Production termination!

[dannyboy]

NE

Might i offer this view on the subject.

Red and I saw the same accident. But from different angles.

Red has met the guy, has a personal feel for him. Differing viewpoints

I believe words mean things. Why did they use that particular word or phrase. Why was there no response when by my very nature I would have stuttered something in rebuttal. Why was this action taken, why was this not said.

Much like a very closeup shot of a home showing only one brick, nothing is very clear. All these things by themselves are interesting, but taken as whole, as in a wide view of the house, only then do you see how things fit together.

One thing we both agree on is that this action is not something that promotes pride or great confidence in the system.

And for sure the loss of a mans job is not something to be gleeful about, regardless of the situation.

Kinda like kicking a man when he is down sorta thing?

d

 

[dannyboy]

Alot of his "data" was not allowed in the hearing including the drivers delivery records and the his "black book".

8

Been thinking bout your post. Why was his data not included. His black book, if accurate would most surely been included. As would have been the delivery records. After all, it is those days that ups was calling into question. And it is the very lack of response that the arbitrator remarked were very telling in his lack of a good reason for low production.

So why was it not allowed??? I have a really hard time believing that, unless UPS showed before hand that the data he tried to present was either faulty or manufactured.

Either way, this evidence was not even mentioned in the hearing, which it would have been had there been any. Kinda like the tape recordings. Mentioned, discusses, allowed, retracted. But it was documented. At no time were they mentioned.

Had there actually been some, someone would have mentioned the "drivers proof that was not allowed in".

There was a little problem with his lawyer that he had for this whole time, he was replaced one day before the final hearing.

I see a lot of that with the really seriously criminally insane in the news. They dont want that lawyer, he doesn't know anything, he is not representing me properly. Of course in this case it might have just been something like the driver just refused to listen to council?

I hear a little more daily on this case

the grapevine is a really poor place to get accurate news.

So while I believe there is a lot more to this story than has been posted, I am reluctant to believe second hand gossip.

d

 

[dannyboy]

One more thought for you Red

If the wicked witch of the west was really pro company and against this clown, why did this happen the way it did.

Remember when he surprised everyone with the revelation he had the tapes of his production rides? The tapes of day 2&3 only when he had the tape all three days?

When that happens at a hearing like this, and the evidence that is mentioned is not in the opposing sides folder of testimony, they usually respond by calling for a point of order.

This is where one of the sides is not playing by the established rules, in this case the driver. Out of the blue, and at no other hearing until this one, is the existence of these tapes made public.

So UPS, rightfully so, asks that they not be allowed as evidence.

But the arbitrator rules AGAINST UPS to allow the tapes in, but UPS will first be allowed the time to listen and document what is on the tapes. Fair enough.

Notice she rules against UPS and in favor of the driver, even though the driver has gone overboard in his disregard for proper protocols at her hearing, reinforcing what the company has been complaining about.

Now, he bluffed, and the arbitrator, hoping at last there might be a shred of evidence supporting anything he has presented, calls the bluff and allows it into evidence.

Of course the result is that after discussions with council, the driver withdraws his offer to share the tapes with everyone.

So contrary to your analysis of the arbitrator having an ax to grind with this guy, or being pro business, I see her more of a motherly type who was hoping to find at least one shred of redeeming value in this driver, even to the extent that she over ruled UPS's objections to allow the tapes.

So there you have why I believe what I believe. You are more than free to continue this discussion, but I believe I am done.

Best

d

 

[redshift1]

Like most of the Terminations at UPS this driver really fired himself. For whatever reason he choose a dangerous path and paid the consequences. This is not about standing up for ones rights it's about willfully challenging the authority of the company he worked for. This was a train wreck in slow motion
way before it got to arbitration.

 

[local804]

8

Been thinking bout your post. Why was his data not included. His black book, if accurate would most surely been included. As would have been the delivery records. After all, it is those days that ups was calling into question.


the grapevine is a really poor place to get accurate news.

So while I believe there is a lot more to this story than has been posted, I am reluctant to believe second hand gossip.

d

Have no clue why his black book was thrown out and not allowed in. The next time I talk to the "grapevine"(Steward in Maspeth bldg) I will have him try to to get in touch with the driver. I think this board needs a new member. There are alot of questions that need to be answered.

 

[brownmonster]

I think the moral of the story is if you're gonna gig the company for every infraction make sure your own house is in order.

 

[dannyboy]

804

It was the black book and the delivery records you mentioned were not let in.

d

 

[stevetheupsguy]

I think the moral of the story is if you're gonna gig the company for every infraction make sure your own house is in order.

Amen to that, brother.

