discharged for dishonesty

[Catatonic]

The ONLY people who felt our driver did anything wrong was UPS management. He was charged with a tier 3 and fired because it supposedly costs our center like 40 k.

It is just insane. It didn't really cost UPS anything. He got his job back three days later but it tells you a lot about the company.

This is unfortunately one of the down sides to a Union environment.
UPS has to be consistent or the Union will hold that against the company.

If this had been a non-Union worker, he would not have been fired and the good thing is he got his job back.

 

[Integrity]

mayeb its just 90% of the people when I post


either way, you guys suck ass to conversate with.

upssalesguy,

Do you think that UPS management employees are generally honest or dishonest in their dealings with their employees?

Sincerely,
I

 

[over9five]

mayeb its just 90% of the people when I post


either way, you guys suck ass to conversate with.

Wow.

 

[Backlasher]

wtf, I ask an honest question and I get jumped on. this site is nothing but a bunch of crying babies.

i'm gone.

Bye Bye now. Do we need 2 give you a metric equation to understand this.

Innocent till proven guilty. She was canned then told C.M. 2 friend off. Stop the social chat and get some sale leads. I wonder how many sales leads e would have if more effort from management went into that and less time stalking us?

I could c it possable not to feel TRUCK, not car, rub something. Maybe it happened inbetween the 5-8 second check of mirrors. Maybe we should keep 1 eye on 1 mirror and 1 eye on the other and never scan steering wheel so we will know we are not rubbing upssalesguy's car.

With everything on OUR plate and time pressure, I can c an unnoticed rub.

You can't run a driver like FACTORY PRODUCTION. We drive BIG TRUCKS and need more breathin room and less stress to keep from having these AT FAULT ACCIDENTS.

I think D.O.T. needs to be involved and regulate the work load on us!!! D.O.T. needs to do a real study on us and snap UPS in the rear. It's not just bout how many hours we put in but ow many stops an hour we do and miles put in to do it. Pick ups set at the same time but50 blocks apart.Come on, it's arrogent and foulish to drive us and then blame us.
This is really a public safety issue. Driven these BIG TRUCKS have to much risk and it's foulish to think something won't happen cause of training and paperwork when we get 150+ stops with time commitments and clean it withen this time frame or I'll lecture u on overallowed B.S.

This system is designed to make us drivers fail.

 

[menotyou]

mayeb its just 90% of the people when I post


either way, you guys suck ass to conversate with.

You aren't much better with spelling or punctuation.

 

[MC4YOU2]

This is unfortunately one of the down sides to a Union environment.UPS has to be consistent or the Union will hold that against the company.If this had been a non-Union worker, he would not have been fired and the good thing is he got his job back.

So are you saying a non union member, as in a ups employee in a right to work state, who pays no dues and does not hold membership in the union? That person would not be fired? Not sure about that. I am reasonably sure that a different company altogether might not automatically term a driver for the same incident though.

 

[Re-Raise]

mayeb its just 90% of the people when I post


either way, you guys suck ass to conversate with.

I don't know, but let me just throw this out there ..... maybe it is you?

I think of the 10 or so people who have responded to the original poster all have been supportive and can empathize with her situation except for 1.

We understand that it is possible to look over your shoulder to check for traffic and scrape something with the other side of the vehicle and not know it.

You don't know anything about it, and when I pointed that out you showed your true colors and how you felt about UPS drivers.

Take your little ball and go home, I don't want to "conversate" with you either.

 

[cosmo1]

either way, you guys suck ass to conversate with.

What??

 

[porkwagon]

mayeb its just 90% of the people when I post


either way, you guys suck ass to conversate with.

Conversate? Is that even an English word?

 

[Catatonic]

Conversate? Is that even an English word?

French ... it means talking with someone with your tongue in their mouth.

 

[upsgrunt]

His masterage of the English linguini helps him to selluate ups cervixes.

