Disciplinary action already....in cab cameras.

[Thebrownblob]

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.

Well the company is going to say they’ll save millions of dollars in lawsuits, as well as improve their safety picture. And they have statistics from other companies they have implemented the technology that show exactly that. They will not address and most likely deny the harassment issue, that will be our sides job, hopefully competently to the arbitrator. You’re right a judge doesn’t have to worry about being safe when he’s sitting in his chair with a gavel.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Well the company is going to say they’ll save millions of dollars in lawsuits, as well as improve their safety picture. And they have statistics from other companies they have implemented the technology that show exactly that. They will not address and most likely deny the harassment issue, that will be our sides job hopefully competently to the arbitrator. You’re right a judge doesn’t have to worry about being safe when he’s sitting in his chair with a gavel.

If they want to mount a dash camera with no inside facing capabilities whatsoever, fine. I doubt having the inward facing capabilities has had any sort of positive impact on safety whatsoever.

Also, unless someone is grieving it now it will be addressed in negotiations. If that fails, and we strike, and that doesn't settle it, the NRLB will get a mediator involved. Or maybe the POTUS will try to force us back to work.

 

[Thebrownblob]

If they want to mount a dash camera with no inside facing capabilities whatsoever, fine. I doubt having the inward facing capabilities has had any sort of positive impact on safety whatsoever.

I’m hoping that’s what the arbitration case decides.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I’m hoping that’s what the arbitration case decides.

You're talking about the case for the building cameras? I hope so too. That will be tougher because buildings have had cameras in them for a long time. But, if people were more willing to walk on unacceptable conditions, that would be more powerful than anything an arbitrator has to say.

 

[Thebrownblob]

You're talking about the case for the building cameras? I hope so too. That will be tougher because buildings have had cameras in them for a long time. But, if people were more willing to walk on unacceptable conditions, that would be more powerful than anything an arbitrator has to say.

Nope this case is about a grievance that was filed on the cameras in the vehicles, if we lose it there won’t be much to argue about in the contract except possibly what can be used. Not if they can have them.

 

[UnionStrong]

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?"

The probes would be a nice change of pace…..as long as a high quality lube was used. Never jerked off a supervisor….

 

[over9five]

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.

Absolutely.

 

[Thebrownblob]

The probes would be a nice change of pace…..as long as a high quality lube was used. Never jerked off a supervisor….

How bad do you need this eight hour day?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Absolutely.

Absolutely? Well if you’re asking me I absolutely agree with you, but I’m not the arbitrator. Also I’m not even 100% sure it’s an actual camera that looks at you and videos you constantly, just records motion or is motion activated.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Nope this case is about a grievance that was filed on the cameras in the vehicles, if we lose it there won’t be much to argue about in the contract except possibly what can be used. Not if they can have them.

Hadn't heard about that case. The Teamsters would have been better off leaving it to negotiations rather than getting a fake has been judge involved. We should be able to negotiate anything, regardless of what a fake has been judge says about the legality of a thing. If Teamsters refuse to work under those conditions, we negotiate over it. If the company agrees to no inward facing capabilities at all, not just "disabled" options, then that's what goes into the contract.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Absolutely? Well if you’re asking me I absolutely agree with you, but I’m not the arbitrator. Also I’m not even 100% sure it’s an actual camera that looks at you and videos you constantly, just records motion or is motion activated.

It doesn't matter what it is or isn't right now. Not putting a stop to it now will make it that much harder to stop when they do start video and audio recording. Or, they will do it covertly.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Hadn't heard about that case. The Teamsters would have been better off leaving it to negotiations rather than getting a fake has been judge involved. We should be able to negotiate anything, regardless of what a fake has been judge says about the legality of a thing. If Teamsters refuse to work under those conditions, we negotiate over it. If the company agrees to no inward facing capabilities at all, not just "disabled" options, then that's what goes into the contract.

But what if he agrees with us?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

But what if he agrees with us?

If something is deemed illegal, it can't be included in a contract, or the entire contract will be deemed null and void. If something is deemed legal, it can still be excluded through contract negotiations.

For an exaggerated example to help clarify: a contract can't include "mass murder mondays". Murder is illegal, allowing it in a contract doesn't make it legal.

Having a boom box isn't illegal, but the company and union can agree that no ghetto blasters will be allowed in the building.

 

[Whither]

Hadn't heard about that case. The Teamsters would have been better off leaving it to negotiations rather than getting a fake has been judge involved. We should be able to negotiate anything, regardless of what a fake has been judge says about the legality of a thing. If Teamsters refuse to work under those conditions, we negotiate over it. If the company agrees to no inward facing capabilities at all, not just "disabled" options, then that's what goes into the contract.

That's a winner, Zube! The biggest "enemy" we face is complacency in our own ranks. That's why the company nearly always has the upper-hand. Our working conditions should not be decided by any judge -- real or fake (ha!). No, we should have a seat at that table, and if an agreement can't be hashed out, we can walk.

For example. I recently lost an Art 37 grieve at panel. The grieve was against our arrogant labor manager, who, given the weakness of my local, thinks he is licensed to act like a petty tyrant toward us lowly hourlies (stewards too, on occasion, I've heard from a reliable source). Nope, not on my watch. I'm a Teamster.

I made the trip and defended the case myself. I couldn't care less that the panel sided with the company. The panel was wrong, and that's that. Even if I had won the decision, that's only a formality. The point I am driving home is I will not be treated like a red-headed stepchild -- not on the shopfloor, not at local hearings. Center mgmt seems to have gotten the message. Perhaps even the DM, who I also named in a different Art 37 grieve that's yet to be decided. We've crossed paths several times and he hasn't said a word to me since the incident I grieved. Splendid! I am sure the labor manager will be a tougher case and we will likely butt heads again at locals. If so, very well. I will continue standing up for myself when necessary and won't think twice about filing on him again if he crosses the line.

 

[Bubblehead]

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.

I wasn't and am not making any argument, just making an observation.

Seems odd (and interesting at the same time) to me when the membership accepts these types of enhancements and when they don't.

Ultimately, like it or not, the world we live in is being recorded at an exponentially expanding rate....and I doubt anything will stop it.

 

[Whither]

I wasn't and am not making any argument, just making an observation.

Right on.

Ultimately, like it or not, the world we live in is being recorded at an exponentially expanding rate....and I doubt anything will stop it.

It's up to us to pull the e-brake ... no one is going to advocate for us except ourselves (and, I am hopeful, our new IBT leadership -- but we shall see).

 

[over9five]

Ultimately, like it or not, the world we live in is being recorded at an exponentially expanding rate....and I doubt anything will stop it.

The world maybe, but 18" from my face non-stop for my entire shift is unacceptable.

 

[quad decade guy]

That’s harassment in my opinion,absolutely ridiculous.

Ok. But there it is.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I wasn't and am not making any argument, just making an observation.

Seems odd (and interesting at the same time) to me when the membership accepts these types of enhancements and when they don't.

Ultimately, like it or not, the world we live in is being recorded at an exponentially expanding rate....and I doubt anything will stop it.

I think it has mostly to do with people's circumstances. I will never be in a position to where I am bound to a particular job, financially or otherwise, so I am much less likely than the average person to put up with indignities. I also understand the dangers of constant surveillance, and will not accept it, like it or not.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Ok. But there it is.

Well if that’s the way the company wants to use the technology we should bury them with paperwork.