Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Returntosender" data-source="post: 1414402" data-attributes="member: 29240">UPS will try and place blame on the security company they hired to watch the facility. Snuck in the back way.&nbsp; UPS has prior knowledge of that entry point, and they choose not to place security at that point its on UPS.&nbsp; The security company has to prove UPS instructed them not to post guards at the back gate.My hub has multiple entry points.&nbsp; Only one point has a guard shack.&nbsp; The other entrance point is a vehicle gates, used for feeders, package cars.&nbsp; Employees not driving vehicles are instructed to pass through the guard shack.&nbsp;&nbsp; In the past a employee brought up how come the other gate is not manned by security.&nbsp; Management said, no money in the budget to hire a guard at that post.IMO&nbsp; ATL will fire the LP in charge of the facility.&nbsp; The district LP will be demoted to a facility LP. They won&#039;t be no 30/60/90 for LP in charge for this incident.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Returntosender, post: 1414402, member: 29240"] UPS will try and place blame on the security company they hired to watch the facility. Snuck in the back way. UPS has prior knowledge of that entry point, and they choose not to place security at that point its on UPS. The security company has to prove UPS instructed them not to post guards at the back gate. My hub has multiple entry points. Only one point has a guard shack. The other entrance point is a vehicle gates, used for feeders, package cars. Employees not driving vehicles are instructed to pass through the guard shack. In the past a employee brought up how come the other gate is not manned by security. Management said, no money in the budget to hire a guard at that post. IMO ATL will fire the LP in charge of the facility. The district LP will be demoted to a facility LP. They won't be no 30/60/90 for LP in charge for this incident. [/QUOTE]

Verification