Golf Cart "Drivers"

[Article 3]

Came here to say exactly this.

The issue has come up before with air drivers, and why they need a

DOT medical card. You're not guaranteed on what vehicle you might be driving.





Yep.

A business involved in domestic commerce, has to register the vehicle as a truck.

People that are self employed in the construction business run into this problem.


For example;

If you use a van, as a work vehicle.... take out the removable rear seat and

it needs commercial tags. Cops like to nail people on that. Or, the overloaded

20 year old pickup with ladder racks and a "crew" stuffed inside the cab.


I like the debate in this thread.

It's a good distraction from the normal nonsense.



-Bug-

At the weigh station between Cincinnati and Louisville there's a sign posted at the mouth of the entrance that says "All trucks must enter".
That means every truck including non commercial pickup trucks and anything else they deem to be a truck. They have total jurisdiction on any truck in Kentucky.

Go ahead and run that weigh station in a 1 ton pickup truck on a slow night and it could be costly.

 

[Mugarolla]

You have forgotten that employees under ADA and those that didn't pass their DOT can still deliver pkgs in the small vans. I know people who would benefit from that option that are now forced to work inside.

Rules are rules. I don't make them but we all must follow them.

As long as UPS accommodates them, letting them work inside, they are good with the ADA.

Let's talk money....the thing the company reacts to:

You're preaching to the choir.

All the while driving what would be the equivalent of a PVD vehicle with a lot less pay. That's bullcrap.

I agree.

That means every truck including non commercial pickup trucks and anything else they deem to be a truck.

Not necessarily. Most states only require commercial pick ups and registered over 10,000 lbs to enter a weigh scale.

Weigh Stations - AAA Digest of Motor Laws

California even has signs posted about pick ups do not enter.

But yes, there are always a few exceptions. The sign you're referring to in Kentucky may have you confused. Yes, all trucks must enter, including small trucks like pick ups, but, only if you are pulling a trailer.

State of Kentucky Weigh Station Page

Go ahead and run that weigh station in a 1 ton pickup truck on a slow night and it could be costly.

Anyone driving a 1 ton pick up is doing it to haul or pull some serious weight, and should be aware of the different rules for weigh scales in the different states that they drive.

 

[Mugarolla]

You have forgotten that employees under ADA and those that didn't pass their DOT can still deliver pkgs in the small vans. I know people who would benefit from that option that are now forced to work inside.

I thought about this a little more. You're crazy.

You're saying that if a person cannot pass a DOT physical, to just let them drive a truck under 10,000 lbs?

What are some disqualifying factors?

High blood pressure. You are at a far greater risk of a heart attack or stroke. The DOT does not want you having a heart attack or stroke, losing control of your vehicle, and hurting or killing yourself or someone else.

Yet you want UPS to put this person in a 9,000 lb truck with the same high blood pressure?

What would be the difference in crashing a 10,000 lb truck or a 9,000 lb truck? That 1,000 lb less would not make much of a difference.

How about diabetes? Possibility of seizures or diabetic shock. Again, the increased risk of you possibly crashing your vehicle.

So you want UPS to put you in a vehicle under 10,000 just to skirt the DOT regulations?

Or do you just want UPS to pick and choose on what the disqualifying factor was as to whether or not to put them in a truck less than 10,000 lbs? Eye sight, loss of limb, hearing, etc?

Other issues are what route, or area is this person going to do? Whose routes are you going to split up to make up a route for this person? Or which person are you going to try and kick off their route for this guy?

Do you see where I am coming from?

Sorry. But it ain't going to happen at a multi billion dollar global company.

I am all for accommodating their disability or DOT disqualifying condition in a non driving job.

 

[Article 3]

Rules are rules. I don't make them but we all must follow them.

As long as UPS accommodates them, letting them work inside, they are good with the ADA.

I'm back.

Let's see how this lines up with "rules"...

I thought about this a little more. You're crazy.

You're saying that if a person cannot pass a DOT physical, to just let them drive a truck under 10,000 lbs?

What are some disqualifying factors?

High blood pressure. You are at a far greater risk of a heart attack or stroke. The DOT does not want you having a heart attack or stroke, losing control of your vehicle, and hurting or killing yourself or someone else.