 

[cachsux]

His masterage of the English linguini helps him to selluate ups cervixes.

Sumtin telz me he`ins have lyttle suckses sperence wit cervixes ether.

 

[Re-Raise]

He only uses real words 90% of the time and spells them incorrectly 10% of the time.

 

[upslady86]

Did the mark on the car match up with your package car?

 

[hubrat]

mayeb its just 90% of the people when I post


either way, you guys suck ass to conversate with.

You don't like us, leave. Or don't. You're the one bitching. We could care less aboutcha. Scram. Don't forget the I.Q. you checked when you entered.

 

[hubrat]

So are you saying a non union member, as in a ups employee in a right to work state, who pays no dues and does not hold membership in the union? That person would not be fired? Not sure about that. I am reasonably sure that a different company altogether might not automatically term a driver for the same incident though.

A non-union member, or manager, could be fired and probably wouldn't get their job back. That's how I understood it.

 

[MC4YOU2]

A non-union member, or manager, could be fired and probably wouldn't get their job back. That's how I understood it.

Well I'd agree with that, but he said a non union person would not be fired. It's characterizing the union as the cause of the termination, which wont wash because we do have non union ups'ers all over the place, and they are normally treated equally unfairly. UPS might treat it's employees badly for a multitude of bad reasons, but I've yet to see them treat non union members better. In fact if they know they can use it to their advantage, I've seen them treated more unfairly because they are many times members who don't want to go to the union for help.

 

[menotyou]

This is unfortunately one of the down sides to a Union environment.
UPS has to be consistent or the Union will hold that against the company.

If this had been a non-Union worker, he would not have been fired and the good thing is he got his job back.

UPS isn't consistent with anything else, why would they start now? TAW handouts, fraternization with supervisors is allowed/not allowed, over dispatching some-not others, accidents overlooked-people fired for not lying about an imaginary rub, allowing harassment or not, and on and on and on.

So, what was that downside, again? UPS has to be what?

 

[UnconTROLLed]

I have learned that fighting/bickering, anger and hatred (aka telling your boss to "friend" off) are signs you care too much. Life is so much easier at UPS when you "give up" emotionally and not worry about anything except what you can control. Sort of like an abusive relationship, I guess (hope this does not offend anyone!). There are no honeymoons..

 

[Catatonic]

A non-union member, or manager, could be fired and probably wouldn't get their job back. That's how I understood it.

That is one part of the equation. When a non-Union member is fired it is because it is believed they should be fired and rarely does a non-Union member get their job back.

Well I'd agree with that, but he said a non union person would not be fired. It's characterizing the union as the cause of the termination, which wont wash because we do have non union ups'ers all over the place, and they are normally treated equally unfairly. UPS might treat it's employees badly for a multitude of bad reasons, but I've yet to see them treat non union members better. In fact if they know they can use it to their advantage, I've seen them treated more unfairly because they are many times members who don't want to go to the union for help.

Related to the above answer to rat, in a rational relationship, the company would not have fired the driver. In this case, the driver was fired so that in a future incident the Union could not come back and say, "You didn't fire that driver for a similar incident and so this driver should not be fired". It is also a bit of a PR game that the company plays along with the Union to make the Union look good in getting a driver their job back. This would appear to me to be a situation where the driver was never intended to be fired - it's all part of the game.

UPS isn't consistent with anything else, why would they start now? TAW handouts, fraternization with supervisors is allowed/not allowed, over dispatching some-not others, accidents overlooked-people fired for not lying about an imaginary rub, allowing harassment or not, and on and on and on.

So, what was that downside, again? UPS has to be what?

People see what they want to see.
I was talking about consistent company reaction to incidences that the company and the Union would negotiate on related to individual Union employees.
Accidents fall into this category, attendance does to, there are many others that you are more aware of than I am.
Disciplinary action against Union employees is an ongoing process at a macro level and a progressive process at the individual level.