Some preloaders today threatened write up if clock out

[Poop Head]

Could be some hot chicks at the other job Poopster?

More like hot pockets in mom's basement

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I don't know why they would keep the whole of preload hostage after 9, by 8:30 or so the entirety of unload and %25 of preload should be completely done with their work and moving to other parts of the building.

Seniority, force from the bottom ask from the top would fix this since most high seniority folk would love to stay longer.

On saturdays they don’t have enough people to load the belts that don’t go out till Monday. They run the belts and let it just stack up on the slide. Then after the preload is done with the other belts “black yellow and green” they send them to orange pink red etc to fix the mess. Make them load those cars, even though on Monday the loaders are just going to have to scan it again.

 

[eats packages]

On saturdays they don’t have enough people to load the belts that don’t go out till Monday. They run the belts and let it just stack up on the slide. Then after the preload is done with the other belts “black yellow and green” they send them to orange pink red etc to fix the mess. Make them load those cars, even though on Monday the loaders are just going to have to scan it again.

Oh crap these are saturdays.
From december to april we did the same thing at our building. The new preload manager we have managed to stop this practice, still a terrible person but at least they can see a losing strategy and run the building more efficiently.
Are you a steward? I would argue the same thing to your PM, Irregs are fine to sort early to each car but a preloader doing bags and boxes 2 days early is just plain stupid.

 

[km3]

Get this. Today I over heard some loaders try to leave after their shift was over at 9 because one had school and the other had another job. They were being made to clean up and load the other belts because ups is so cheap they don’t want to pay for the guys they need. A union steward ended up going with them to clock out and made damn sure the sup was set straight. I can’t believe that would try to threaten them like that.

Technically they could have been threatened with termination. It sounds like an issue of both failure to work as directed, and job abandonment. At the end of the day, they can force people to stay if they want. Not much we can do about it in the moment. WAD now, grieve later, etc..

Fortunately, my building is pretty good about helping people get out for school and other work and such. But if we have a bad night that runs long, I'll leave at a certain time no matter what. The stuff I have going on outside of UPS is way more important than UPS, so I'm willing to take that risk.

That's the question those preloaders need to answer. Is UPS more important, or is their other job/school more important?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Technically they could have been threatened with termination. It sounds like an issue of both failure to work as directed, and job abandonment. At the end of the day, they can force people to stay if they want. Not much we can do about it in the moment. WAD now, grieve later, etc..

Fortunately, my building is pretty good about helping people get out for school and other work and such. But if we have a bad night that runs long, I'll leave at a certain time no matter what. The stuff I have going on outside of UPS is way more important than UPS, so I'm willing to take that risk.

That's the question those preloaders need to answer. Is UPS more important, or is their other job/school more important?

And when you lose your second job because you were not "allowed" to leave UPS at the normal time, what is UPS's responsibility in the matter? I believe when a person is financially damaged by another person's actions, they have legal recourse. It's not a contractual issue, so there's no requirement to go through the grievance process. Slap a part time sup with a law suit, might change his tune real quick.

Leaving without "permission" is not job abandonment. Just because management wants to trump up disciplinary charges against someone by redefining a term does not make it true.

 

[km3]

And when you lose your second job because you were not "allowed" to leave UPS at the normal time, what is UPS's responsibility in the matter? I believe when a person is financially damaged by another person's actions, they have legal recourse. It's not a contractual issue, so there's no requirement to go through the grievance process. Slap a part time sup with a law suit, might change his tune real quick.

It's like I said, that's the question everyone has to answer for themselves. Is UPS more important, or is the "second" job more important (in this case, I guess that would make UPS the second job).

Legal recourse? That's pushing it... If you think that's viable, I'd love to know how for my own benefit.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

It's like I said, that's the question everyone has to answer for themselves. Is UPS more important, or is the "second" job more important (in this case, I guess that would make UPS the second job).

Legal recourse? That's pushing it... If you think that's viable, I'd love to know how for my own benefit.

Don't know if a lawyer would take up the case, but if you can prove that you suffered financial losses as a result of another person's actions, that's all you need to file a lawsuit, even if it's in small claims courts. Though there's a limit on small claims in the neighborhood of 5k - 10k depending on state law. Also depending on state law, you may have to file against UPS rather than against the sup. But if you can file against the sup directly, you should.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Whatever happened to working your other job(s) around pt ups? Thousands have done it. Thousands are doing it right now.

