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: 808029" data-attributes="member: 14668"><p>Telematics did not exist in 92, 97 or 2002. My information is coming from my BA and president of my Local who has represented several members facing termination at panel hearings in <strong>2010. </strong>He has also been a <em>member</em> of panels, as well as participating in the committee that actually <em>negotiated</em> the language in question. Another building in my Local just went live with Telematics and the stewards from that building as well as ours (myself included) attended a seminar <em>hosted</em> by this BA where the results of these recent panel hearings were discussed and clarified so that we could better represent our members on the shop floor. <strong>What matters here is how the panel interprets the language</strong>, not how we as individuals choose to interpret the language.</p><p> </p><p>.Again, I am telling you how <strong>recent panels</strong> have interpreted the language. We have had members who, when confronted, have immediately come clean and been honest about issues such as prerecording NDA before 10:30 or "smoking" packages, and on a first offense they generally get their jobs back. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No, it would <strong>not</strong> be OK and yes, his actions are <em>still</em> dishonest. That does not change the fact that, under our labor agreement, in order to <strong>prove</strong> that the employee was dishonest the company must have more than just a Telematics/GPS report in order for a termination to be upheld. And in <strong>recent panel hearings</strong> where the terminations <em>were</em> upheld, the company <em>did</em> have additional proof. They used the Telematics to figure out who was dirty, and then they went out and got proof and caught them.</p><p> </p><p>.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Article 28 Section 2 of the Western Supplement is the <em>relevant</em> language for panel hearings out here since it is <em>superior</em> to what is in the National. Article 28 section 2 is the language that has been used in <strong>recent panel hearings</strong> to determine whether or not a termination is upheld. I am <strong>not</strong> advocating dishonesty and I am <strong>not</strong> suggesting that our members have "nothing to worry about"...all I am saying is that, based upon <strong>recent panel hearings</strong>, simply showing up on a Telematics report is not sufficient grounds for a termination.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I was recently questioned about why Telematics showed me backing up 125 feet for a stop with one package. The address in question has a driveway that is 20 feet long. Had the report been accurate, I would have backed all the way through both walls of the building and down into a ravine on the other side. Another driver showed up on the report because he supposedly backed up for 15 city blocks at speeds of up to 35 MPH, a physical impossibility. On a routine basis, the GPS system malfunctions and prompts the alert in my DIAD at every single stop for minutes or even hours at a time even though I am at the correct location. The system is far from perfect and that is why, by itself, the data is not sufficent grounds for <strong>proving</strong> dishonesty on the part of the driver.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You are correct that the technology makes it easier for the company to figure out who is dirty. And those of us who do our jobs the <strong>right</strong> way have no problem with that.</p><p> </p><p>Where you and I are in disagreement is in how the <strong>recent panel hearings</strong> are interpreting the language.</p><p> </p><p>You are implying that the <em>only</em> thing that needs to happen for a guy to get fired is for there to be a discrepancy between his delivery records and the GPS that can be <em>interpreted</em> by the company as dishonesty, and that a successful termination is but a "mouse click away". And what I am telling you...based upon recent Western Conference <strong>panel hearings</strong>....is that you are <em>incorrect</em>.</p><p> </p><p>Truly dishonest drivers <em>are</em> going to be easier to catch...as <strong>recent panel hearings</strong> have proven....<em> but a successful termination still requires the company to do more than simply print out a report</em>. And an honest driver who is doing his job correctly does <em>not</em> have to fear getting whacked because of a software glitch in a Telematics system.</p><p> </p><p>Peace.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>.</p></blockquote><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="soberups, post: 808029, member: 14668"] Telematics did not exist in 92, 97 or 2002. My information is coming from my BA and president of my Local who has represented several members facing termination at panel hearings in [B]2010. [/B]He has also been a [I]member[/I] of panels, as well as participating in the committee that actually [I]negotiated[/I] the language in question. Another building in my Local just went live with Telematics and the stewards from that building as well as ours (myself included) attended a seminar [I]hosted[/I] by this BA where the results of these recent panel hearings were discussed and clarified so that we could better represent our members on the shop floor. [B]What matters here is how the panel interprets the language[/B], not how we as individuals choose to interpret the language. .Again, I am telling you how [B]recent panels[/B] have interpreted the language. We have had members who, when confronted, have immediately come clean and been honest about issues such as prerecording NDA before 10:30 or "smoking" packages, and on a first offense they generally get their jobs back. No, it would [B]not[/B] be OK and yes, his actions are [I]still[/I] dishonest. That does not change the fact that, under our labor agreement, in order to [B]prove[/B] that the employee was dishonest the company must have more than just a Telematics/GPS report in order for a termination to be upheld. And in [B]recent panel hearings[/B] where the terminations [I]were[/I] upheld, the company [I]did[/I] have additional proof. They used the Telematics to figure out who was dirty, and then they went out and got proof and caught them. . Article 28 Section 2 of the Western Supplement is the [I]relevant[/I] language for panel hearings out here since it is [I]superior[/I] to what is in the National. Article 28 section 2 is the language that has been used in [B]recent panel hearings[/B] to determine whether or not a termination is upheld. I am [B]not[/B] advocating dishonesty and I am [B]not[/B] suggesting that our members have "nothing to worry about"...all I am saying is that, based upon [B]recent panel hearings[/B], simply showing up on a Telematics report is not sufficient grounds for a termination. I was recently questioned about why Telematics showed me backing up 125 feet for a stop with one package. The address in question has a driveway that is 20 feet long. Had the report been accurate, I would have backed all the way through both walls of the building and down into a ravine on the other side. Another driver showed up on the report because he supposedly backed up for 15 city blocks at speeds of up to 35 MPH, a physical impossibility. On a routine basis, the GPS system malfunctions and prompts the alert in my DIAD at every single stop for minutes or even hours at a time even though I am at the correct location. The system is far from perfect and that is why, by itself, the data is not sufficent grounds for [B]proving[/B] dishonesty on the part of the driver. You are correct that the technology makes it easier for the company to figure out who is dirty. And those of us who do our jobs the [B]right[/B] way have no problem with that. Where you and I are in disagreement is in how the [B]recent panel hearings[/B] are interpreting the language. You are implying that the [I]only[/I] thing that needs to happen for a guy to get fired is for there to be a discrepancy between his delivery records and the GPS that can be [I]interpreted[/I] by the company as dishonesty, and that a successful termination is but a "mouse click away". And what I am telling you...based upon recent Western Conference [B]panel hearings[/B]....is that you are [I]incorrect[/I]. Truly dishonest drivers [I]are[/I] going to be easier to catch...as [B]recent panel hearings[/B] have proven....[I] but a successful termination still requires the company to do more than simply print out a report[/I]. And an honest driver who is doing his job correctly does [I]not[/I] have to fear getting whacked because of a software glitch in a Telematics system. Peace. .[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
telematicks
Top