Do you believe UPS should be reported to OSHA for not supplying water correctly nor adequately to you and your coworkers? ( On Topic Only Please)

[AccidentProne]

I think we all should just stop replying to this guy. He likes to chase his tail.

Peace!

 

[Trucker Clock]

Can you describe to me any situation where that difference is meaningful?

Pretty sure “safe” and “suitable for drinking” is gonna mean the exact same thing.

I can't believe that I am about to say this, but I agree with @Integrity. The water could be safe to drink, per EPA guidelines, but the taste is very unpleasant, or the water is not sufficiently cool.

In this case, if the Union agrees, an alternate source of water would be required.

 

[AccidentProne]

I can't believe that I am about to say this, but I agree with @Integrity. The water could be safe to drink, per EPA guidelines, but the taste is very unpleasant, or the water is not sufficiently cool.

In this case, if the Union agrees, an alternate source of water would be required.

I'm curious how you think that UPS stores these water bottles? They leave them on pallets not in refrigerators.

Fun fact: Hot water is better for you.

 

[UnionStrong]

I'm curious how you think that UPS stores these water bottles? They leave them on pallets not in refrigerators.

Fun fact: Hot water is better for you.

I want a lunch brought out to me. I don’t know how to get one.

 

[Trucker Clock]

I'm curious how you think that UPS stores these water bottles? They leave them on pallets not in refrigerators.

Fun fact: Hot water is better for you.

OSHA does stipulate that the water temperature should be between 50-60 degrees, if possible. The buildings that I have seen usually throw them in coolers with ice before the sort starts to try and cool them a little.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Here's where we disagree. I'm not going back to read all your posts, so I don't know if you are part of the group that wants UPS to supply bottled water to drivers or not to satisfy the law.

For the others, the consensus seems to be that for UPS to abide by the law, they need to supply drivers with bottled water. This is incorrect. They need to supply drivers with water. The water fountains are at the buildings to supply employees with water. Fill your jugs with this free water before you leave. So now this water is not 30 miles away. It is in the back of your truck.

If you have an unexpected long day and did not bring enough water with you, feel free to drive somewhere and fill your jugs again. Any restaurant will fill them for you free of charge. You should only need to do this once on a particularly long day, and this should not happen very often. Do it everyday and you should realize that you need to bring more with you. UPS will not have any issues if you have to do this occasionally. Make it a habit, and yes, there will be issues.

Or do you want UPS to deliver you water throughout the day? I don't know, maybe every half hour or so?

I will not argue the fact that you may have a case to have UPS supply you with the water jugs. This would be a separate issue, although I'm sure there is already a ruling from OSHA somewhere.



The water is not 30 miles away. UPS supplied you with water to take with you and keep in your truck. If you're too cheap to buy your own water jugs, file a grievance to have UPS pay for your jugs. I have no issue with this, win or lose.

But, they are supplying you with water, plain and simple. If you choose not to take the free water with you, well, that's on you.

And for those buildings that supply water bottles, take them with you also. The point is that UPS does not have to supply water bottles to satisfy the law unless the water fountains are not potable. They have to supply water.

You don't need to read any other posts. I made my point in that post. I am correct, the water must be made available where the work is being performed. This is not rocket science. I don't care how UPS makes water available. One way is to not try to fire people for buying drinks while on the clock, and making sure people know they can do so if necessary.

Without this knowledge and understanding, due to UPS trying to fire people for getting drinks while on the clock, people have been injured and died. It's not worth it, and sticking up for a company that does that to their employees is awful.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

You never are. You live in a fantasy world.

You are posting in his thread, and telling him what the debate is about, then tell him he's living in a fantasy world. That's rich.

 

[Trucker Clock]

the water must be made available where the work is being performed. This is not rocket science. I don't care how UPS makes water available.

OSHA and their laws do not apply to areas where they have no jurisdiction. Commercial Motor Vehicles are governed by the DOT, and by the FMCSA for safety. They have jurisdiction, not OSHA.