What's the top pay at any of your other jobs? What about benefits? Look at the big picture

I get that too, some can make it work, some can't. People shouldn't have to face not making rent because a part time sup wouldn't "let" them leave. The long term career path at UPS doesn't mean much if you can't afford to make it that far.

On the flip side, if a part timer wants to make a go of UPS, and need a second job, they need to find one that is either flexible, or get a one with a schedule that starts late enough to allow for the possibility of a late day at UPS. Like I said, it needs to be a give and take, and simply accepting that UPS has the right to financially ruin their employees won't help.

 

[brown_trousers]

Get this. Today I over heard some loaders try to leave after their shift was over at 9 because one had school and the other had another job. They were being made to clean up and load the other belts because ups is so cheap they don’t want to pay for the guys they need. A union steward ended up going with them to clock out and made damn sure the sup was set straight. I can’t believe that would try to threaten them like that.

I like this logic. I also want the right to clock out right after my 8 hrs of delivering.

 

[km3]

Leaving without "permission" is not job abandonment. Just because management wants to trump up disciplinary charges against someone by redefining a term does not make it true.

Where I am, as long as your work was done, "as far as you are/were aware," they really can't do anything if you clock out and leave without telling anyone. But if a sup explicitly says, I need you to do such and such before you leave, you're not in a position to say no without risking disciplinary action.

But yes, when you have work sitting in front of you, and you just leave, that is job abandonment.

I don't disagree with you that UPS needs to approach this from a different angle. I'm just saying the reality is that they can keep just about anybody on the clock for as long as they want.

 

[wide load]

Get this. Today I over heard some loaders try to leave after their shift was over at 9 because one had school and the other had another job. They were being made to clean up and load the other belts because ups is so cheap they don’t want to pay for the guys they need. A union steward ended up going with them to clock out and made damn sure the sup was set straight. I can’t believe that would try to threaten them like that.

Work as directed. If they tell you you can't go home yet you can't go home.

Always make them regret their decisions!

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Where I am, as long as your work was done, "as far as you are/were aware," they really can't do anything if you clock out and leave without telling anyone. But if a sup explicitly says, I need you to do such and such before you leave, you're not in a position to say no without risking disciplinary action.

But yes, when you have work sitting in front of you, and you just leave, that is job abandonment.

I don't disagree with you that UPS needs to approach this from a different angle. I'm just saying the reality is that they can keep just about anybody on the clock for as long as they want.

I'm glad that's how things work for you. That's how it should be. Each case is going to have its own set of circumstances. I'm working on assumptions that there are usually other people who can and/or will stick around to do the job, or that the part timer started working at UPS with assurances from HR that the schedule would work with their other job. Of course there are circumstances where the part timer will be in the wrong, but UPS doesn't need me to fight their battles for them. I'm going to be an advocate for the employee, and messing with a person's livelihood is one area where I will give little room for compromise.

How many part time jobs out there have a set start time, but no set end time? That is something that will come back to bite UPS in time. But they'll just pay whatever settlement or judgment and keep on trucking.

As for job abandonment, you and management both can redefine the term all you want, doesn't make it correct. Job abandonment is leaving the job with no intention of returning, plain and simple. A ncns is as bad as or worse than leaving before your work is finished, and worse than leaving without "permission", but it is still not job abandonment. If you clock out, the company should be able to assume you intend to return to work. If you don't clock out, they should call you and find out why. If you leave before your work is done, they still have to give you a chance to explain why. If they want to terminate you for job abandonment, they can, but if you didn't actually abandon your job, you will get your job back, and they will have just wasted everyone's time.

 

[km3]

As for job abandonment, you and management both can redefine the term all you want, doesn't make it correct.

I'm not redefining anything. If you have work in front of you, and leave without telling anyone, without permission, and without finishing the work, you are abandoning your job. That's not my definition, and that's not even UPS' definition. Many different companies do it the same way. I've had family, salary--only get paid for 40 hours per week, regardless of the amount of work done--nearly get fired for "job abandonment" because they left when they hit 40 hours on the week.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Oh crap these are saturdays.
From december to april we did the same thing at our building. The new preload manager we have managed to stop this practice, still a terrible person but at least they can see a losing strategy and run the building more efficiently.
Are you a steward? I would argue the same thing to your PM, Irregs are fine to sort early to each car but a preloader doing bags and boxes 2 days early is just plain stupid.

