UPS Targeting Teamsters' Rights on Social Media

[gorilla75jdw]

could somebody brief me or us on Steve the UPS guys case please ?

 

[cachsux]

In all fairness, Steve didn't maintain his position.
He took the "deal" at the local level hearing.

I agree that this isn't a 1st amendment issue, as we aren't talking about criminal prosecution.
I don't think anybody can predict how it would play out if the company chose to single you out.
Do you want to be the guinea pig?
Perhaps this is what Hoaxster is trying to say?

The point was Steve wasn't even being negative in his posts for the most part yet discipline was taken.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I don't make comments about UPS I don't think aren't true. Most if not all of my disparaging comment about a manger or UPS operations comes from 1st hand experience which are largely shared experiences and agree with in this forum.

Steve did not make disparaging comments about the company-----he posted pictures which put his supervisors in a less than favorable light and others which clearly showed that he was stealing time.

 

[Catatonic]

The point was Steve wasn't even being negative in his posts for the most part yet discipline was taken.

Without getting into whether Steve should have been disciplined or not ...
As I remember, Steve took a video/picture of his supervisor in a moving package car without his seat belt on.
And without getting into the specifics of what he was "charged" with, that was the seminal moment of the affair.
It is dangerous poking the bear.
Every person screws up many times everyday ... it depends on how motivated the person(s) is that has it out for you.

The interest and discipline in Steve was locally generated and executed based on posts on Brown Cafe.
If Corporate UPS gets interested (Facebook or Twitter) then resources and motivation gets supersized.

 

[Bubblehead]

The point was Steve wasn't even being negative in his posts for the most part yet discipline was taken.

I thought the post that got him in trouble was of a picture he took of his supervisor driving without their seatbelt on.
I'm thinking that would qualify as negative?
At that juncture Steve was put to a decision, fight or roll over.
In the end, I'm pretty sure he did what most of us would do.

The point I think we were both trying to make was to be careful when you squeeze the tube, because it is often very difficult to get the toothpaste back in once it's out.

 

[RandomDrone]

This thread is actually really funny. Con Law 101 will teach you that the bill of rights apply to government actions, not private companies. This is really basic. Depending on the precedents set since then, many rights are granted further than that, but trashing your company online is not one of them. The guy who started out saying that you can't get fired for disparaging UPS on facebook seems to have been moving the goalposts quite a bit. Just stop and think before you post something under your real name before posting it. If your hub was using child labor, sure you could air that publicly. If you think your Sup is an ? That will at the very least paint a target on your back should they find out. Heck, even Yelp was forced to give up the real names of posters of customers that posted negative reviews* of a company in VA and they were just customers, not even employees. Use some common sense people, people have been bitching about their jobs since cavemen learned that they could make fire by chopping wood. If it's not something you would want the whole world to see, don't put it on the internet, especially under your real name.
(http://www.businessinsider.com/hadeed-negative-yelp-reviews-lawsuit-2014-1)

 

[Indecisi0n]

I would comment but I don't want to be subscribed to another long thread and get multi alerts from it....Doh!