Yet you want UPS to put this person in a 9,000 lb truck with the same high blood pressure?

What would be the difference in crashing a 10,000 lb truck or a 9,000 lb truck? That 1,000 lb less would not make much of a difference.

How about diabetes? Possibility of seizures or diabetic shock. Again, the increased risk of you possibly crashing your vehicle.


Sorry. But it ain't going to happen at a multi billion dollar global company.

I am all for accommodating their disability or DOT disqualifying condition in a non driving job.

You don't make the rules but you don't know them either.

I know of two facilities that have deaf carwash/fuel and park 22-2 employees. IF the one center had kept their last minivan they would be required by ADA standards to allow the deaf employee to bid a driving job that allows them to drive and deliver off property. I know this to be true because I was involved in one employee's bidding perimeters. That is the law whether you acknowledge it or not.

The company could be sued if the legal accommodation was not allowed.

Call me crazy if it pumps your ego but you are talking about a situation that has nothing to do with me nor can I approve or disapprove it. It is the law. "The rules" as you call it..

Anyone driving a 1 ton pick up is doing it to haul or pull some serious weight, and should be aware of the different rules for weigh scales in the different states that they drive.

Another supposition on your part.
I have friends and know others that have one ton trucks that don't haul or pull any "serious weight".

They carry lightweight campers in the bed and use them for hunting, tree farms (planting sapplings), tool boxes and for other various chores. They don't pull trailers and have no fifth wheel ball frame set up.
Some just like the extra room the megacabs afford. Beside having to replace two extra tires (& some aren't dually equipped) they often ride better than some three quarter tons.

I appreciate your thoughts but they're not totally accurate.

 

[Bubblehead]

I thought about this a little more. You're crazy.

You're saying that if a person cannot pass a DOT physical, to just let them drive a truck under 10,000 lbs?

....or perhaps become a PVD driver for UPS?

 

[Mugarolla]

You don't make the rules but you don't know them either.

Where ya been?

Yes, I did acknowledge that the FMCSA did relax the rules on hearing. Everything else is accurate.

I told you that when you posted that under your other just created screen name.

Call me crazy if it pumps your ego but you are talking about a situation that has nothing to do with me nor can I approve or disapprove it. It is the law. "The rules" as you call it..

I did not say it had to do with you. You posted your opinion on the issue and I called you, or more specifically, your opinion, crazy.

Another supposition on your part.
I have friends and know others that have one ton trucks that don't haul or pull any "serious weight".

I believe I said "most" did I not?

Even so, these "friends" better know the FMCSA regulations.

Ignorance of the law is no defense.

I appreciate your thoughts but they're not totally accurate.

Yds, the FMCSA did change the rules regarding hearing. So if it makes you feel better, I was not totally accurate.

Go back to my post you replied to and remove the word "hearing" and the statement will then be accurate.

....or perhaps become a PVD driver for UPS?

Guess so.

 

[Article 3]

Where ya been?

Yes, I did acknowledge that the FMCSA did relax the rules on hearing. Everything else is accurate.

I told you that when you posted that under your other just created screen name.



I did not say it had to do with you. You posted your opinion on the issue and I called you, or more specifically, your opinion, crazy.

Did you 'forget' your statement. Above is your post. You also conveniently change your story. I have and use no other screen name. Tag me and I'll respond if it's worth it.

I believe I said "most" did I not?

Even so, these "friends" better know the FMCSA regulations.

Ignorance of the law is no defense.

I don't see the word "most". Do you? I believe that I do read the word "anyone". Another duck and weave?

I did not say it had to do with you. You posted your opinion on the issue ...

Yds, the FMCSA did change the rules regarding hearing. So if it makes you feel better, I was not totally accurate.

Go back to my post you replied to and remove the word "hearing" ...

This isn't my "opinion" it is the law as I stated before.

But THIS is your opinion...

Ever think about an exception air driving opportunity? Wake up.
These posts are all about your opinions.

I see that the "rules" allow them to drive off the lot. I posted that and you just want to lecture me because you don't know the law?
Ok.
Correct your post on this thread instead of allegedly somewhere else and I'll be happy to respond.
BTW...my "friends" (and relatives) who own 1 ton trucks are well versed in the law. You could learn from them. At the very least, they are humble people who aren't above admitting their mistakes.

