Disciplinary action already....in cab cameras.

[Bubblehead]

I am curious as to where the outrage is for the Teamsters who have been working for years in the various buildings with HD quality cameras in every square inch of their work space?

Our newest building here locally rivals the video capabilities of a Las Vegas casino, with a control room that would blow your mind.

My question here is how does this group of posters differentiate between the long established and widely accepted building cameras from these newly installed vehicle cameras?

 

[Thebrownblob]

I am curious as to where the outrage is for the Teamsters who have been working for years in the various buildings with HD quality cameras in every square inch of their work space?

Our newest building here locally rivals the video capabilities of a Las Vegas casino, with a control room that would blow your mind.

My quest here is how does this group of posters differentiate between the long established and widely accepted building cameras from these newly installed vehicle cameras?

Thank you, exactly. And they use it for discipline. And to over supervise. My son is currently a belt tender he Looked at his phone to check the time, he carries a radio and over the radio a supervisor from The control room said “why are you looking at your phone?” Lol definitely over supervision.

 

[Bubblehead]

Yes there was thisView attachment 381803 memo from good old company lackey Denis J Taylor back in the first pandemic summer

Did you know that same Texas local grieved those cameras and have taken that grievance all the way through the Panel process and is preparing to arbitrate?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Did you know that same Texas local grieved those cameras and have taken that grievance all the way through the Panel process and is preparing to arbitrate?

Yep, that’s exactly what I’ve been telling them, we don’t even know that decision yet. Personally I think it’s going to be a hard case to win.

 

[Whither]

I am curious as to where the outrage is for the Teamsters who have been working for years in the various buildings with HD quality cameras in every square inch of their work space?

Our newest building here locally rivals the video capabilities of a Las Vegas casino, with a control room that would blow your mind.

My question here is how does this group of posters differentiate between the long established and widely accepted building cameras from these newly installed vehicle cameras?

I find that disgusting too! I am curious as to why you seem to justify it.

For the record, I work in an old building. No cameras to my knowledge.

 

[Whither]

Did you know that same Texas local grieved those cameras and have taken that grievance all the way through the Panel process and is preparing to arbitrate?

The last I heard from my BA the grievance had reached the National level.

 

[Bubblehead]

I find that disgusting too! I am curious as to why you seem to justify it.

For the record, I work in an old building. No cameras to my knowledge.

I am curious where you see anything more than an observation and a question asked in my post?

I justified nothing Pal.

 

[Bubblehead]

The last I heard from my BA the grievance had reached the National level.

It was deadlocked at the last National Panel in Florida and will proceed to arbitration.

 

[Whither]

I am curious where you see anything more than an observation and a question asked in my post?

I justified nothing Pal.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying "seem to", okay?

However, your post easily reads like "You guys must accept surveillance in the building, otherwise I'd have heard you raising a fuss over it as well (low-key alleging hypocrisy), so what's different about in-cab cameras (e.g., why not accept them too)?"

It's a pretty standard argument tactic.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Wasn't talking to you.


The person connected with this thread reported he was told there were 200 occurrences.....in one day.

If you get a drink of water, rub your neck....on and on....see? AND YES PICK YOUR NOSE....

That’s harassment in my opinion,absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Thebrownblob]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying "seem to", okay?

However, your post easily reads like "You guys must accept surveillance in the building, otherwise I'd have heard you raising a fuss over it as well (low-key alleging hypocrisy), so what's different about in-cab cameras (e.g., why not accept them too)?"

It's a pretty standard argument tactic.

Well a case that goes to arbitration is something we agree to abide by. If we lose the case we really don’t have much choice.

 

[Wally]

Lol that’s a bit of a stretch

Not really. Driving is a human activity wrought with near misses, large and small. It is perfectly normal. Record each one of them and what's perfectly normal seems dangerous driving.

I would bet each and every circle of honor driver has experienced 1000's of near misses in their career. Being good drivers, they adjusted to each occurrence turning something into nothing.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I am curious as to where the outrage is for the Teamsters who have been working for years in the various buildings with HD quality cameras in every square inch of their work space?

Our newest building here locally rivals the video capabilities of a Las Vegas casino, with a control room that would blow your mind.

My question here is how does this group of posters differentiate between the long established and widely accepted building cameras from these newly installed vehicle cameras?

