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 Discussions
Was I unreasonable?
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="FracusBrown" data-source="post: 752558" data-attributes="member: 29360"><p>Theres a double standard. </p><p> </p><p>To UPS everything is a safety issue when it can be used against you, but in the case of non working back up cameras they flip flop and revert to DOT rules. Its not a DOT requirement, so it not illegal to operate. There is a memo out about this topic from way back when the first ones were installed. You can be disciplined for refusing to drive it on the basis of the camera not working.</p><p> </p><p>The DVIR is separate issue. It is against the law to remove or destroy the original DVIR. It is not against the law to operate the vehicle with a non-DOT safety item listed as needing repair, but it is against company policy. Company policy indicates that only a qualified automotive person can sign off the DVIR, but DOT allows any agent of the company (including the driver) to sign it off if they are satisfied that it meets DOT safety requirements. </p><p> </p><p>I'd say it's unreasonable to refuse to operate the vehicle because of the non working camera. It's legal and 95% or more of all trucks on the road don't have them.</p><p>It is not unreasonable to refuse to tear the page out of the book. Its illegal. </p><p>Refusing to operate the vehicle because the DVIR is not signed off is a toss up. Against policy, but not against the law. You could get into trouble, but it probably wouldn't stick. </p><p>Although its common, it is unreasonable that no one involved knows the policy or the DOT requirements.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FracusBrown, post: 752558, member: 29360"] Theres a double standard. To UPS everything is a safety issue when it can be used against you, but in the case of non working back up cameras they flip flop and revert to DOT rules. Its not a DOT requirement, so it not illegal to operate. There is a memo out about this topic from way back when the first ones were installed. You can be disciplined for refusing to drive it on the basis of the camera not working. The DVIR is separate issue. It is against the law to remove or destroy the original DVIR. It is not against the law to operate the vehicle with a non-DOT safety item listed as needing repair, but it is against company policy. Company policy indicates that only a qualified automotive person can sign off the DVIR, but DOT allows any agent of the company (including the driver) to sign it off if they are satisfied that it meets DOT safety requirements. I'd say it's unreasonable to refuse to operate the vehicle because of the non working camera. It's legal and 95% or more of all trucks on the road don't have them. It is not unreasonable to refuse to tear the page out of the book. Its illegal. Refusing to operate the vehicle because the DVIR is not signed off is a toss up. Against policy, but not against the law. You could get into trouble, but it probably wouldn't stick. Although its common, it is unreasonable that no one involved knows the policy or the DOT requirements. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Was I unreasonable?
Top