 

[watdaflock?]

It's garbage. They take a commercial license plate and they link these drivers to our diad board to conceal the issue.
The carts aren't over 10,000# gvw so they don't require the driver to pass a dot physical.
Any locals getting traction on their grievances on this fraud?

They are paid less than PVDs but are more at risk as their vehicles are more vulnerable to elements and the guy bearing down on them on the road

It just shows the decision makers how over paid the majority of veteran drivers are. You can occasionally find a good worker, but a lot of the time they are not interested in anything more than seasonal.
Getting paid to run around on a Polaris delivering packages ain't too bad of a deal. On those really cold days, just load your flask with some Makers Mark.....you'll be fine.

 

[Mugarolla]

I won't enlarge your responses like you did mine. It makes them easier to read.

Did you 'forget' your statement.

Nope. It's right there, and accurate, except the one acknowledged exception that you corrected me on. Thank you. The overall, or spirit, of the post was accurate though.

You also conveniently change your story.

No I did not. I corrected an exception that the FMCSA changed the rules on within the last couple of years regarding the physical qualifications of drivers that you pointed out. Thank you.

Tag me and I'll respond if it's worth it.

Sure looks like you, or I thought it was you. The account was created the day of this post, and this was his first post.
-
-
-

heck, he was calling Article 3 "crazy' a week ago when he asserted ...mug that is......
that a deaf person cant drive a commercial vehicle but Arty was correct. too bad mug doesnt know the rules altho he is often wrong.

no. and that was not what was observed. art 3 can answer for their self. i just get tired of the bickering & insulting of brothers on here. there are more watching that feel the same as us.

-
-
-

This isn't my "opinion" it is the law as I stated before.

The law does not state that. The law is mute on requirements for an employee to drive a commercial vehicle under 10,000 lbs.

There is a big difference between the law "stating" something and there being no law forbidding it.

There is a big difference on the law "stating" that someone with epileptic siezures can drive a vehicle under 10,000 lbs and there being no law forbidding it.

But THIS is your opinion...

Yes, I opined, remember, this is an internet chat forum, most statements on here are opinions, see, I used the word "most."

This was my opinion about the issues that may come up if UPS were to do what you want them to do.

It goes a little deeper than just allowing someone with a DOT disqualifying condition to drive a package car under 10,000 lbs.

Ever think about an exception air driving opportunity? Wake up.
These posts are all about your opinions.

Yes I did. Here you go.

Came here to say exactly this.

The issue has come up before with air drivers, and why they need a

DOT medical card. You're not guaranteed on what vehicle you might be driving.

-
-
-

I see that the "rules" allow them to drive off the lot.

No, the rules do not prohibit them from driving off the lot. Big difference.

The liability will be on UPS.

I posted that and you just want to lecture me because you don't know the law?

I know the law. Again, the law is mute on an employee driving a vehicle under 10,000 pounds. There is no law against it. Big difference as to there being a specific law allowing it.

But you still want to throw someone in a 9,000 lb truck, who has a history of epileptic siezures, and let them go out and deliver packages.

Or someone on narcotic pain medication, or blood pressure that is through the roof.

I will leave out someone who has a hearing deficiency....thanks to you.

Yes, the law does not say that they cannot, but you're crazy, or at least your opinion is crazy.

I don't see the word "most". Do you?

You are correct and I apologize.

I never have a problem admitting that I am wrong. The problem is that when some people just say that I may be wrong, they don't back it up.

Then I back up my statement with contractual language or court decisions, and then never hear from them again.

But you are correct. I was wrong. I though I put the word "most" in there. I have been called out before on some "exceptions" to the norm, and usually try to word my statements with "most" or not all, or there may be some exceptions. Thank you for pointing that out. I will try my best in the future.

Another duck and weave?

Nope. I admitted that I was wrong. I should have used the word most, not all. Sorry.

Correct your post on this thread instead of allegedly somewhere else and I'll be happy to respond.

But I was replying to you, or I thought I was.

BTW...my "friends" (and relatives) who own 1 ton trucks are well versed in the law.

As they should be. I didn't say they weren't. I just said they better know the law.

Here...

Even so, these "friends" better know the FMCSA regulations.

-
-
-

You could learn from them. At the very least, they are humble people who aren't above admitting their mistakes.

