IBT on the cameras

[UnionStrong]

So every single person in the company in a tractor or package car with a camera should at the end of every single day should request the footage of the entire day.

I like it…

 

[Trucker Clock]

Did I call you names?

Not saying you did. Only saying that our debate has not resulted in name calling, unlike others on here. We can agree to disagree and be civil about it.

 

[Trucker Clock]

This is your opinion. This is the reason we have lawyers and judges. They'll make the decision. One is a vehicle code and the other is penal code. Again agree to disagree.

Apparently, my opinion is the same as the opinion of the California Court of Appeals. While it is only an opinion, it is the Courts opinion. And they tackle the Penal Code vs. Vehicle Code relating to windshield cameras.

Young v. Kenco Logistic Servs., A153023 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Young v. Kenco Logistic Servs., A153023, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[542thruNthru]

Apparently, my opinion is the same as the opinion of the California Court of Appeals. While it is only an opinion, it is the Courts opinion. And they tackle the Penal Code vs. Vehicle Code relating to windshield cameras.

Young v. Kenco Logistic Servs., A153023 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Young v. Kenco Logistic Servs., A153023, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Again... that's about video recording. I know that a company can video record for safety and legitimate business reasons like theft.

"On June 30, 2017, Young filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC), the operative pleading in this action, asserting four causes of action: defamation, invasion of privacy (intrusion), invasion of privacy (misappropriation of likeness), and invasion of privacy (false light). She alleged that a SmartDrive camera was on and recording her the entire time she drove since she began work and that her truck had a sleeper berth, "so that the camera [was], in effect, constantly filming plaintiff's bedroom as she [was] driving." "

I see nothing in there about audio recording.

I also saw this..

"Acceptance of the surveillance system was made a condition of their employment; no explicit permission from the drivers was sought."

like I said before. If they put it in the contract then I'll have to vote NO and vote out OZ asap. I honestly don't know why we are still debating this. Until it happens everything we say is just matter of opinion.

 

[542thruNthru]

Again... that's about video recording. I know that a company can video record for safety and legitimate business reasons like theft.

"On June 30, 2017, Young filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC), the operative pleading in this action, asserting four causes of action: defamation, invasion of privacy (intrusion), invasion of privacy (misappropriation of likeness), and invasion of privacy (false light). She alleged that a SmartDrive camera was on and recording her the entire time she drove since she began work and that her truck had a sleeper berth, "so that the camera [was], in effect, constantly filming plaintiff's bedroom as she [was] driving." "

I see nothing in there about audio recording.

I also saw this..

"Acceptance of the surveillance system was made a condition of their employment; no explicit permission from the drivers was sought."

like I said before. If they put it in the contract then I'll have to vote NO and vote out OZ asap. I honestly don't know why we are still debating this. Until it happens everything we say is just matter of opinion.

I apologize I see now at the bottom that the law(though a different penal code) was introduced but was shot down because of no actual evidence of audio recordings

Young has also failed to set forth factual allegations that fulfill the required elements of the claim. She argues only that "audio data" is collected but does not claim she could allege the disclosure of any "telegraphic or telephonic" communications required under the statute.

 

[Buffet Master]

I like it…

I'd think we could incur some serious costs and headaches to the company with this. Even if only like 1 out of 4 or 5 guys did it consistently, that would be a lot of people bogging them down.

 

[542thruNthru]

I'd think we could incur some serious costs and headaches to the company with this. Even if only like 1 out of 4 or 5 guys did it consistently, that would be a lot of people bogging them down.

It's a CA thing. Don't think everywhere has it.

 

[Trucker Clock]

I apologize I see now at the bottom that the law(though a different penal code) was introduced but was shot down because of no actual evidence of audio recordings

Young has also failed to set forth factual allegations that fulfill the required elements of the claim. She argues only that "audio data" is collected but does not claim she could allege the disclosure of any "telegraphic or telephonic" communications required under the statute.

Yep. The California Court of Appeals opined that her employer did not violate the Penal Code Statute for audio recording by recording audio in her truck without her consent.

 

[35years]

Don't block the sensor...You can't mess with THEIR equipment.
But your own sunglasses, well you can protect your eyes from I.R. beams...
The benefit is that "events" will not be triggered, so no recording of body triggered "events".
If the camera cant find your retinas, it can't find your face and body.

Special sunglasses, license-plate dresses: How to be anonymous in the age of surveillance

A fringe movement of privacy advocates are experimenting with clothes, makeup and accessories as a defense against some surveillance technologies. Some wearers desire to opt-out of “surveillance capitalism,” while others fear government invasion of privacy.

www.seattletimes.com

Reflectacles Privacy Eyewear & Sunglasses: Anti Facial Recognition Glasses since 2015.

