Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pretzel_man" data-source="post: 478482" data-attributes="member: 927">Sober:&nbsp;I appreciate you acknowledging my honesty.&nbsp; I have no reason to mislead people here and am happy that you recognize that.&nbsp;I think your posts are generally fair as well.&nbsp; You have no problem pointing out what management&#039;s job is and hold us accountable.&nbsp; You also hold yourself and others accountable to do your jobs correctly as well.&nbsp; No one can ask for more than that.&nbsp;I do have a problem with your position in this area however.&nbsp; Let me try and explain.&nbsp;First, I do not know why UPS chose to not put in 3 point seat belts.&nbsp; I don&#039;t have information to try and explain the situation.&nbsp; If the difference in cost is only $40 as you say, I think that is a poor decision.&nbsp; I suspect that either the difference is greater than you think, or there are other reasons.&nbsp; (I don&#039;t know this for a fact, just my suspicion)&nbsp;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)&nbsp;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.&nbsp;I especially have a problem with your assertion of intent because I&#039;ve spoken first hand with those that worked on this system and are deploying it.&nbsp; I relayed their thought process and communications here and (as you acknowledged) have no need to be dishonest.&nbsp; I know their intent is pure.&nbsp;So, here is where I am...&nbsp; UPS does care about safety, but not at all costs. UPS could have chosen multiple ways to impact safety, and chose this route.&nbsp; Wiring to the starter was certainly another option, but I&#039;m sure this one was chosen because it was a cheaper and easier to implement.&nbsp; While not a 100% guarantee, it seems to have worked in the sites.&nbsp;There are many ways a business can choose to attack a problem.&nbsp; Not all decisions will be agreed with and not all actions will be fully consistent.&nbsp; This doesn&#039;t mean that other actions have a mal intent.&nbsp; &nbsp;P-Man</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pretzel_man, post: 478482, member: 927"] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification