Telematics...UPS is wiring your truck

[Paid-over-in-Maine]

i have to leap to reach handrail

Better hope you land on the step!! It would be funny to see a UPS guy hanging from a handrail and not able to touch the ground!LOL

 

[backinbrown]

Better hope you land on the step!! It would be funny to see a UPS guy hanging from a handrail and not able to touch the ground!LOL

i have fallen in truck

jumping for handrail missed step fell in then out of truck all in front of stopped traffic and hot moms walking kids, was embarassing

but i literally have to reach way up to grab

i know i know have mechanic move it

i dont have my own truck

so whats good for me is bad for someone else

 

[backinbrown]

PD OVER stop shaking your head at me

 

[Paid-over-in-Maine]

i have fallen in truck

jumping for handrail missed step fell in then out of truck all in front of stopped traffic and hot moms walking kids, was embarassing

I would have paid to see that! Then bought your beer on Friday

 

[backinbrown]

I would have paid to see that! Then bought your beer on Friday

You guys are not still having beers on friday are you. too cold plus im not there

 

[Paid-over-in-Maine]

You guys are not still having beers on friday are you. too cold plus im not there

Na...To cold....they'd freeze up before you finish!!

 

[soberups]

Okay. I give up. You caught us. You are absolutely right. The whole goal is to terminate drivers.

I must admit that management was outsmarted on this one. After 1500 driver days, we were only able to terminate one driver.

Unfortunately, the other 1499 drivers foiled our plans by actually improving their safety, following methods, and reducing idle time.

P-Man

P-Man....
I dont for a minute doubt your honesty or integrity. I dont doubt for a minute that you are relaying the truth about Telematics as it is explained to you.

But there is a fundamental disconnect here between your statements and UPS's actions.

It is stated that one of the goals of Telematics is to improve compliance in terms of seat belt use and bulkhead door being closed. The fact of the matter is that the company could gurantee 100% compliance by wiring the seat belt and door sensors into the starter relay, yet it chooses not to.

It is also stated that one of the goals of Telematics is to improve safety. In order to implement this, the company has made a decision to remove a functionally worthless 2-point seat belt....and replace it with an identical 2-point belt that is equipped with a sensor that will allow the company to monitor usage and ultimately terminate the driver for failing to wear it. In other words, you have spent several hundred dollars per car on a system that does absolutely nothing to enhance the physical safety of the driver while at the same time claiming that the system somehow "benefits" him.

Can you not see the incongruity here? The complete and total disconnect between UPS's stated goals and its actions?

If UPS want us all to be safe then it provide all of us with safe equipment.

If UPS doesnt want to spend the $$ on safe equipment then thats OK too. Please, UPS,just quit pretending that you do care about safety when your actions clearly and unequivocably show that you do not.

 

[pretzel_man]

P-Man....
I dont for a minute doubt your honesty or integrity. I dont doubt for a minute that you are relaying the truth about Telematics as it is explained to you.

But there is a fundamental disconnect here between your statements and UPS's actions.

It is stated that one of the goals of Telematics is to improve compliance in terms of seat belt use and bulkhead door being closed. The fact of the matter is that the company could gurantee 100% compliance by wiring the seat belt and door sensors into the starter relay, yet it chooses not to.

It is also stated that one of the goals of Telematics is to improve safety. In order to implement this, the company has made a decision to remove a functionally worthless 2-point seat belt....and replace it with an identical 2-point belt that is equipped with a sensor that will allow the company to monitor usage and ultimately terminate the driver for failing to wear it. In other words, you have spent several hundred dollars per car on a system that does absolutely nothing to enhance the physical safety of the driver while at the same time claiming that the system somehow "benefits" him.

Can you not see the incongruity here? The complete and total disconnect between UPS's stated goals and its actions?

If UPS want us all to be safe then it provide all of us with safe equipment.

If UPS doesnt want to spend the $$ on safe equipment then thats OK too. Please, UPS,just quit pretending that you do care about safety when your actions clearly and unequivocably show that you do not.

Sober:

I appreciate you acknowledging my honesty. I have no reason to mislead people here and am happy that you recognize that.