Did I not just do that?

 

[Mugarolla]

This isn't my "opinion" it is the law as I stated before

Go back a few posts.

I believe that I said it was legal for UPS to place propane heaters in a golf cart, but you had an issue with it, even though it was legal.

The same applies here. Even though it may be legal for an employee who cannot obtain a DOT Medical Card to drive a vehicle under 10,000, I have an issue with it.

But my issue does not matter. UPS has an issue with it and that what counts.

 

[Article 3]

I won't enlarge your responses like you did mine. It makes them easier to read.



Nope. It's right there, and accurate, except the one acknowledged exception that you corrected me on. Thank you. The overall, or spirit, of the post was accurate though.



No I did not. I corrected an exception that the FMCSA changed the rules on within the last couple of years regarding the physical qualifications of drivers that you pointed out. Thank you.



Sure looks like you, or I thought it was you. The account was created the day of this post, and this was his first post.
-
-
-



-
-
-


The law does not state that. The law is mute on requirements for an employee to drive a commercial vehicle under 10,000 lbs.

There is a big difference between the law "stating" something and there being no law forbidding it.

There is a big difference on the law "stating" that someone with epileptic siezures can drive a vehicle under 10,000 lbs and there being no law forbidding it.



Yes, I opined, remember, this is an internet chat forum, most statements on here are opinions, see, I used the word "most."

This was my opinion about the issues that may come up if UPS were to do what you want them to do.

It goes a little deeper than just allowing someone with a DOT disqualifying condition to drive a package car under 10,000 lbs.



Yes I did. Here you go.


-
-
-




No, the rules do not prohibit them from driving off the lot. Big difference.

The liability will be on UPS.



I know the law. Again, the law is mute on an employee driving a vehicle under 10,000 pounds. There is no law against it. Big difference as to there being a specific law allowing it.

But you still want to throw someone in a 9,000 lb truck, who has a history of epileptic siezures, and let them go out and deliver packages.

Or someone on narcotic pain medication, or blood pressure that is through the roof.

I will leave out someone who has a hearing deficiency....thanks to you.

Yes, the law does not say that they cannot, but you're crazy, or at least your opinion is crazy.



You are correct and I apologize.

I never have a problem admitting that I am wrong. The problem is that when some people just say that I may be wrong, they don't back it up.

Then I back up my statement with contractual language or court decisions, and then never hear from them again.

But you are correct. I was wrong. I though I put the word "most" in there. I have been called out before on some "exceptions" to the norm, and usually try to word my statements with "most" or not all, or there may be some exceptions. Thank you for pointing that out. I will try my best in the future.



Nope. I admitted that I was wrong. I should have used the word most, not all. Sorry.



But I was replying to you, or I thought I was.



As they should be. I didn't say they weren't. I just said they better know the law.

Here...


-
-
-



Did I not just do that?

I'm not coming on here to split hairs with you so take this info for what it's worth:

We went thru the process of ADA accommodation for a deaf employee to drive. Regardless of what BUG posted it isn't relative to the situation we had because this was not about non handicapped employees it was about an ADA accommodation for a deaf employee to drive off the company property.

As long as the company owned a vehicle that the employee could legally drive they had...by law...to allow them to drive.

HR acknowledged this as well. No lie.

Unfortunate for the employee they got rid of the minivan (labeled the Misload mover by the drivers) prior to the seniority of the employee allowing them to bid a driving job.

Disallowing or refusing to accommodate a handicapped employee when they have the ability to accommodate opens them up for lawsuits and is not an issue the company will want to become public. Note: the pregnancy debacle.

Do I personally think it's not a challenging and hard issue for all involved? It is a head scratcher for sure but i am only responsible for the facts and how they are applied. My feelings are not a factor in the outcome.

You are a great Teamster and steward (I presume). No one has all the answers here and we can always learn from honest posters so I say Thanks for your input. Have a great weekend.

 

[Mugarolla]

I'm not coming on here to split hairs with you so take this info for what it's worth:

We went thru the process of ADA accommodation for a deaf employee to drive. Regardless of what BUG posted it isn't relative to the situation we had because this was not about non handicapped employees it was about an ADA accommodation for a deaf employee to drive off the company property.