 

[BrownSuit]

if I mouth off to my boss, I can kiss my job goodbye.quote]


Your missing the point, when a steward is in the office, he is your equal and you are not his boss. The rest of your post pretty much sounds like typical ups scare tactics! Try and intimidate the steward in to bowing to your demands. What your forgetting here that if a steward is raising his voice, its pretty obvious that you have violated the contract and you cant admit that you did.

You never responded as to how a different job title can change how you treat or respect another human being. This is starting to sound just like what you accuse management of, demanding respect but giving none just because you are a steward. It's a title just the same as Manager is a title.

So why should you behave and treat other humans one way while working for UPS and another way while working for the Teamsters? Not forgetting that Jim Casey stated that every UPSer is that first and then a Teamster.

Isn't this what got the guy in trouble? He was treating UPS employees (regardless of their titles) one way while on "Union Time" and another way while on UPS time to where he couldn't seem to keep the two separate?

A man can only live with two faces for so long Red before they blend together. The language that you use as a Steward should be the same that you would say in front of your customers when delivering packages or at home with your family. The same goes for management.

Why is it also that when somebody brings up valid points you pass them off as management mantra or intimidation?

 

[tinman]

If you read the arbitration (I did, all 33 pages) you will see that this steward contradicted himself a few times. He states on page 16-17 that he was unaware of any other driver being discharged for production, so why then did he pass around a petition and get 100 signatures to persuade the company to reinstate a terminated (for production) employee? He filed NLRB charges against the company without notifying the union he was doing so. He also stated that he thought a 3 day suspension had been reduced to a warning letter but article 7 was invoked, why invoke an article for a warning letter that would have been a suspension. As a steward, if I have a suspension, a legit suspension reduced to a letter I would accept the letter and reserve the right to grieve it.
I am in no way supporting the company, trust me. I am also an 804 steward. But, it is real easy to start thinking they can't touch you. There are several things I don't like about the arbitrators report that should be brought up.
The on car supervisor V******* was at one time a center manager who was demoted for "integrity"issues. He has on occassion been refered to as V**** the prick. How could a proffesional arbitrator put on the top of the report " In the Matter of Arbitration between Local 804, Int'l Brothehood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO and United Parcel Service. The Teamsters are not part of the AFL-CIO, shouldn't an arbitrator strive for accuracy? J***** testified that in 20 years he never discharged a driver for production, what about the guy the petition was passed around for? He then mentions "in my 24 years", well J*** is it 20 years or 24? The arbitrator stated on page 4 that "overallowed" is the number of hours of overtime over 8 hours, no it's not, it's the time longer than what I.E. feels you should have taken to complete the assignment. You could be 2 hours over but punch out in 9 hours when you factor in allowances for signatures, values, elevators,etc,etc,etc. It's mentioned that the driver had "excessive contact time" with customers, what was he doing during that time? Was he waiting for them to finish up a NDA pickup piece or discussing how bad the JETS were playing this season? One is a problem, the other is good customer service (remember, service is our last name!).
Ultimatley the whole thing sucks, a union brother lost his job, the survivors now have production standard language in writing to live up to, and right wrong or otherwise, the Local looks like it did not help him (which is NOT the case here). I think this driver wanted to be more of a hero than he was either prepared to be, expected to be, or experienced enough to be. He went to bat for his drivers which is admirable but he didn't communicate with the coaches (B.A's) before stepping up to the plate to see do I swing or take a pitch?

 

[spuman]

I usually dont read the long posts like yours but it was very good.Very infomative and not to opionated keep up the good work.

 

[trplnkl]

To start with I am not answering for 705Red, just giving my take on the exchange on this.

You never responded as to how a different job title can change how you treat or respect another human being. This is starting to sound just like what you accuse management of, demanding respect but giving none just because you are a steward. It's a title just the same as Manager is a title.

The job title doesn't change how one should treat other people, however it does give one certain protections.
Should the company treat him different when he is acting in the capacity of steward? Yes, because they should know that his actions as a steward protects him from being harassed for doing the job of steward. Yes, both MANAGER and STEWARD are just titles and (IMO) neither gives them guaranteed respect.

So why should you behave and treat other humans one way while working for UPS and another way while working for the Teamsters? Not forgetting that Jim Casey stated that every UPSer is that first and then a Teamster.

Let's not forget that Mr. Casey also said(paraphrased ) that all employees should be treated with respect at all times. That means the way management treats rank and file members as well.
Jim Casey said many things that if the company and all the employees would continue to follow it would be a much better place to work. Management is the example of how fair treatment is not part of the company's goal. The proof of that is that a manager can yell and holler at an hourly and call him names (i.e. slacker, worthless, criminal, yadda yadda yadda), but let an employee say any of those to his boss and he's gone.