I think your posts are generally fair as well. You have no problem pointing out what management's job is and hold us accountable. You also hold yourself and others accountable to do your jobs correctly as well. No one can ask for more than that.

I do have a problem with your position in this area however. Let me try and explain.

First, I do not know why UPS chose to not put in 3 point seat belts. I don't have information to try and explain the situation. If the difference in cost is only $40 as you say, I think that is a poor decision. I suspect that either the difference is greater than you think, or there are other reasons. (I don't know this for a fact, just my suspicion)

I do therefore see the incongruity (especially from your position) between not spending the $40 and then spending money on telematics (which is partially for safety improvement)

However, I do NOT see the relationship between that inconsistency and your assertion that the intent of telematics is to enable the company to document a case for driver termination and discipline.

I especially have a problem with your assertion of intent because I've spoken first hand with those that worked on this system and are deploying it. I relayed their thought process and communications here and (as you acknowledged) have no need to be dishonest. I know their intent is pure.

So, here is where I am... UPS does care about safety, but not at all costs. UPS could have chosen multiple ways to impact safety, and chose this route. Wiring to the starter was certainly another option, but I'm sure this one was chosen because it was a cheaper and easier to implement. While not a 100% guarantee, it seems to have worked in the sites.

There are many ways a business can choose to attack a problem. Not all decisions will be agreed with and not all actions will be fully consistent. This doesn't mean that other actions have a mal intent.

P-Man

 

[Ms.PacMan]

I was thinking about the magnetic bulkhead door sensor earlier and was thinking they could use a magnetic lock to secure the bulkhead door.

Magnetic locks need a current and the door would unlock automatically every time a driver turned off the truck.

Could they then use a solenoid switch on the dash to draw current from the battery to secure the lock when away from the truck?

Pretzel man - What was the baseline for measuring safety? Without telemetrics UPS couldn't measure safety compliance, so how can they claim a success rate?

Did accidents and injury statistics improve over the 1500 driver hours studied with the telemetrics?

This will definitely improve compliance but I'm not convinced it will improve safety.

Soberups - I can only guess that the reason UPS does not retrofit the lap belts is because they would then be acknowledging that they are unsafe which opens them up to lawsuits from prior injuries/death perhaps?

 

[UPSNewbie]

Sober:

I appreciate you acknowledging my honesty. I have no reason to mislead people here and am happy that you recognize that.

I think your posts are generally fair as well. You have no problem pointing out what management's job is and hold us accountable. You also hold yourself and others accountable to do your jobs correctly as well. No one can ask for more than that.

I do have a problem with your position in this area however. Let me try and explain.

First, I do not know why UPS chose to not put in 3 point seat belts. I don't have information to try and explain the situation. If the difference in cost is only $40 as you say, I think that is a poor decision. I suspect that either the difference is greater than you think, or there are other reasons. (I don't know this for a fact, just my suspicion)

I do therefore see the incongruity (especially from your position) between not spending the $40 and then spending money on telematics (which is partially for safety improvement)

However, I do NOT see the relationship between that inconsistency and your assertion that the intent of telematics is to enable the company to document a case for driver termination and discipline.

I especially have a problem with your assertion of intent because I've spoken first hand with those that worked on this system and are deploying it. I relayed their thought process and communications here and (as you acknowledged) have no need to be dishonest. I know their intent is pure.

So, here is where I am... UPS does care about safety, but not at all costs. UPS could have chosen multiple ways to impact safety, and chose this route. Wiring to the starter was certainly another option, but I'm sure this one was chosen because it was a cheaper and easier to implement. While not a 100% guarantee, it seems to have worked in the sites.

There are many ways a business can choose to attack a problem. Not all decisions will be agreed with and not all actions will be fully consistent. This doesn't mean that other actions have a mal intent.

P-Man

I don't mean to talk for Soberups, but what I see, is that the problem isn't from the designers, but the local management would could ultimately abuse the system.

 

[dannyboy]

I don't mean to talk for Soberups, but what I see, is that the problem isn't from the designers, but the local management would could ultimately abuse the system.

