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
TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS
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="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1150659" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>Ok, but semantics is enough to allow a overly aggressive manager or supervisor to "stretch" an interpretation of the word "defraud". Why not just use the word "dishonesty".?</p><p></p><p>And the reason is, "dishonesty" isnt as open and shut as the word "defraud".</p><p></p><p>For example. I could be on my lunch, take an extra 10 minutes to clean my mirrors, or wipe my windshield, or adjust my load, and a manager "could" (hypothetically speaking) suggest that I was stealing time. If the word was "dishonesty", then the company would not have much of a chance to terminate me for "stealing time" whereas, if the word was "Defrauding", the company may be able to suggest that I intentionally delayed myself cleaning objects that didnt need cleaning and therefore, creating a delay, stealing time and thereby "defrauding" the company out of time.</p><p></p><p>As to the first point, the company wouldnt be able to prove that i was dishonest as there is Nothing dishonest about cleaning mirrors or windows or adjusting loads.</p><p></p><p>As to the second point, the company "COULD" prove that I was "defrauding" the company out of time, by electing ( an intentional act ) to clean objects that didnt need cleaning and causing an unnecesary delay that "extended" my day and took me into overtime that would have otherwise not been paid.</p><p></p><p>It depends on the strength of the labor manager pushing the case. Some of them are well trained, and can twist the contract into pretzels. On the other hand, some union reps who handle the same language can twist it back into a straight line.</p><p></p><p>We really have to question "well placed" words into any contract we enter into with caution.</p><p></p><p>You have to consider ALL aspects of the use of the words before agreeing to them. IN 2008, article 6 used technology language for the first time. It FAILED and succeeded at the same time. While represented to us that technology was only going to be used for "safety" purposes, the majority of members thought this was true. Unfortunately, the majority of the country "WASNT" on this technology at the time and didnt fear the language because they felt they didnt need to worry about it.</p><p></p><p>Well, 8 years later, hubs are on all kinds of technology and people are getting fired all over the place. Along with those firings comes arbitrations, and the company was losing there, so a re write was requested and agreed to by the Union.</p><p></p><p>The words "any intentional act or Ommision" are two critical words. If you do something on purpose and get caught by technology, and they ask you about it and you lie about it, then the company DOES NOT need any further evidence to discharge you for "defrauding" the company.</p><p></p><p>Those words were NOT in the 2008 language, and you can be your ash that the UNION didnt propose those words, they just agreed to them.</p><p></p><p>The qualifier "on a first offense" was removed because it was inhibiting UPS Labor efforts to make cases stick. Why the Union agreed to this is beyond me.</p><p></p><p>The company has clearly attempted to use technology to "spy" on its workers and some managers have even made it a point to watch a single driver day after day from their desks just waiting for something to pop up. </p><p></p><p>Next up, the company will introduce "INCAB" cameras to monitor us all day. They will say this will be for safety purposes, but you can imagine how far that will go. There is NOTHING in this agreement that precludes the company from installing them.</p><p></p><p>Think about it.</p><p></p><p>peace</p><p></p><p>TOS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1150659, member: 17969"] Ok, but semantics is enough to allow a overly aggressive manager or supervisor to "stretch" an interpretation of the word "defraud". Why not just use the word "dishonesty".? And the reason is, "dishonesty" isnt as open and shut as the word "defraud". For example. I could be on my lunch, take an extra 10 minutes to clean my mirrors, or wipe my windshield, or adjust my load, and a manager "could" (hypothetically speaking) suggest that I was stealing time. If the word was "dishonesty", then the company would not have much of a chance to terminate me for "stealing time" whereas, if the word was "Defrauding", the company may be able to suggest that I intentionally delayed myself cleaning objects that didnt need cleaning and therefore, creating a delay, stealing time and thereby "defrauding" the company out of time. As to the first point, the company wouldnt be able to prove that i was dishonest as there is Nothing dishonest about cleaning mirrors or windows or adjusting loads. As to the second point, the company "COULD" prove that I was "defrauding" the company out of time, by electing ( an intentional act ) to clean objects that didnt need cleaning and causing an unnecesary delay that "extended" my day and took me into overtime that would have otherwise not been paid. It depends on the strength of the labor manager pushing the case. Some of them are well trained, and can twist the contract into pretzels. On the other hand, some union reps who handle the same language can twist it back into a straight line. We really have to question "well placed" words into any contract we enter into with caution. You have to consider ALL aspects of the use of the words before agreeing to them. IN 2008, article 6 used technology language for the first time. It FAILED and succeeded at the same time. While represented to us that technology was only going to be used for "safety" purposes, the majority of members thought this was true. Unfortunately, the majority of the country "WASNT" on this technology at the time and didnt fear the language because they felt they didnt need to worry about it. Well, 8 years later, hubs are on all kinds of technology and people are getting fired all over the place. Along with those firings comes arbitrations, and the company was losing there, so a re write was requested and agreed to by the Union. The words "any intentional act or Ommision" are two critical words. If you do something on purpose and get caught by technology, and they ask you about it and you lie about it, then the company DOES NOT need any further evidence to discharge you for "defrauding" the company. Those words were NOT in the 2008 language, and you can be your ash that the UNION didnt propose those words, they just agreed to them. The qualifier "on a first offense" was removed because it was inhibiting UPS Labor efforts to make cases stick. Why the Union agreed to this is beyond me. The company has clearly attempted to use technology to "spy" on its workers and some managers have even made it a point to watch a single driver day after day from their desks just waiting for something to pop up. Next up, the company will introduce "INCAB" cameras to monitor us all day. They will say this will be for safety purposes, but you can imagine how far that will go. There is NOTHING in this agreement that precludes the company from installing them. Think about it. peace TOS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS
Top