Isn't this what got the guy in trouble? He was treating UPS employees (regardless of their titles) one way while on "Union Time" and another way while on UPS time to where he couldn't seem to keep the two separate?

well, no. Where have you been? His troubles are in that he did his job in an insufficient manner and let his position of steward cloud his judgment as to the possible ramifications.

A man can only live with two faces for so long Red before they blend together. The language that you use as a Steward should be the same that you would say in front of your customers when delivering packages or at home with your family. The same goes for management.

I agree with that. Especially for management because they should be setting examples of a higher standard of conduct for all to follow.

Why is it also that when somebody brings up valid points you pass them off as management mantra or intimidation?

I can't address why 705Red does anything, but sometimes I see someone trying to make a valid point based on management mantra.

I personally feel that everyone should treat everyone else with courtesy and a degree of respect. A person can take away from the degree of respect they receive from others by their own actions.

 

[dannyboy]

Tin

Most of us here that have been discussing the hearing have read the whole thing. And some have also had access to additional information as well.

Ultimately the whole thing sucks,

Agreed totally. For the union grievance process to be misused by a single driver with an agenda of his own for his personal gain of getting a union job...

the survivors now have production standard language in writing to live up to

This is the only disagreement I see with what you posted. There is no production language in writing. There has always been some inferred level of production at UPS. You think UPS under our contract would not be able to do something if every driver tomorrow only delivered 5 stops in 10 hours? Your telling me before this, there was nothing they could do?

This hearing did not change a thing. And the arbitrator made it very clear that production was only a small part of why UPS got rid of him.

Any BA worth his salt would not have a hard time defending production against the company if they tried to use this as a basis for the termination. It does not set any precedence, it does not give the company any new powers over production that they already did not have.

the Local looks like it did not help him (which is NOT the case here). I think this driver wanted to be more of a hero than he was either prepared to be, expected to be, or experienced enough to be. He went to bat for his drivers which is admirable but he didn't communicate with the coaches (B.A's) before stepping up to the plate to see do I swing or take a pitch?

And herein is the story behind the production story. HE wanted/dreams of being the next powerhouse leader of the teamsters. Starting with 804. Not saying he is not a great guy, not saying he is at some future date still going to be a leader of consequence in the union.

But this display of "courage" against UPS was foolhardy without the luggage he carried in with him. As a total package, it was suicide. It did look like the union did not give him adequate help, on the surface. But I would bet they tried to change the presentation without success.

d

 

[BrownSuit]

Thanks for the response, it was quite thought provoking.

The job title doesn't change how one should treat other people, however it does give one certain protections.

It wasn't a protection that I was concerned with, it was the language that they stated they could use as a Steward, but have admitted (based on the not on UPS time argument) that they would not use as a driver because of the title.

The Steward is protected from discipline resulting from Union related business or actions (such as grievances) taken on behalf of the Union. I personally feel and believe that the Executive Committee of the Brotherhood would agree with me that this protection does not extend to abusive language, regardless of the situation.

Isn't this what got the guy in trouble? He was treating UPS employees (regardless of their titles) one way while on "Union Time" and another way while on UPS time to where he couldn't seem to keep the two separate?

well, no. Where have you been? His troubles are in that he did his job in an insufficient manner and let his position of steward cloud his judgment as to the possible ramifications.

I have to be completely up front and honest, I have not read the report and am solely going off what others are saying/reporting. One of the areas that was brought up as a cause for termination in earlier posts was insubordination and abusive language. Not sure how much this was pressed as there was a lot of focus on production.

 

[browniehound]

Actually, I was speaking about the specific case that is the subject of this thread. The driver in this case is gone, so there is no production gain from him. My Figure was actually based on a very quick calculation of just shy of 1 stop/hour increase in production from the centers 5% drivers who were coasting until they got the message they can be terminated for that. I based it on a 50 car center, giving 2 drivers, and a 110 stop route. I believe I have used very conservative numbers and still came up with over 6000.

Thats fine BrownIEman, but you get that money back and then some by forcing drivers to put 1 hour of lunch in their DIAD whether they take it or not. I've never recieved the order "You must stop 1 hour everyday for lunch and must enter the time in the DIAD". It is always "You must enter 1 hour lunch in the DIAD"

This is an enormous racket that generates millions of dollars in labor cost savings for UPS. Why are we required to "show" an hour lunch in the DIAD each day?

I'll tell you why! UPS knows that many drivers that are over-dispacthed will skip part of their lunch to finish earlier or to make a specific event. Instead of letting the driver just enter the 20 minutes it took him to eat an hour is required unless "permission" is granted from the center manager.

