anymore, as I believe it diminishes the quality of the service we provide and gives false numbers on that report. Again, jmho!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

"Drug houses" aren't going to look like a grocery store for drugs, but just a regular house, like you and I live in. Not talking about "grow" houses, which are different. IMO, if I had a cell phone, which I don't, but if I did, I wouldn't give out the number to anyone on my route for the purpose of "making life easier". You drive, you show up, you deliver/pick up. You can always go back if they have more pick ups or aren't ready for the delivery.

Drug houses don't normally blend in with the others. Increased foot traffic, blinds drawn 24/7, and a car parked out front worth more than the house itself usually cause them to stand out.

Steve, I know that you are not a cell phone advocate, and I am far from one myself, but I do carry one and do give my number out to a few customers as it benefits both of us. PAS/EDD makes it so much easier as all I have to do is scroll down to their stop to see what they have and then they will decide if they want to come meet me or wait.

I used to call my pick ups, to see if they had anything going out. I would call from my first afternoon pick up. I don't do this anymore, as I believe it diminishes the quality of the service we provide and gives false numbers on that report. Again, jmho!

I do not call my pickups as they are paying for the service, not for a phone call. I also do not allow my pickup customers to put out a sign indicating whether they have pkgs going or not as I have been burned in the past on this. Our driver who delivers the mall has 60+ P/U stops and will call most of them. He also is normally punched out and gone by 1600 and I have had a few of his pickups transferred to me as he was too early for them. As far as the false numbers, you do have a point but I think that if I were paying $14/week or whatever it is now I would at least expect the driver to walk in my door every day.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

I think that if I were paying $14/week or whatever it is now I would at least expect the driver to walk in my door every day.

You ain't kidding!

 

[Braveheart]

I give my number to my customers too. Customer service ring a bell?

So if a customer calls to see if I have his new hunting rifle and I say yes be right there. Then he shoots his wife, do I get arrested for that too? Either the cop is an idiot looking to get sued or the driver is an idiot.

I think if the driver knew there were drugs in box he would not have stopped at house as they were getting busted, unless he was an idiot.

 

[trplnkl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer
I think that if I were paying $14/week or whatever it is now I would at least expect the driver to walk in my door every day.

You ain't kidding!

For me it would depend on how much I was shipping out on a regular basis. If I only shipped a few per week, I would rather the driver call me at or after a set time and if I had nothing I would save him and myself time by having him breeze on by. If I had other issues to discuss with him, I would do it at the time of the call.
Sometimes the best customer service we can provide is leaving them alone.

 

[Camping Nana]

but I think that if I were paying $14/week or whatever it is now I would at least expect the driver to walk in my door every day.

More like $17 or $18 per week now. It wasn't that many years ago it was only $5.