I've been at this center for a year and its always happened this way. There is a new Saturday preload manager that is a dick and is really enforcing this. We are already understaffed on Saturdays to begin with, now they are starting to send guys home on Sat that have worked Monday through Friday already, again under this new Sat managers direction. Smart.

 

[Poop Head]

abandonment is leaving the job with no intention of returning, plain and simple. A ncns is as bad as or worse than leaving before your work is finished, and worse than leaving without "permission", but it is still not job abandonment. If you clock out, the company should be able to assume you intend to return to work. If you don't clock out, they should call you and find out why. If you leave before your work is done, they still have to give you a chance to explain why. If they want to terminate you for job abandonment, they can, but if you didn't actually abandon your job, you will get your job back, and they will have just wasted everyone's time.

So then I should be able to park my truck, punch out, and go home when I got most of the work done? As long as I plan on showing up the next day?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I'm not redefining anything. If you have work in front of you, and leave without telling anyone, without permission, and without finishing the work, you are abandoning your job. That's not my definition, and that's not even UPS' definition. Many different companies do it the same way. I've had family, salary--only get paid for 40 hours per week, regardless of the amount of work done--nearly get fired for "job abandonment" because they left when they hit 40 hours on the week.

Please look up the definition of job abandonment and get back to me.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

So then I should be able to park my truck, punch out, and go home when I got most of the work done? As long as I plan on showing up the next day?

That's a bit of a leap in logic. I never said that. They can fire you for all sorts of reasons if you do that. Job abandonment just isn't one of them. Like I said, look up the definition of job abandonment and get back to me. I don't want to be insulting, but employers don't need you to take their side on this. This is such a cut and dry issue that I'm having trouble believing I have to work so hard to defend this position.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

That's a bit of a leap in logic. I never said that. They can fire you for all sorts of reasons if you do that. Job abandonment just isn't one of them. Like I said, look up the definition of job abandonment and get back to me. I don't want to be insulting, but employers don't need you to take their side on this. This is such a cut and dry issue that I'm having trouble believing I have to work so hard to defend this position.

It is very cut and dry, here is the definition of job abandonment

"Job abandonment is when: an employee has no plans to return to work but fails to notify supervisors of a resignation."

 

[km3]

Please look up the definition of job abandonment and get back to me.

It is very cut and dry, here is the definition of job abandonment

"Job abandonment is when: an employee has no plans to return to work but fails to notify supervisors of a resignation."

I'm talking about reality, not an antiquated definition of "job abandonment" that no company uses. Leaving without notifying someone or permission is pretty much universally accepted to be job abandonment. Even the union agrees. They still fight it, of course, but they agree that's what it is.

Why are we even fighting over definitions anyway? LEAVING WITHOUT PERMISSION IS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION. Do you dispute this? The company could call it anything they want, the act itself is still subject to severe disciplinary action (but most likely, if you're a part timer, they won't do anything).

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I'm talking about reality, not an antiquated definition of "job abandonment" that no company uses. Leaving without notifying someone or permission is pretty much universally accepted to be job abandonment. Even the union agrees. They still fight it, of course, but they agree that's what it is.

Why are we even fighting over definitions anyway? LEAVING WITHOUT PERMISSION IS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION. Do you dispute this? The company could call it anything they want, the act itself is still subject to severe disciplinary action (but most likely, if you're a part timer, they won't do anything).

It's not antiquated, that's the definition. Every employer uses that definition. Only management, and I guess many union officials, with no understanding of HR use the term incorrectly. By using that term they are trying to make it sound like you voluntarily quit. If you voluntarily quit, the union can't really fight to get your job back. That makes a huge difference, and why I object to the term being used for situations that do not meet the definition. If the company terminates you for job abandonment, the first thing the union would have to do before they could even defend you is establish that you did not abandon your job.

Apparently, in your building, leaving without permission is not grounds for termination. I'm a big boy, I know when my job is done, if management needs me to stay longer, they can direct me to. If doing so has adverse effects on me financially, and I inform them of that, then they can face the consequences.

I get that UPS can, and has, terminated people for any reason they can make up. The main reason for this is that in one case, an arbitrator decided that the cardinal sins list was inclusive, not exclusive, completely ignoring the fact that the company and the union agreed that the cardinal sins list was exclusive. What the hell is the point of an inclusive cardinal sins list? So, yes, UPS can basically do what they want, but why make it easier on them and allow them to make up imaginary bs to fire us over?