Are They Worried?

[whenIgetthere]

I've known several fired for running vehicles, and many for runaways, which is usually proof positive that the vehicle was running.

I know one driver who told me his truck was a runaway at a stop when he left it running, ran into a dumpster, and it was a W900!! He told me he didn't even know it was left in gear till he heard it hit the dumpster, SCARY!! Don't know how he explained that to our manager, but he's still here six months later!!

 

[MrFedEx]

I know one driver who told me his truck was a runaway at a stop when he left it running, ran into a dumpster, and it was a W900!! He told me he didn't even know it was left in gear till he heard it hit the dumpster, SCARY!! Don't know how he explained that to our manager, but he's still here six months later!!

Another example of policy applied differently to different people. It's supposed to be an immediate termination, but I do know a couple of people who got out of it. Don't ask me how.

 

[vantexan]

Another example of policy applied differently to different people. It's supposed to be an immediate termination, but I do know a couple of people who got out of it. Don't ask me how.

About 5 years ago in AZ a courier left her van running. Somehow it kicked into drive and hit a bunch of parked cars. She was so upset senior mgr took pity on her and didn't fire her. I would've just handed over my I.D. as I know what would've happened to me.

 

[LTFedExer]

I've known several fired for running vehicles, and many for runaways, which is usually proof positive that the vehicle was running.

This I've never heard. But, I could see it happening with one of the keyless trucks.

 

[quadro]

Another example of policy applied differently to different people. It's supposed to be an immediate termination, but I do know a couple of people who got out of it. Don't ask me how.

You should get one of these

 

[MrFedEx]

You should get one of these

You should get some common sense. Policy states that a vehicle should never be left running, and that it's cause for immediate termination. What's not to understand? And policy is most definitely applied unevenly. I've seen many people let go for running vehicles and/or runaways, and others allowed to stay. Does that sound like an even and fair application of policy to you? It all depends on whose butt you kiss. I'm guessing you could have a running vehicle and a runaway and still stay around because you pucker-up every chance you get.

 

[LTFedExer]

You should get one of these

Lol .

 

[quadro]

You should get some common sense. Policy states that a vehicle should never be left running, and that it's cause for immediate termination. What's not to understand? And policy is most definitely applied unevenly. I've seen many people let go for running vehicles and/or runaways, and others allowed to stay. Does that sound like an even and fair application of policy to you? It all depends on whose butt you kiss. I'm guessing you could have a running vehicle and a runaway and still stay around because you pucker-up every chance you get.

I do have common sense. That allows me the ability to understand that someone relating a story about something that didn't happen to them might not have all the facts. Furthermore, that prevents me from jumping to conclusions.

I never said that policy wasn't applied unevenly. I was simply pointing out that once again, you took hearsay as gospel.

To answer your question, I don't know if policy was applied evenly and fairly because I'm not jumping to conclusions. I don't have all the facts.

 

[DOWNTRODDEN IN TEXAS]

There was a courier here once that left a truck running at one of his daily stops because, according to him, it was an "in-n-out" stop...no more than a minute. In the minute he was inside a drunk man took off with his truck, luckily the cops caught him quickly and no one and no things were hurt.

He did lose his job, but things could've turned out a lot differently and a lot worse.

There was also a driver here in my area that had his transmission and e-brake fail while parked going downhill on a street with no curbs. He did get suspended, but it was finally determined not to be his fault but a mechanical failure. That was a shocker.

 

[Cactus]

There was also a driver here in my area that had his transmission and e-brake fail while parked going downhill on a street with no curbs. He did get suspended, but it was finally determined not to be his fault but a mechanical failure. That was a shocker.

You sure got to admire a "people company" that subscribes to the guilty until proven innocent concept.

 

[MrFedEx]

You sure got to admire a "people company" that subscribes to the guilty until proven innocent concept.

Exactly. Fire first, and then investigate later. Yes, some people have gotten their jobs back after investigations proved there was a mechanical defect, but others have just gotten off the hook because they were the manager's pet. I know one CTV driver (they can leave vehicles running) who didn't set his brake and had his rig roll into 3 parked Econolines, and he wasn't fired. I know an ex-courier who left his van running and happened to have a manager out snooping around and got caught. Gone, as in immediately. It all depends, and that's not right. Apply the policy evenly and fairly. No hearsay. FACT.

 

[quadro]

You sure got to admire a "people company" that subscribes to the guilty until proven innocent concept.

How is that guilty until proven innocent? FedEx didn't fire him on the spot, they did an investigation, paid the employee while the investigation was going on, determined it wasn't the employee's fault, and brought him back to work. Sounds like a People thing to do as they could have just fired him.

 

[quadro]

Exactly. Fire first, and then investigate later. Yes, some people have gotten their jobs back after investigations proved there was a mechanical defect, but others have just gotten off the hook because they were the manager's pet. I know one CTV driver (they can leave vehicles running) who didn't set his brake and had his rig roll into 3 parked Econolines, and he wasn't fired. I know an ex-courier who left his van running and happened to have a manager out snooping around and got caught. Gone, as in immediately. It all depends, and that's not right. Apply the policy evenly and fairly. No hearsay. FACT.

Except they didn't fire him. According to the post he was suspended and an investigation was done. If that's what happened then it was most likely a paid suspension so he wouldn't have lost any pay either.

