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="The Other Side" data-source="post: 807913" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>Sober,</p><p> </p><p>A good clean discussion about the realities of contractual application is good for all members. Lets further the discussion by examining your points.</p><p> </p><p>1) <span style="color: red">"Under the Western Supplement, Telematics data <em>by itself</em> is <strong>not proof</strong>."</span></p><p> </p><p>I am "personally" familiar with the language in the west as I sat at the table in 92,97 and 2002. Where in 2011 does it state in the western supplement that Telematics, GPS or any other successor device by itself is not proof?</p><p> </p><p>What section? What paragraph? Help me out here.</p><p> </p><p>Hopefully, you are not referring to this "no employee shall be disciplined for exceeding personal time based on data recieved from the diad/ivis or other informational technology". </p><p> </p><p>This particular paragraph contained in article 37 is a protection for drivers who show large gaps between stops. In this case, an employee who shows no activity for lets say 20 mins between stops could not be disciplined by telematics, diad or IVIS. The company would have to see the gaps and then place an onroad sup out there to visibly see the gaps and make a determination if the employee is "stealing time" and taking unnecessary breaks.</p><p> </p><p>This language is only good for this one purpose and one purpose only, to determine excessive personal time.</p><p> </p><p>2) <span style="color: red">"If he told them the truth..."I sheeted them as NI1 because I needed to get off of work early"....then he has committed a rather serious methods violation. It becomes dishonesty when he <em>lies</em> about it. And the ultimate <em>proof</em> of that lie cannot be solely based upon Telematics/GPS data."</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black">There are a couple of flaws with this argument. First, telling them the truth? An admission of a cardinal infraction (dishonesty) and you call that a <strong>"serious methods violation"</strong> ? Where in the contract do you see the methods section in any of the contractual components? </span></p><p> </p><p>Company methods are referred to as 3/40 methods, a little outdated using todays technology, but its still referred that way. INTEGRITY is NOT a method violation.</p><p> </p><p>Its a decision. Falsify a delivery and take a chance that you wont get caught and risk your job. Its that easy, I can assure you that there is nothing in the contract that gives you a free pass on INTEGRITY. If you will "lie" (defined for this purpose as falsifying a delivery record) then you are dishonest and the company will remove you.</p><p> </p><p>You say its only becomes dishonest when he lies about it, okay, what if he didnt get caught, would that make it okay then? Why do you think they created this system in the first place? Could it be the thousands of smoked packages everyday in the entire system from guys who you say are not guilty until they "lie" about it?</p><p> </p><p>Lets look again at what it sez in article 6:</p><p> </p><p>""no employee shall be discharged on a first offense if such discharge is based solely upon information recieved from gps or any successor system unless he/she engages in dishonesty (<strong><span style="font-size: 15px">defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the company</span></strong>).""</p><p> </p><p>I raised the typeface for you this time, its sez very clearly, ANY ACT OR OMMISSION by an employee.</p><p> </p><p>You can clearly see that your example of "it only becomes dishonest when he lies about it" is NOT true since both the ACT and the OMMISSION (lie) are covered by this section.</p><p> </p><p>Seeing this, you must understand that the company can "solely" use telematics for discharges for dishonesty. Depending on the severity of the action, the company could give the employee a break on a FIRST OFFENSE, let him/her off with a warning letter, but on a second, third etc etc etc it would be lights out.</p><p> </p><p>Unless you can demonstrate a paragraph in the western region supplement that somehow excludes the members in the west from this language, then I would suggest not recommending to members that somehow they are protected.</p><p> </p><p>This is bad advice.</p><p> </p><p>3) "<span style="color: red">Security would first be obligated to go out to the customer and ask them if the driver ever showed up or left a delivery notice. By itself and with no other evidence, the Telematics GPS data would not be sufficent to fire the driver for dishonesty <em>unless he told a provable lie when questioned about it."</em></span></p><p> </p><p>I am not sure where you are getting your explanations for how the company obligations work, but let me assure you, UPS is trying to make it that much easier for the operators to make a termination decision without the lag of protocol. In your example, you say security would have to go out and ask the customer if a notice was left. What for? GPS will show the vehicle on the wrong street at the wrong time and further, there would be NO SCAN on the notice, and if there was, then another dishonesty charge would be the case. GPS positioning is serious business. </p><p> </p><p>The company didnt invest millions of dollars in technology just to send an LP guy out knocking on doors. It would be prudent for the company to make sure (after the fact), but telematics is a pretty solid system when determining if a driver is sitting in one place sheeting packages for other streets. </p><p> </p><p>I am curious about your "methods violations" versus "dishonesty" claims. In many yards, BA's talk to the members and give the wrong advice, tough union talk and sometimes that advice has to be taken with a grain of salt.</p><p> </p><p>I have heard many explanations from many agents about telematics and I can assure you, most of them are wrong. Most have been out of driving for longer than technology has been out there. </p><p> </p><p>When the company presented the idea of IVIS, DIAD, GPS and telematics to the union, it gave them the impression that they were safety related devices and would only be used for safety training and monitoring.</p><p> </p><p>In the end, they became tools of discipline and in the wrong hands can be exploited. </p><p> </p><p>That being said, on our side of the fence, we have many who cheat the system (signing for packages, bad dr's, stealing, wasting time, blah blah blah) and those guys make it hard on the rest of us.</p><p> </p><p>For years, UPS has had to catch these guys the hard way but in todays UPS, its become only a mouse click away.</p><p> </p><p>Further that with supportive contractual language and you have a recipe for disaster.</p><p> </p><p>I kid with you in my posts, but I would like to see how you formulate your positions by actually seeing what language you based those formulas on.