Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Golf Cart "Drivers"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mugarolla" data-source="post: 3238517" data-attributes="member: 8481"><p>I won't enlarge your responses like you did mine. It makes them easier to read.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. It's right there, and accurate, except the one acknowledged exception that you corrected me on. Thank you. The overall, or spirit, of the post was accurate though.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No I did not. I corrected an exception that the FMCSA changed the rules on within the last couple of years regarding the physical qualifications of drivers that you pointed out. Thank you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure looks like you, or I thought it was you. The account was created the day of this post, and this was his first post.</p><p>-</p><p>-</p><p>-</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>-</p><p>-</p><p>-</p><p></p><p></p><p>The law does not state that. The law is mute on requirements for an employee to drive a commercial vehicle under 10,000 lbs.</p><p></p><p>There is a big difference between the law "stating" something and there being no law forbidding it.</p><p></p><p>There is a big difference on the law "stating" that someone with epileptic siezures can drive a vehicle under 10,000 lbs and there being no law forbidding it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I opined, remember, this is an internet chat forum, <strong>most</strong> statements on here are opinions, see, I used the word "most."</p><p></p><p>This was my opinion about the issues that may come up if UPS were to do what you want them to do.</p><p></p><p>It goes a little deeper than just allowing someone with a DOT disqualifying condition to drive a package car under 10,000 lbs.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes I did. Here you go.</p><p></p><p></p><p>-</p><p>-</p><p>-</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, the rules do not prohibit them from driving off the lot. Big difference.</p><p></p><p>The liability will be on UPS.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I know the law. Again, the law is mute on an employee driving a vehicle under 10,000 pounds. There is no law against it. Big difference as to there being a specific law allowing it.</p><p></p><p>But you still want to throw someone in a 9,000 lb truck, who has a history of epileptic siezures, and let them go out and deliver packages.</p><p></p><p>Or someone on narcotic pain medication, or blood pressure that is through the roof.</p><p></p><p>I will leave out someone who has a hearing deficiency....thanks to you.</p><p></p><p>Yes, the law does not say that they cannot, but you're crazy, or at least your opinion is crazy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are correct and I apologize.</p><p></p><p>I never have a problem admitting that I am wrong. The problem is that when some people just say that I may be wrong, they don't back it up.</p><p></p><p>Then I back up my statement with contractual language or court decisions, and then never hear from them again.</p><p></p><p>But you are correct. I was wrong. I though I put the word "most" in there. I have been called out before on some "exceptions" to the norm, and usually try to word my statements with "most" or not all, or there may be some exceptions. Thank you for pointing that out. I will try my best in the future.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. I admitted that I was wrong. I should have used the word most, not all. Sorry.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But I was replying to you, or I thought I was.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As they should be. I didn't say they weren't. I just said they better know the law.</p><p></p><p>Here...</p><p></p><p></p><p>-</p><p>-</p><p>-</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Did I not just do that?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mugarolla, post: 3238517, member: 8481"] I won't enlarge your responses like you did mine. It makes them easier to read. Nope. It's right there, and accurate, except the one acknowledged exception that you corrected me on. Thank you. The overall, or spirit, of the post was accurate though. No I did not. I corrected an exception that the FMCSA changed the rules on within the last couple of years regarding the physical qualifications of drivers that you pointed out. Thank you. Sure looks like you, or I thought it was you. The account was created the day of this post, and this was his first post. - - - - - - The law does not state that. The law is mute on requirements for an employee to drive a commercial vehicle under 10,000 lbs. There is a big difference between the law "stating" something and there being no law forbidding it. There is a big difference on the law "stating" that someone with epileptic siezures can drive a vehicle under 10,000 lbs and there being no law forbidding it. Yes, I opined, remember, this is an internet chat forum, [B]most[/B] statements on here are opinions, see, I used the word "most." This was my opinion about the issues that may come up if UPS were to do what you want them to do. It goes a little deeper than just allowing someone with a DOT disqualifying condition to drive a package car under 10,000 lbs. Yes I did. Here you go. - - - No, the rules do not prohibit them from driving off the lot. Big difference. The liability will be on UPS. I know the law. Again, the law is mute on an employee driving a vehicle under 10,000 pounds. There is no law against it. Big difference as to there being a specific law allowing it. But you still want to throw someone in a 9,000 lb truck, who has a history of epileptic siezures, and let them go out and deliver packages. Or someone on narcotic pain medication, or blood pressure that is through the roof. I will leave out someone who has a hearing deficiency....thanks to you. Yes, the law does not say that they cannot, but you're crazy, or at least your opinion is crazy. You are correct and I apologize. I never have a problem admitting that I am wrong. The problem is that when some people just say that I may be wrong, they don't back it up. Then I back up my statement with contractual language or court decisions, and then never hear from them again. But you are correct. I was wrong. I though I put the word "most" in there. I have been called out before on some "exceptions" to the norm, and usually try to word my statements with "most" or not all, or there may be some exceptions. Thank you for pointing that out. I will try my best in the future. Nope. I admitted that I was wrong. I should have used the word most, not all. Sorry. But I was replying to you, or I thought I was. As they should be. I didn't say they weren't. I just said they better know the law. Here... [SIZE=5][/SIZE] - - - Did I not just do that? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Golf Cart "Drivers"
Top