Anti Facial Recognition Reflective Eyewear & Sunglasses. Maintain your privacy from infrared surveillance cameras and 3D infrared facial mapping with this adversarial device.

www.reflectacles.com

 

[GameCockFan]

I’m not saying right now. I’m saying if the Arbitrator sides with UPS or if is contained in the next contract.

They can then record you. There is no California Law to stop them.

A labor contract or an arbitration decision doesn't overrule law

 

[zubenelgenubi]

A labor contract or an arbitration decision doesn't overrule law

A contract can if one party is agreeing to abstain from something they are allowed by law to do.

 

[Trucker Clock]

A labor contract or an arbitration decision doesn't overrule law

Correct. But, in this case, what law are you referring to?

@542thruNthru realized that it is not necessarily illegal in California to record 8 seconds of audio before and after an "event."

In the 45 states that are only a 1 party State, it is perfectly legal. In the other 2 party States, it is not cut and dry that they cannot record without your consent. It seems to depend on what is being recorded. In California, 16 seconds of recording in-cab audio does not necessarily fall under recording telecommunications as specified in the penal statute.

This is actually concerning.

 

[Whither]

The latest news I've heard is the arbitration case will either be postponed or is in fact canceled. O'Brien wants to tackle the cams during 2023 negotiations. I would prefer they all be removed -- I don't buy that the front-facing footage will change the company's stance re: the "avoidability" of basically all accidents. And as I've said elsewhere they've already used the front-facing footage to harass drivers in my building. But I doubt they'll be removed.

I'd guess we'll be able to get all driver facing video and audio recording banned. We'll see about the motion sensor. To my mind that's also harassment. With proper training and a better work environment the usual suspects among drivers would be much less distracted. It is the company's pressure to hurry and rush that promotes most of these drivers' bad habits, e.g., looking at the board while driving, using cellphones to map routes when the cradle is busted, etc.

 

[Thebrownblob]

The latest news I've heard is the arbitration case will either be postponed or is in fact canceled. O'Brien wants to tackle the cams during 2023 negotiations. I would prefer they all be removed -- I don't buy that the front-facing footage will change the company's stance re: the "avoidability" of basically all accidents. And as I've said elsewhere they've already used the front-facing footage to harass drivers in my building. But I doubt they'll be removed.

I'd guess we'll be able to get all driver facing video and audio recording banned. We'll see about the motion sensor. To my mind that's also harassment. With proper training and a better work environment the usual suspects among drivers would be much less distracted. It is the company's pressure to hurry and rush that promotes most of these drivers' bad habits, e.g., looking at the board while driving, using cellphones to map routes when the cradle is busted, etc.

So far the sensor has been useless I don’t understand why they even want it. Mine constantly says I have my seatbelt off

 

[JL 0513]

Mount your speaker/radio right near the microphone all day. They won't be able to hear anything else. And you're not technically messing with their equipment.

Mount a bright rechargeable LED flashlight towards the camera lense. Your not blocking it!

 

[TheBrownNote]

Mount your speaker/radio right near the microphone all day. They won't be able to hear anything else. And you're not technically messing with their equipment.

Mount a bright rechargeable LED flashlight towards the camera lense. Your not blocking it!

Get an ir flashlight. No visible light. Blocks all cameras. Clip it to your person. Block all cameras including doorbells.

 

[Commercial Inside Release]

UPS can watch me jerking off if that's their thing. All I care about is pay! (I know you'll be watching.)
Pay first!
BS second.

 

[Commercial Inside Release]

Sah-weet. When you're being dredged outta bed at 4AM & have nothing to look forward to but a sausage party full of cardboard, she's a win. Talk about a break worth taking!

Half a dozen retired drivers are probably spanking it to that pic right now.

 

[Commercial Inside Release]

Pretty sure anything that isn't grayish, you are paying for, Gumbo.

 

[burrheadd]

Yesterday I called the IBT to discuss the cameras. A secretary took my info and a rep called me within a couple hours. The news is very encouraging!

He said that arbitration for the Local 988 grieve will begin in Sept and the International is confident they'll win. The company has refused to bargain. "But win or lose, the cameras are among the top 5 issues in the 2023 contract, and trust me, we will fight tooth and nail over it." He agreed w me that the company's plan all along has been to eventually turn on the driver-facing camera and microphone.

He also they'll be updating us on the arbitration and other important news.

We also discussed getting the rank and file more involved. I told him about the promising efforts at my building. Like O'Brien, the rep was saying the right things. "Too many members view the union as a 3rd party, but you're right, the union is the members -- it's you guys -- and we want you all to be involved."

I understand bitterness among my fellow Teamsters, but bad leadership at any level of the union reflects weakness in the rank and file. It won't be easy, but it's time for us to band together over common issues and turn this union into the strong and proud brotherhood it once was.

You’re doing gods work keep it up