Does not seem that UPS even has to supply water to CMV drivers, more than 3/4 of the fleet. Your opinion?

 

[Trucker Clock]

You are posting in his thread, and telling him what the debate is about, then tell him he's living in a fantasy world. That's rich.

 

[Trucker Clock]

I'm curious how you think that UPS stores these water bottles? They leave them on pallets not in refrigerators.

Fun fact: Hot water is better for you.

I've even seen them use tote boxes lined with garbage bags filled with ice and bottled water. Creative, actually.

 

[AccidentProne]

You are posting in his thread, and telling him what the debate is about, then tell him he's living in a fantasy world. That's rich.

Opposed to what? Agreeing with his statements just because it's his debate?

He's living in a fantasy becauses he's choosing very VERY specific narratives to fit his argument. Which works in a vacuum by itself but not in the real world.

That's rich.

 

[BadIdeaGuy]

I can't believe that I am about to say this, but I agree with @Integrity. The water could be safe to drink, per EPA guidelines, but the taste is very unpleasant, or the water is not sufficiently cool.

In this case, if the Union agrees, an alternate source of water would be required.

This seems like a fair distinction. I will retract my prior statement.

 

[oldngray]

I can't believe that I am about to say this, but I agree with @Integrity. The water could be safe to drink, per EPA guidelines, but the taste is very unpleasant, or the water is not sufficiently cool.

In this case, if the Union agrees, an alternate source of water would be required.

I know places with well water that is safe to drink but has a bad taste. They have bottled water for people who don't want to use the fountain but they don't have to. An alternate source is nice to have but not a requirement.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

View attachment 392470

Is this something you ask yourself often? I might be able to recommend someone who can help.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Opposed to what? Agreeing with his statements just because it's his debate?

He's living in a fantasy becauses he's choosing very VERY specific narratives to fit his argument. Which works in a vacuum by itself but not in the real world.

That's rich.

It's sad how much you wrote, and how little it had to do with the post you responded to. You don't seem like someone I would trust to tell me about the "real world" if you have that much trouble with reading comprehension.

 

[Integrity]

On one hand, I think It's important enough an issue that UPS needs to be pressured to do something about it or make it clear that people can break trace if they need to get water without fear of reprisal. It's the fear that they might get into trouble, which UPS encourages, that causes people to take unnecessary risk. And since we've already had a death and who knows how many other heat injuries, it's clear something needs to change.

Can’t argue with this.

On the other hand, I'm just as concerned that people have been fired for buying drinks on the clock. That's the sort of thing that causes people to take risks, so it would be wise to put the screws to UPS over those firings as at least contributing to heat related deaths and injuries.

Or this.

 

[AccidentProne]

The contract actually doesn’t say safe, it says suitable for drinking.

Where the Employer and the Union agree that the local water is not suitable for drinking, the Employer will provide bottled drinking water

Where did I say safe in that comment?

 

[Integrity]

Does OSHA even have authority to enforce a law where OSHA does not have jurisdiction?

Commercial motor vehicles over 10,000 lbs are governed by the DOT, not OSHA. OSHA can enforce its laws in buildings, where they have jurisdiction, but not on commercial motor vehicles.

I believe OSHA still covers driver’s working conditions.

 

[Integrity]

Can you describe to me any situation where that difference is meaningful?

Pretty sure “safe” and “suitable for drinking” is gonna mean the exact same thing.

Yes. I have 2.

In one of the outlying centers the water was cool but it had a very bad odor.

In the other outlying center the water fountains were in disrepair all the time and the water was not suitably cool.

 

[Integrity]

Where did I say safe in that comment?

Highlighted in red in your quote.

Where the Employer and the Union agree that the local water is not suitable for drinking, the Employer will provide bottled drinking water

Meaning if the water drank through water fountains is not safe they will supply bottled water.

Article 5 of the National Master Agreement. 2018-2023, page 15.

Source: https://teamster.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ups18nationalmaster.pdf