Why do you force the hour? The only logical reason is to obtain free labor. You are keeping a driver out on the road when its human nature to want to get home to his family. I asked for "no lunch" on X-mas eve and recieved a reply on the DIAD "Why don't you have time to take lunch you have 100% house calls?" Good friend-ing grief! I sent this message at 1745 and didn't feel like sitting in my truck until 1845 when everyone else in America was home with their family.

UPS is preying on our weakness in this matter and its shamefull in my opinion when you compare it to your "$6,000 for the 5% of the drivers" that don't meet your standards.

You make $10,000 a year off of the 1 driver that skips his lunch everyday. There is always 1 and probably 3 in a 50 car center which will bring the total to $30,000. Add to that the other 20-30% that doesn't take their entire lunch and the other 30-50% that don't take their paid 10 minute breaks and we are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars you are obtaining in free labor under your policies.

Yet, you feel a victory in proving $6,000 in slack from the workforce?

I just want a logical answer to one question and I will never argue this point again.

Why would you force the driver to take 1 full hour of lunch? Why can't you let him take what he needs and let him enter that time in the DIAD? Why can't we take 35 minutes and subtract that from our time?

 

[renobrown]

Like many on this site as a user i have made some very good friends. Several years back a group of drivers from local 804 in new york came in to Chicago for a weekend. We decided to meet and go out for some beverages over the weekend. I have kept in contact with them via email, this site and an occasional phone call here and there.

One of these drivers was terminated for production, he just so happens to be a union steward and an active one. Well long story short, i received a phone call today and informing me that the arbitrator ruled with the company and upheld this termination.

I have just spent the last hour reading the ruling from the arbitrator and its clear that she did not like this driver.

Everyone should be very aware that now that ups has this victory under their belt, you can expect to see many more terminations for productions in the very near future. This is a sad day, this driver was only off about a stop to stop and a half of what his performance ride was under perfect conditions.

CYA!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[renobrown]

this is crazy--there are so many factors that affect your production. traffic, customer concerns, load quality. can they really fire me for production?

 

[Dark_Team_135]

The Steward is protected from discipline resulting from Union related business or actions (such as grievances) taken on behalf of the Union. I personally feel and believe that the Executive Committee of the Brotherhood would agree with me that this protection does not extend to abusive language, regardless of the situation.

I doubt this is true in every situation:

As the NLRB has stated: The relationship at a grievance meeting is not a “master-servant” relationship but a relationship between company advocates on the one side and union advocates on the other side, engaged as equal opposing parties in litigation.

In a similar vein, the US Supreme Court has said the National Labor Relations Act contemplates robust debate and gives a union license to use intemperate, abusive, or insulting language without fear of restraint or penalty if it believes such rhetoric to be an effective means to make its point.

 

[trplnkl]

this is crazy--there are so many factors that affect your production. traffic, customer concerns, load quality. can they really fire me for production?

Read the whole thread, there has been much discussion on this subject.

 

[trplnkl]

Thanks for the response, it was quite thought provoking.



It wasn't a protection that I was concerned with, it was the language that they stated they could use as a Steward, but have admitted (based on the not on UPS time argument) that they would not use as a driver because of the title.

Exactly, part of the reason for the change in language use is because if a center manager is a jerk, anything a driver says that is contradictory to what the center manager wants to hear is considered as insubordination. While on the other hand a union rep (steward) is protected certain points can be made with stronger language. Right or wrong, like it or not, some people use foul language as a matter of fact everyday speech. They don't even consider it as cussing.

The Steward is protected from discipline resulting from Union related business or actions (such as grievances) taken on behalf of the Union. I personally feel and believe that the Executive Committee of the Brotherhood would agree with me that this protection does not extend to abusive language, regardless of the situation.

I have no idea what the union's official policy is on this, but I have heard BAs use some pretty strong language in local panel hearings. Frankly it made me very uncomfortable. I didn't feel it was called for nor did it help in any way, however every time I have heard this guy talk he throws friend-bombs out like they were complemnets. and no, it doesn't make me think more of him as a man. He is what he is.

I have to be completely up front and honest, I have not read the report and am solely going off what others are saying/reporting. One of the areas that was brought up as a cause for termination in earlier posts was insubordination and abusive language. Not sure how much this was pressed as there was a lot of focus on production.

A few pages back, Danny (I think) posted a list of the charges against this driver/steward, abusive language was just one on the list. I don't remeber it being a major factor. If I had been the arbiarator I would think of that as more of proof of distain for the center manager & the company than as a cause for termination.

I think we are on the same page as to "should abusive language be use" and differ on "Can it be used", especially in a professional setting.
I do have to admit that when I let my guard down and don't filter my thoughts I, from time to time, use language I would not have used in the presence of my Mom.