UPS to pay $25 million for false delivery claims
- Thread starter automaticP1300
- Start date
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but my counter would be "ok Gov't and there goes your crazy huge discount" and I'm talking approaching 90%, the feds gets unheard of carrier discounts. That 25 million will be made up quickly.
That said, I wouldn't doubt there is some fault here, but in any sane measure, a private company, that would be killing the golden goose, rates.
Also with such large contracts waiving money back guarantees are common, I can see the point beyond that. I wonder if the future has the big 2 lax'ing up on the "Guarantee" part of it and move to no guarantees and "Likely to be there by..." times. In some regards I wouldn't blame them.
That said, I wouldn't doubt there is some fault here, but in any sane measure, a private company, that would be killing the golden goose, rates.
Also with such large contracts waiving money back guarantees are common, I can see the point beyond that. I wonder if the future has the big 2 lax'ing up on the "Guarantee" part of it and move to no guarantees and "Likely to be there by..." times. In some regards I wouldn't blame them.
I can assure you it is not automatic.
You call a person reporting wrong doing a rat, some call it checks and balances or stopping illegal behavior. If he's right he's right, if he's wrong after the review nothing happens. Without this avenue things will get worse, right now they are trying to squash more whistle-blower rights in congress, no one likes to be checked. So they talk out of both sides of their mouths yet again.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
UPS will never learn. They just paid $25M for false delivery claims and are still at it.
Had a whole cart load of packages that would not fit on the trailer. Instead of going into another trailer. I heard the sup say to send them to rewrap.
This means they are going to sheet 50 packages as open/damaged/rewrap to avoid paying for service failures.
Had a whole cart load of packages that would not fit on the trailer. Instead of going into another trailer. I heard the sup say to send them to rewrap.
This means they are going to sheet 50 packages as open/damaged/rewrap to avoid paying for service failures.
OPTION3
Well-Known Member
......while management calls all hourly employees liars and thieves.....ironic isn't it?
upschuck
Well-Known Member
Does that avoid paying for lates, or does that just take the "blame" off of them. If that were me, I'd complain bitterly if I still had to pay.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
That is an excuse to not have to pay. They tell the shipper that their package was delayed because of improper packaging. Guarantee viod.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
No where does it say that it is a reason to void guarantee in the tariff, that I can see.
Johney
Well-Known Member
If it were that easy do you really think they'd be paying out 25 million?
upschuck
Well-Known Member
I've not had any trouble, even past the time limit. Field suppot is your friend
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
The $25M is for cheating on NDA.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
During our PCM yesterday our center manager told us that we are to address correct any NDA that is being delivered to a new address and to not deliver any NDA to someone that you meet on-road, regardless of whether they show you proper ID or not. The address correcting and meet on-road were brought up because the system will automatically generate a refund if the package is not delivered as addressed based solely on GPS.
We had a major plumbing supplier (friend W Webb) relocate and thought that we were doing the right thing by forwarding any packages with the old address to their new location without doing an ADC on them. The driver on that route has now been directed to do an ADC on any and all packages with the old address, which can be a real pain when you are in the middle of getting rid of your air.
The meet on-road was brought up as we had a driver deliver a NDA to a customer that he had met on road, which is the right thing to do service wise but I guess the wrong thing to do as far as billing goes.
This company seems hell bent to make what is basically a simple job much more complicated than it needs to be.
We had a major plumbing supplier (friend W Webb) relocate and thought that we were doing the right thing by forwarding any packages with the old address to their new location without doing an ADC on them. The driver on that route has now been directed to do an ADC on any and all packages with the old address, which can be a real pain when you are in the middle of getting rid of your air.
The meet on-road was brought up as we had a driver deliver a NDA to a customer that he had met on road, which is the right thing to do service wise but I guess the wrong thing to do as far as billing goes.
This company seems hell bent to make what is basically a simple job much more complicated than it needs to be.
oldngray
nowhere special
I had customers that knew my route and where my firsts stops in the morning would be. They would meet me to get their packages as early as possible. A win/win for both UPS and the customer since I got rid of a stop without going out of my way and the customer was happy. I guess with the new UPS looking good on a report is more important.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
For now it is just the air products. We can still deliver ground wherever and whenever.
Similar threads