As long as the company owned a vehicle that the employee could legally drive they had...by law...to allow them to drive.

HR acknowledged this as well. No lie.

Unfortunate for the employee they got rid of the minivan (labeled the Misload mover by the drivers) prior to the seniority of the employee allowing them to bid a driving job.

Disallowing or refusing to accommodate a handicapped employee when they have the ability to accommodate opens them up for lawsuits and is not an issue the company will want to become public. Note: the pregnancy debacle.

Do I personally think it's not a challenging and hard issue for all involved? It is a head scratcher for sure but i am only responsible for the facts and how they are applied. My feelings are not a factor in the outcome.

You are a great Teamster and steward (I presume). No one has all the answers here and we can always learn from honest posters so I say Thanks for your input. Have a great weekend.

Fair enough.

And I am not trying to split hairs here, just trying to learn new things that I may need in the future.

If you don't want to answer and are done with it, that's cool, you have a good weekend also.

This ADA accommodation. Why was there only 1 vehicle that he could drive?

UPS has many vehicles that the DOT does not regulate and that the DOT says that you don't need a medical card to drive.

So why didn't UPS just put him in a P500, or a P700, I believe that both are under 10,000 lbs?

This is a head scratcher.

And does UPS have to allow him to be a driver as opposed to accommodating his disability and allow him to work FT inside.

I have read quite a few court cases, grievances and decisions on this issue, but I am definitely not an expert on this.

But am interested in learning all the issues and jobs that were created from people who have dealt with it or been involved with it, like yourself.

Thanks for your time and input.

 

[Article 3]

@Mugarolla , we were told that because the rest of the fleet was plated at weight greater than 10,000 lbs they weren't eligible to drive those.

The minivans were plated at 6,000 lbs max capacity (if i remember correctly)..It was a situation that was not decided or surmised in a timely manner due to the weght of the liability. Heck, you never know if you get the whole truth at times but driving cars from the fuel isle, positioning vehicles for the AM lineup, and shifting on property was (finally) ok'd opening up 22-3 & 22-2 positions for the deaf employees. It took an act of Congress to get that done as you can imagine.

 

[Mugarolla]

we were told that because the rest of the fleet was plated at weight greater than 10,000 lbs they weren't eligible to drive those.

That's interesting.

but driving cars from the fuel isle, positioning vehicles for the AM lineup, and shifting on property was (finally) ok'd opening up 22-3 & 22-2 positions for the deaf employees.

This should not have been a problem from day one, and I would have fought this tooth and nail. Driving on road is different, in my eyes.

It took an act of Congress to get that done as you can imagine.

Yes I can.

I have a little more research to do. Thank you.

 

[upschuck]

So why didn't UPS just put him in a P500, or a P700, I believe that both are under 10,000 lbs?

Most all p5 are over 10,000 lbs. P7s obviously are over that threshold.

 

[Mugarolla]

Most all p5 are over 10,000 lbs. P7s obviously are over that threshold.

You are correct.

After a little research, the only P5 under 10,000 was the Ford version and the last one they ordered was in 1990.

I'm sure there are no P30 or P40 package cars left in the fleet, so that would just leave the P47 (Sprinters) and some of the vans that would be under 10,000 lbs

 

[Bubblehead]

The ongoing information duel, between sMugarolla and Article Pee is too close to call?

 

[Inthegame]

The ongoing information duel, between sMugarolla and Article Pee is too close to call?

And yet some of the best reading on BC...

 

[LeadBelly]

And yet some of the best reading on BC...

I know this is off topic, but can you explain the settlement that took place that caused th creation of the CHSP Ups Teamster safety committee. I got into a pissing match about this this week, and would love your insight!!

 

[Inthegame]

I know this is off topic, but can you explain the settlement that took place that caused th creation of the CHSP Ups Teamster safety committee. I got into a pissing match about this this week, and would love your insight!!

From what I've heard (and this is certainly hearsay) as UPS was negotiating to reduce many pending OSHA fines, a settlement agreement was reached and part of the deal was future strong employee involvement to reduce unsafe situations. The IBT stepped in and offered union co-chaired committees that should be employee driven to reduce unsafe activity. It works in some locations depending on how much the local union is involved (we ask our stewards to be on every committee), but UPS as always doesn't yield control of anything easily.