Abusive managers dont have to have this system to be abusive. They were around 75 years or more ago, and found ways to be abusive.

And yes, there will be ways for those knuckle heads to misuse it. But that is what the panel is for.

As for the stand on lunch.

If you are driving the truck, you have to be on duty. It is against the law for you to drive the truck, and be off duty.

Also, there is the aspect of liability. If you are not on the clock, and are involved in an accident, what then? Yeah, I know UPS is legally on the hook for the cost.

d

 

[browniehound]

Browniehound:

Sorry for being so long. Please at least read the last paragraph.

I had a copy of the Telematics training (both for district management and drivers) on my computer. I went re-read the materials to ensure I didn't misrepresent what we were taught.

First, let me start with the seat belt. Its NOT true that drivers are wearing their belt all the time and backing only when necessary. At least it wasn't true for the 1500 drivers tested.

There was a remarkable change in this behavior when it was presented to the drivers. I was amazed at the relatively low seat belt usage when the system was first put in. Its now higher than 99.8%

Next, recording while driving. Again, I was surprised at how high the usage was before implementation.

I know you want to focus on the bulkhead door issue. I don't know what to say. The methods say to close it, so close it. I once posted that when I was a driver, I didn't close the door all the time. If my sup came up and said that I had to close it and that he would know if I didn't.... Well, I would start closing the door and move on.

The system has also found much excessive idle time going on. I'm not talking about 10 degree weather and the driver is just trying to get through the day. I'm talking about pure unnecessary idling. This reduction alone saves a tremendous amount of fuel. Feeder has been monitoring this since the early 1990's.

The tests have shown that from an automotive side, road calls are reduced and maintenance expense is also reduced. This is a major part of telematics savings.

You say its a waste of money. Think about it. UPS does NOT spend money without tremendous thought. (Sometimes we think way too much). Why would the management committee spend so much money if it were a waste?

This system started in one building in Georgia and proved to save money. It then moved to two, then three, then to 1500 drivers. This year its moving to one center in each district and one whole district (somewhere in New England).

There is a very easy way to prove that this is a waste of money. If BEFORE the system is put in their center, all drivers in started wearing their seat belt, eliminating idle time, closing the bulkhead, etc. then the system would show no savings. So far this has not been the case.

Last thing... I may be wrong but I think its a misconception that "The contract states information from technology can't used to disipline an employee". We were told that the contract now allows discipline based on thechnology but is limited. Here is the article: "No employee shall be discharged on a first offense if such discharge is based solely upon
information received from GPS or any successor system unless he/she engages in dishonesty"

P-Man

P-man,
I can't argue that. I have to assume your facts are correct. I have no facts, I just thought it was more efficent to keep the bulk-head door open for close stops.

Also, I know many drivers fasten the seat-belt while the vehicle starts to move. I thought this was a minor infraction also.

As for excess idling, there is no doubt that it wastes fuel. Its also unsafe to leave any vehicle running un-attended, especially a commercial vehicle. I think thats just asking for trouble.

Now that we have these sensors in the package cars to save the company money, can we save some more significant dollars by eliminating 2 of the 3 on-car supervisor jobs in my center because they don't have to follow us all day to make sure we are following the methods? LOL?

 

[stevetheupsguy]

P-man,
I can't argue that. I have to assume your facts are correct. I have no facts, I just thought it was more efficent to keep the bulk-head door open for close stops.

Also, I know many drivers fasten the seat-belt while the vehicle starts to move. I thought this was a minor infraction also.

As for excess idling, there is no doubt that it wastes fuel. Its also unsafe to leave any vehicle running un-attended, especially a commercial vehicle. I think thats just asking for trouble.

Now that we have these sensors in the package cars to save the company money, can we save some more significant dollars by eliminating 2 of the 3 on-car supervisor jobs in my center because they don't have to follow us all day to make sure we are following the methods? LOL?

Telematics = On-Car/On-Road......literally.

 

[soberups]

If you are driving the truck, you have to be on duty. It is against the law for you to drive the truck, and be off duty.

