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
telematicks
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="soberups" data-source="post: 807872" data-attributes="member: 14668"><p>You missed the entire point of what I posted.</p><p> </p><p>Under the Western Supplement, Telematics data <em>by itself</em> is <strong>not proof</strong>.</p><p> </p><p>In your hypothetical example, if the driver in question was called into the office and questioned about the discrepancies in his delivery records, and his response was "I do not recall"...then he could <strong>not</strong> be terminated based solely upon the GPS/Telematics data.</p><p> </p><p>What happens here is that management becomes aware of the discrepancies and, rather than immediately questioning the driver, they instead go out and perform on-area observations. </p><p> </p><p>The following day, the driver is questioned about the inconsistencies in his delivery records vs. GPS/Telematics and given an opportunity to explain what happened. What the driver does not know at this point is that <em>management has already been watching him and already knows the answers to the questions that they are asking. </em>If the driver has in fact been falsifying records or cheating, he will normally start lying about it and at this point the dishonesty becomes <strong>provable</strong>.</p><p> </p><p>I must also point out that the action you describe in your hypothetical example (pre-recording stops from a fixed location and then delivering them later) is not in and of itself a dishonest act. It is a <em>methods violation</em>, although there may be valid reasons for doing it anyway. I have done it that way myself during peak season when working with a helper. It only becomes dishonesty <em>if you lie about it</em> when questioned. It is an important distinction because a methods violation is subject to the progressive discipline language while dishonesty (or <em>provable</em> dishonesty in the West) is grounds for immediate discharge.</p><p> </p><p>You are 100% correct about the company wishing to move forward with Telematics as a tool for discipline, and that drivers who have been cutting corners or cheating had better get their act together. But most of the concerns that I am hearing about the new technology are coming from honest people who are simply afraid of getting hauled into the office and arbitrarily fired based upon nothing more than a Telematics report that may not be accurate. And the fact of the matter is that the safeguards in the contract language will prevent that from happening. If you are doing your job correctly and are 100% honest with your management team (subject to the limits of your ability to recall what may have happened days or even weeks ago) then you have nothing to fear from Telmatics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soberups, post: 807872, member: 14668"] You missed the entire point of what I posted. Under the Western Supplement, Telematics data [I]by itself[/I] is [B]not proof[/B]. In your hypothetical example, if the driver in question was called into the office and questioned about the discrepancies in his delivery records, and his response was "I do not recall"...then he could [B]not[/B] be terminated based solely upon the GPS/Telematics data. What happens here is that management becomes aware of the discrepancies and, rather than immediately questioning the driver, they instead go out and perform on-area observations. The following day, the driver is questioned about the inconsistencies in his delivery records vs. GPS/Telematics and given an opportunity to explain what happened. What the driver does not know at this point is that [I]management has already been watching him and already knows the answers to the questions that they are asking. [/I]If the driver has in fact been falsifying records or cheating, he will normally start lying about it and at this point the dishonesty becomes [B]provable[/B]. I must also point out that the action you describe in your hypothetical example (pre-recording stops from a fixed location and then delivering them later) is not in and of itself a dishonest act. It is a [I]methods violation[/I], although there may be valid reasons for doing it anyway. I have done it that way myself during peak season when working with a helper. It only becomes dishonesty [I]if you lie about it[/I] when questioned. It is an important distinction because a methods violation is subject to the progressive discipline language while dishonesty (or [I]provable[/I] dishonesty in the West) is grounds for immediate discharge. You are 100% correct about the company wishing to move forward with Telematics as a tool for discipline, and that drivers who have been cutting corners or cheating had better get their act together. But most of the concerns that I am hearing about the new technology are coming from honest people who are simply afraid of getting hauled into the office and arbitrarily fired based upon nothing more than a Telematics report that may not be accurate. And the fact of the matter is that the safeguards in the contract language will prevent that from happening. If you are doing your job correctly and are 100% honest with your management team (subject to the limits of your ability to recall what may have happened days or even weeks ago) then you have nothing to fear from Telmatics. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
telematicks
Top