On something as serious as leaving a vehicle running, I agree with you 100% that the policy needs to be applied consistently. I'm not 100% sure that policy says it is automatic termination and unfortunately if that's the case, that's where the uneven application of policy comes in. The problem with having a policy state categorically that something is termination leaves no room for extenuating circumstances. Obviously, the problem with it not stating it is the uneven application. All things considered, I think I would prefer to have extenuating circumstances considered which means I have to accept that there can and will be unfair application. I'm on the fence as to which is the lesser of the two evils.

 

[MrFedEx]

Except they didn't fire him. According to the post he was suspended and an investigation was done. If that's what happened then it was most likely a paid suspension so he wouldn't have lost any pay either.

On something as serious as leaving a vehicle running, I agree with you 100% that the policy needs to be applied consistently. I'm not 100% sure that policy says it is automatic termination and unfortunately if that's the case, that's where the uneven application of policy comes in. The problem with having a policy state categorically that something is termination leaves no room for extenuating circumstances. Obviously, the problem with it not stating it is the uneven application. All things considered, I think I would prefer to have extenuating circumstances considered which means I have to accept that there can and will be unfair application. I'm on the fence as to which is the lesser of the two evils.

The RTD should have been canned, but wasn't. The other instances I know of (facts) indicate that policy favors those who are good employees, employees who are minorities, and those in management's good graces.

 

[whenIgetthere]

The RTD should have been canned, but wasn't. The other instances I know of (facts) indicate that policy favors those who are good employees, employees who are minorities, and those in management's good graces.

I have been tod of an employee at our station who left his truck running while he ran into an eight-story office building. He cames back, truck is gone, stolen! The police find the truck a few miles away, all the valuable freight is gone, only docs and some other pacakages left in the truck. He gets fired but filed GFT and got his job back. But, this guy was never a management favorite, just the opposite in my opinion. He must have had pictures of one of the managers!! LOL This was a year or so before I started at Fedex, so this is only hearsay to me, but all the long-timers have told me it's true. He was a split-shift atthe time, now he has a straight eight.

 

[LTFedExer]

I have been tod of an employee at our station who left his truck running while he ran into an eight-story office building. He cames back, truck is gone, stolen! The police find the truck a few miles away, all the valuable freight is gone, only docs and some other pacakages left in the truck. He gets fired but filed GFT and got his job back. But, this guy was never a management favorite, just the opposite in my opinion. He must have had pictures of one of the managers!! LOL This was a year or so before I started at Fedex, so this is only hearsay to me, but all the long-timers have told me it's true. He was a split-shift atthe time, now he has a straight eight.

Exactly. It's stories like that the newhires hear and think they can get away with things they shouldn't be doing.

 

[MrFedEx]

I have been tod of an employee at our station who left his truck running while he ran into an eight-story office building. He cames back, truck is gone, stolen! The police find the truck a few miles away, all the valuable freight is gone, only docs and some other pacakages left in the truck. He gets fired but filed GFT and got his job back. But, this guy was never a management favorite, just the opposite in my opinion. He must have had pictures of one of the managers!! LOL This was a year or so before I started at Fedex, so this is only hearsay to me, but all the long-timers have told me it's true. He was a split-shift atthe time, now he has a straight eight.

Maybe. But what if he really did have something on management? I've got to wonder if that's a FedEx legend too.

 

[Cactus]

How is that guilty until proven innocent? FedEx didn't fire him on the spot, they did an investigation, paid the employee while the investigation was going on, determined it wasn't the employee's fault, and brought him back to work. Sounds like a People thing to do as they could have just fired him.

Where in the heck are you coming up with "paid investigation?"

Read this carefully again as this does not say anything of the sort. He may have been suspended but nowhere does this say anything about being paid.

There was also a driver here in my area that had his transmission and e-brake fail while parked going downhill on a street with no curbs. He did get suspended, but it was finally determined not to be his fault but a mechanical failure. That was a shocker.

 

[quadro]

Where in the heck are you coming up with "paid investigation?"

Read this carefully again as this does not say anything of the sort. He may have been suspended but nowhere does this say anything about being paid.

It says he was suspended and then it was determined not to be his fault. This means the suspension happened while the investigation took place. That's how it works at Express (sorry can't recall if you are Express or Ground). While an investigation is taking place and someone is suspended, they are paid. If they are not paid, it is considered punitive. If that were the case here, the story would read something like "it was determined not to be his fault but he received an unpaid suspension anyway. He GFT'd it and won and received backpay."

At Express, a suspension while an investigation takes place is always paid. Once the investigation is complete, then it's possible that any discipline might include an unpaid suspension. Based on the info presented for this story, you can just about guarantee that it was a paid suspension. If FedEx2000 is around, perhaps he would care to weigh in and confirm what I'm saying.

 

[MrFedEx]

It says he was suspended and then it was determined not to be his fault. This means the suspension happened while the investigation took place. That's how it works at Express (sorry can't recall if you are Express or Ground). While an investigation is taking place and someone is suspended, they are paid. If they are not paid, it is considered punitive. If that were the case here, the story would read something like "it was determined not to be his fault but he received an unpaid suspension anyway. He GFT'd it and won and received backpay."

At Express, a suspension while an investigation takes place is always paid. Once the investigation is complete, then it's possible that any discipline might include an unpaid suspension. Based on the info presented for this story, you can just about guarantee that it was a paid suspension. If FedEx2000 is around, perhaps he would care to weigh in and confirm what I'm saying.

You are correct. Paid suspension during investigation and then it becomes unpaid most of the time as a disciplinary measure. That way Fred gets to save a week's worth of pay while they take their sweet time "investigating".