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 Discussions
How would you treat this accident and why
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="tieguy" data-source="post: 94947" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p>I'm not opposed to the idea. The idea though would be a panel similar to our grievance panel when set up. The problem as I'm sure you know from your steward days is that we have people that feel they did not get a fair shake from a panel either. The union reps tend to be under a lot of pressure to find for the defendent since they would be accused of being in the companies back pocket if they don't. I think we would have to work towards having representatives from each side sent to the same credible school for training in accident investigations. </p><p> </p><p>the question is what do you want to accomplish?</p><p> </p><p>the easy answer is we stop charging deer accidents as avoidable. </p><p>The companies mindset is now at a point where we take a driver who has unavoidable accidents and we still do a follow up ride and we still treat them as a repeater if they have had two recent unavoidables. My point is it almost does not matter if the accident was avoidable or not. </p><p> </p><p>Now back to your example. I realize your gripe with the avoidable / unavoidable concept being applied as fault or no fault which I think is what we are really talking about. If we determine that the driver could have avoided this accident by clearing his mirrors and we then train all our people to clear their left rear side before making a left turn. And this training then results in less accidents of this type then didn't we actually accomplish something significant? Would putting the decision in front of a panel that deadlocks then undermine support for future changes we try to implement?</p><p> </p><p>Perhaps we should have a third option on accident investigations a system avoidable rulling for this case. We rule the accident could have been avoidable but realize that our system has not stressed training drivers to clear their left mirror before making a left turn. </p><p> </p><p>Overall though your panel idea has merit. It goes back to what should be a basic tenant of management. There is only one jim casey. the rest of us who wear the attractive neck chokers should solicit the input of our work group if we really want to improve the overall processes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 94947, member: 1912"] I'm not opposed to the idea. The idea though would be a panel similar to our grievance panel when set up. The problem as I'm sure you know from your steward days is that we have people that feel they did not get a fair shake from a panel either. The union reps tend to be under a lot of pressure to find for the defendent since they would be accused of being in the companies back pocket if they don't. I think we would have to work towards having representatives from each side sent to the same credible school for training in accident investigations. the question is what do you want to accomplish? the easy answer is we stop charging deer accidents as avoidable. The companies mindset is now at a point where we take a driver who has unavoidable accidents and we still do a follow up ride and we still treat them as a repeater if they have had two recent unavoidables. My point is it almost does not matter if the accident was avoidable or not. Now back to your example. I realize your gripe with the avoidable / unavoidable concept being applied as fault or no fault which I think is what we are really talking about. If we determine that the driver could have avoided this accident by clearing his mirrors and we then train all our people to clear their left rear side before making a left turn. And this training then results in less accidents of this type then didn't we actually accomplish something significant? Would putting the decision in front of a panel that deadlocks then undermine support for future changes we try to implement? Perhaps we should have a third option on accident investigations a system avoidable rulling for this case. We rule the accident could have been avoidable but realize that our system has not stressed training drivers to clear their left mirror before making a left turn. Overall though your panel idea has merit. It goes back to what should be a basic tenant of management. There is only one jim casey. the rest of us who wear the attractive neck chokers should solicit the input of our work group if we really want to improve the overall processes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
How would you treat this accident and why
Top