I hear ya man. But as far as your accident question, I actually know the answer. Ironically it was adopted in PA first. A UPS VP and liberty mutuals risk analyst came up with it. Apparently "avoidable" and "unavoidable" or "crashes" and "near misses", sounds much more dramatic than "accident" and "on purposes".
Fred Z and Sean O unify so they can run together, but they need RH out of the way
- Thread starter Tom Brown
- Start date
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
So, you believe his Daddy will let Sean drive the tractor solo?
Gimme Danger
Well-Known Member
We don't fall under the Railway Labor Act, we are under the NLRA. Taft Hartley does give the government a say, but a totally different situation then the RLA.
Everything will be put up to the members to decide. If the members want to strike, then we will walk. I'm thinking that a lot more people vote on this contract than the last. Like a lot more. It will be up to the members. If the contract is not a good one then they vote NO. If they think it's okay then it's a yes. I have planned accordingly in case of a work stoppage. I am in strike mode, and am ready for whatever the membership decides. I will do my part, like I always do but I'm just an I. We and us is the membership and we will vote collectively.
I doubt Trump would intervene to quickly in the event of a strike. I'm betting if we walk we get at least a week. He is anti Union, and no doubt heavily backed by Fred S. Freddy would love to see what his machine could absorb in 2018. His warcheast has gotten significantly bigger 21 years later.
Sean ain't scared of taking this to the street, that's for sure.
Sean is his own man.
Without question.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Isn't at fault vs. avoidable just akin to tomato or tomatoe ?
Unless an accident meets the criteria as described in Article 18 Sec 3,
the company has always been the determining party insofar as
initiating progressive discipline.
If a driver is dinged with an "avoidable" (and doesn't agree)....
First thing to do, is file a grievance and a protest to the safety committee.
Gotta get that paper trail going.
I have to agree with @wide load. It's just verbal semantics.
-Bug-
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
No it's akin to tomato or potato.
Fault is what the cop considers when deciding who gets the ticket, per the letter of the law.
Avoid-ability is an arbitrary premise that references the methodologies of the Company in regards to whether we can hypothetically dodge the mistakes of others, hence the oxymoronic UPS catchall phrase "expect the unexpected".
It puts us at the mercy of a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks, who's only goal is to shift liability from the Company, to the bonded and insured package car driver.
Tell that to the kid that just got disqualified Tuesday (his 29th day) due to an arbitrary Company determination of "avoidable", even though the other party involved in the accident was banging out a text on her cell phone and was sited at the scene.
....and no, none of the criteria in Art 18 was met to classify this as a "serious accident".
You, @wide load, and I will have to agree to disagree then, as I continue to contend that it is sloppy language, slanted heavily in the Company's favor, that needs to be addressed in the upcoming contract negotiations.
~Bbbl~™
Last edited:
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
@Bubblehead
Have no doubt.... I think it sucks.
It has never been a level playing field between an Employer, and the Union employee.
To think otherwise, is naive.
CRT language Article 1 Sec 1.
Be careful.... of what you wish for.
Do you really want "defining" language, in certain contractual areas ?
Review some "stand alone white paper contracts".
It can provide some perspective.
There is nothing more the company wants.... than definitions.
-Bug-
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Yet some how changing the word "serious" to "cardinal" in Art 17(i) was declared a major victory for the Central Region in the last contract?
I see this as a parallel leap.
I wasn't advocating a complete overhaul, just asking for it to be changed from avoidable to at fault.
~Bbbl~™
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Whatbrownwontdoforyou
Well-Known Member
It just sucks how that is set up in my opinion.....a lot of drivers take pride in driving accident free.....ups gains nothing by claiming it's avoidable.....it's just to build cases on drivers and that's a shame.....let drivers start going to court and testifying against ups in these accident cases and see how that turns out
A
Article 3
Guest
Maybe you need to educate our ba because he withdrew a grievance recently where a supervisor directed (spotted) a driver's vehicle out of the line up and into the bumper of another vehicle. They then charged the (28+ yr) driver with an avoidable accident.
And you want him on the Central Region negotiating committee?
God help us.
A
Article 3
Guest
17i.
How about "if any other party involved in the accident is cited by the authority having jurisdiction the UPS employee will not be held liable for disciplinary action".
A
Article 3
Guest
How about "found to be at fault by the AHJ"?
For example, the law says we have to park within 12" of the curb when stopped in park position.UPS says 8".
Don't get sideswiped or scraped while parked over 8" from the curb or you are at fault by the parcel magistrate.
They impose hyper legal authority onto the individual to make you live in fear and then they load the driver down with maximum stops and push them past normal human ability to complete their assignment without even being protected from the rest of the world's driver's mistakes.
I've seen young drivers running to get their route done, all the while management sits back and laughs at their vulnerability to the pressure of possibly not getting done and the repercussions of being told they didn't follow the methods if they ask for help.
Recently, I witnessed a PDS overloading a new driver on a Friday when it was only his 11th day of trying to qualify. "Oh, he'll be in early" was the PDS's reply when challenged on it by the steward.
Or not at all.
And somehow the liability lies on the brand new driver because he doesn't believe that he has any say in the matter.
The liability really lies on the PDS for his/her stupidity, all the while trying to chase the ever changing matrix of people who sit in cubicles and aren't connected to the world of the people they'd squash for not complying with and validating the "Plan".
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
In my eyes (and a lot of others) that was huge.
We had suffered under the bastardization of 17-i for 20 years.
Needless to say.... RC was the IBT General President at the time.
The goal this contract, is to eliminate it completely.
-Bug-
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
17-I needs eliminated. Not added too.
I understand your frustration, and you make valid points.
But, the Union can't discipline the company. Or, tell them how to run
their business.
It sounds like a broken record....
But the majority of veteran drivers all say the same thing.
(we see it all the time here)
Follow the methods, take your lunch and breaks, don't cut corners,
use your 8-hour requests, sign the 9.5 list, communicate problems,
and file grievances to enforce your rights. Let the company sweat the rest.
UPS has always employed the age old tactic of "culling the herd".
They go after the weak, and leave the strong alone.
-Bug-
A
Article 3
Guest
That proposed wording wasn't for article 17. I was just answering your previous question with my opinion.
But it was proposed language for article 18.
I have no desire to add to or maintain 17i.
We had a driver charged with an avoidable accident because someone in a vehicle next to theirs opened their door into the package car and management told the driver that he should have told the other person to hold their door.
Stupidity at it's finest.