</p><p> </p><p>Show me something in the west that supercedes the language contained in article 6 of the national master agreement relating to GPS, DIAD or any other informational device where it states that the telematic information is not proof.</p><p> </p><p>Peace.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 807913, member: 17969"] Sober, A good clean discussion about the realities of contractual application is good for all members. Lets further the discussion by examining your points. 1) [COLOR=red]"Under the Western Supplement, Telematics data [I]by itself[/I] is [B]not proof[/B]."[/COLOR] I am "personally" familiar with the language in the west as I sat at the table in 92,97 and 2002. Where in 2011 does it state in the western supplement that Telematics, GPS or any other successor device by itself is not proof? What section? What paragraph? Help me out here. Hopefully, you are not referring to this "no employee shall be disciplined for exceeding personal time based on data recieved from the diad/ivis or other informational technology". This particular paragraph contained in article 37 is a protection for drivers who show large gaps between stops. In this case, an employee who shows no activity for lets say 20 mins between stops could not be disciplined by telematics, diad or IVIS. The company would have to see the gaps and then place an onroad sup out there to visibly see the gaps and make a determination if the employee is "stealing time" and taking unnecessary breaks. This language is only good for this one purpose and one purpose only, to determine excessive personal time. 2) [COLOR=red]"If he told them the truth..."I sheeted them as NI1 because I needed to get off of work early"....then he has committed a rather serious methods violation. It becomes dishonesty when he [I]lies[/I] about it. And the ultimate [I]proof[/I] of that lie cannot be solely based upon Telematics/GPS data."[/COLOR] [COLOR=black]There are a couple of flaws with this argument. First, telling them the truth? An admission of a cardinal infraction (dishonesty) and you call that a [B]"serious methods violation"[/B] ? Where in the contract do you see the methods section in any of the contractual components? [/COLOR] Company methods are referred to as 3/40 methods, a little outdated using todays technology, but its still referred that way. INTEGRITY is NOT a method violation. Its a decision. Falsify a delivery and take a chance that you wont get caught and risk your job. Its that easy, I can assure you that there is nothing in the contract that gives you a free pass on INTEGRITY. If you will "lie" (defined for this purpose as falsifying a delivery record) then you are dishonest and the company will remove you. You say its only becomes dishonest when he lies about it, okay, what if he didnt get caught, would that make it okay then? Why do you think they created this system in the first place? Could it be the thousands of smoked packages everyday in the entire system from guys who you say are not guilty until they "lie" about it? Lets look again at what it sez in article 6: ""no employee shall be discharged on a first offense if such discharge is based solely upon information recieved from gps or any successor system unless he/she engages in dishonesty ([B][SIZE=4]defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the company[/SIZE][/B])."" I raised the typeface for you this time, its sez very clearly, ANY ACT OR OMMISSION by an employee. You can clearly see that your example of "it only becomes dishonest when he lies about it" is NOT true since both the ACT and the OMMISSION (lie) are covered by this section. Seeing this, you must understand that the company can "solely" use telematics for discharges for dishonesty. Depending on the severity of the action, the company could give the employee a break on a FIRST OFFENSE, let him/her off with a warning letter, but on a second, third etc etc etc it would be lights out. Unless you can demonstrate a paragraph in the western region supplement that somehow excludes the members in the west from this language, then I would suggest not recommending to members that somehow they are protected. This is bad advice. 3) "[COLOR=red]Security would first be obligated to go out to the customer and ask them if the driver ever showed up or left a delivery notice. By itself and with no other evidence, the Telematics GPS data would not be sufficent to fire the driver for dishonesty [I]unless he told a provable lie when questioned about it."[/I][/COLOR] I am not sure where you are getting your explanations for how the company obligations work, but let me assure you, UPS is trying to make it that much easier for the operators to make a termination decision without the lag of protocol. In your example, you say security would have to go out and ask the customer if a notice was left. What for? GPS will show the vehicle on the wrong street at the wrong time and further, there would be NO SCAN on the notice, and if there was, then another dishonesty charge would be the case. GPS positioning is serious business. The company didnt invest millions of dollars in technology just to send an LP guy out knocking on doors. It would be prudent for the company to make sure (after the fact), but telematics is a pretty solid system when determining if a driver is sitting in one place sheeting packages for other streets. I am curious about your "methods violations" versus "dishonesty" claims. In many yards, BA's talk to the members and give the wrong advice, tough union talk and sometimes that advice has to be taken with a grain of salt. I have heard many explanations from many agents about telematics and I can assure you, most of them are wrong. Most have been out of driving for longer than technology has been out there. When the company presented the idea of IVIS, DIAD, GPS and telematics to the union, it gave them the impression that they were safety related devices and would only be used for safety training and monitoring. In the end, they became tools of discipline and in the wrong hands can be exploited. That being said, on our side of the fence, we have many who cheat the system (signing for packages, bad dr's, stealing, wasting time, blah blah blah) and those guys make it hard on the rest of us. For years, UPS has had to catch these guys the hard way but in todays UPS, its become only a mouse click away. Further that with supportive contractual language and you have a recipe for disaster. I kid with you in my posts, but I would like to see how you formulate your positions by actually seeing what language you based those formulas on. Show me something in the west that supercedes the language contained in article 6 of the national master agreement relating to GPS, DIAD or any other informational device where it states that the telematic information is not proof. Peace. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
telematicks
Top