Also, there is the aspect of liability. If you are not on the clock, and are involved in an accident, what then? Yeah, I know UPS is legally on the hook for the cost.

d

There is a grey area here involving drivers on rural routes who need to drive off trace or even off area in order to find a bathroom or go to a restaraunt. The company has to allow the driver a reasonable amount of leeway if suitable meal or restroom facilites are not available.

I have also asked for, and been granted, permission to drive several miles off my area in order to go to a doctor appointment on my lunch hour. The alternative was for me to call in sick on a day when we were shorthanded which would have forced my supervisor to run my route cold with a part-timer helping him. My sup told me that my lunch started once I broke trace. Since I didnt enter my lunch period in the DIAD until I was about to punch out in the evening, I would have still been on the clock had there been an accident while I was driving it to the appointment. Technically I was using the company vehicle for personal reasons, but I had permission and it was certainly benefitting the company to allow me to do so.

 

[SlowRide80k]

Better hope you land on the step!! It would be funny to see a UPS guy hanging from a handrail and not able to touch the ground!LOL

We have a guy at my center all of 5-5 and 115lbs soaking wet. On the older trucks with the door handles on the inside that point up (older 800's and 1000's) Well he was exiting the truck and his shirt got caught. Well for most of us the shirt would rip but he was so light it hung him from the truck. He had to yell for help till a customer heard him and came out and got him unhooked!!!

 

[rod]

We have a guy at my center all of 5-5 and 115lbs soaking wet. On the older trucks with the door handles on the inside that point up (older 800's and 1000's) Well he was exiting the truck and his shirt got caught. Well for most of us the shirt would rip but he was so light it hung him from the truck. He had to yell for help till a customer heard him and came out and got him unhooked!!!

Done that a few times myself. I didn't have to be rescued but it did take 5 or 10 seconds before the shirt sleve would rip and set you free. Its a real helpless feeling hanging there. That was back when UPS had good quality shirts.

 

[dilligaf]

Done that a few times myself. I didn't have to be rescued but it did take 5 or 10 seconds before the shirt sleve would rip and set you free. Its a real helpless feeling hanging there. That was back when UPS had good quality shirts.

That's funny. I did it my self just a few months ago. When my shirt ripped it went from the end of the sleeve to half way down the side of my shirt. It's a good thing I got in the habit of wearing wife beaters under my work shirts. That could of been a little embarrassing.

 

[pretzel_man]

Pretzel man - What was the baseline for measuring safety? Without telemetrics UPS couldn't measure safety compliance, so how can they claim a success rate?

Did accidents and injury statistics improve over the 1500 driver hours studied with the telemetrics?

This will definitely improve compliance but I'm not convinced it will improve safety.

Ms.

Here is how they do it....

When the hardware is first installed, it starts gathering data. They don't have a PCM with the drivers at this point. Of course, drivers have an idea that something is going on because they see the new hardware.

After gathering data for a period of time, they create a baseline. This baseline is used to track improvements.

This is how they claim a success rate. They measure the % reduction in bulkhead door left opened, idle time, non seat belt usage, etc.

I've heard of improvements in accident frequencies as well as analysis by Liberty Mutual. I don't have more information than that.

P-Man

 

[sano]

Ms.

Here is how they do it....

When the hardware is first installed, it starts gathering data. They don't have a PCM with the drivers at this point. Of course, drivers have an idea that something is going on because they see the new hardware.

After gathering data for a period of time, they create a baseline. This baseline is used to track improvements.

This is how they claim a success rate. They measure the % reduction in bulkhead door left opened, idle time, non seat belt usage, etc.

I've heard of improvements in accident frequencies as well as analysis by Liberty Mutual. I don't have more information than that.

P-Man

Using that method to establish the baseline may underestimate the results. Just knowing they it could be tracked would make a difference to some drivers.

 

[pretzel_man]

Using that method to establish the baseline may underestimate the results. Just knowing they it could be tracked would make a difference to some drivers.

Exactly... Even with this "understatement", there was tremendous improvement in all elements. I was surprised.

P-Man