I have worked in places with security cameras, I have been watching the camera monitors with a camera on me. I didn't like having a camera overhead looking down on me in my work station, but, I knew it was there when I took the job. Cameras to record areas of specific security concern are understandable. Cameras that are specifically meant to monitor a person's every movement are unacceptable, ones that are trained right on your face from 18 inches away are harassment.

I don't have those camera's at my center, and if they did have them as bad as what you describe, I wouldn't have taken the job. It's very simple. This is one of the reasons it's a bad idea to have things like retirement and healthcare handled through an employer. It makes it that much more difficult to pick up and leave an unacceptable work situation when you depend on employer provided benefits that you will have to do without for months on end when switching jobs.

This is what everyone who is trying to rationalize putting up with unacceptable conditions sounds like:

"They want to do anal probes on the way in to work every morning? Well I only have ten more years to retirement, it's their company, they can do what they want, I guess I'll tough it out. Anal probes ain't so bad, why would anyone complain about daily anal probes? What a bunch of sissies. Where was the outrage when the company started making us jerk off our supervisors every day?"

 

[Thebrownblob]

I have worked in places with security cameras, I have been watching the camera monitors with a camera on me. I didn't like having a camera overhead looking down on me in my work station, but, I knew it was there when I took the job. Cameras to record areas of specific security concern are understandable. Cameras that are specifically meant to monitor a person's every movement are unacceptable, ones that are trained right on your face from 18 inches away are harassment.

I don't have those camera's at my center, and if they did have them as bad as what you describe, I wouldn't have taken the job. It's very simple. This is one of the reasons it's a bad idea to have things like retirement and healthcare handled through an employer. It makes it that much more difficult to pick up and leave an unacceptable work situation when you depend on employer provided benefits that you will have to do without for months on end when switching jobs.

This is what everyone who is trying to rationalize putting up with unacceptable conditions sounds like:

"They want to do anal probes on the way in to work every morning? Well I only have ten more years to retirement, it's their company, they can do what they want, I guess I'll tough it out. Anal probes ain't so bad, why would anyone complain about daily anal probes? What a bunch of sissies. Where was the outrage when the company started making us jerk off our supervisors every day?"

Another pretty large stretch, Anal probes would be a violation of my bodily autonomy. (Although it feels like they stick it in pretty deep some days)
Jerking off the Supervisor would be sexual harassment lol

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Not really. Driving is a human activity wrought with near misses, large and small. It is perfectly normal. Record each one of them and what's perfectly normal seems dangerous driving.

I would bet each and every circle of honor driver has experienced 1000's of near misses in their career. Being good drivers, they adjusted to each occurrence turning something into nothing.

People act differently when being observed, and it's not the way the company thinks. It's the centipede effect. You start thinking about everything you do that is normally automatic. It is distracting, and leads to bad decision making.

 

[UnionStrong]

Perhaps

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Another pretty large stretch, Anal probes would be a violation of my bodily autonomy. (Although it feels like they stick it in pretty deep some days)
Jerking off the Supervisor would be sexual harassment lol

I wasn't comparing the two situations. I was using an exaggerated situation to make my position more clear. A small change in the workplace is easy for some people to rationalize, that doesn't make it right.

 

[UnionStrong]

Another pretty large stretch, Anal probes would be a violation of my bodily autonomy. (Although it feels like they stick it in pretty deep some days)
Jerking off the Supervisor would be sexual harassment lol

 

[Thebrownblob]

I wasn't comparing the two situations. I was using an exaggerated situation to make my position more clear. A small change in the workplace is easy for some people to rationalize, that doesn't make it right.

It’s really not about rationalization. You haven’t given a very good reason why they shouldn’t have those cameras if you were arguing this case I think you would lose it. The company is going to come with statistics of other companies safety picture getting better after they install cameras. As well as all kinds of impressive demonstrations. Your argument is anal probes and jack off sessions?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

It’s really not about rationalization. You haven’t given a very good reason why they shouldn’t have those cameras if you were arguing this case I think you would lose it. The company is going to come with statistics of other companies safety picture getting better after they install cameras. As well as all kinds of impressive demonstrations. Your argument is anal probes and jack off sessions?

No, my argument is "hey judge, I'm gonna mount their camera on the bench right in your face. How do you like it?"

It's unacceptable harassment on its face, you don't have to argue it. You are in the position of having to prove why it's ok, which you haven't done.