QualityLoads
Well-Known Member
Lol sorry i thought by now no one would take that theory seriously. But if you need to, stick that info notice for the peace of mind anyways.
Yet the high wages for drivers dictates that approach.Pretty amazing isn't it?
I mean they really expect us to go 100% every second we are on the clock.
Study upon study has shown that's a terrible way to run a business.
DIAD/IVIS are communication devices, just like a telephone, and the employer can listen and record employees at will.They cannot record audio without a court order and would need reason to believe there was a legitimate reason for it and prove it before being granted permission.
That's a felony and would be a huge lawsuit, 8 figures easy.
I wish it was a camera so I could get awesome video of me hitting mailboxes with empties!
DIAD/IVIS are communication devices, just like a telephone, and the employer can listen and record employees at will.
Recording a non-employee is problematic in many states.
Sounds good except for next to last paragraph.Incorrect.
Most states have a "one party" law. During a conversation or phone call, it can be recorded if at least one of the parties know that it is being recorded.
It is illegal to record a conversation with two other people if neither of the conversing parties are aware that it is being recorded.
UPS cannot record a conversation between a driver and a customer if neither one of them knows it is being recorded.
The laws of recording one person deal with the expectation to have privacy. In your car, in your house, in your work vehicle.
UPS cannot record the in cab audio of a feeder driver unless he knows it is being recorded.
If you are a third party, you need a court order to record one, or two other individuals conversations.
Sounds good except for next to last paragraph.
There is no law or precedent that one has an expectation to privacy at work, in a company vehicle or even in your home if you are using company equipment like a computer or telephone.
I know all three examples have been in court and the company won every scenario.
Sounds good except for next to last paragraph.
There is no law or precedent that one has an expectation to privacy at work, in a company vehicle or even in your home if you are using company equipment like a computer or telephone.
I know all three examples have been in court and the company won every scenario.
It is an extension of a communication device.Yeah, but the thing is, as far as I know, the ivis is not a telephone. And if it is a telephone, no one told me, nor am I using it as a telephone so why should I ever suspect that my conversations are being monitored when i am not even using it to make a call?
OK, since you will not go out and search for something that contradicts your beliefs:
Check out this privacy protection of rights site:
https://www.privacyrights.org/workplace-privacy-and-employee-monitoring#4b
It states that the employer has the right to listen and record company provided devices such as GPS, telephones, PCs, laptops, tablets and other mobile communication devices.
You sure about that?You are aware you linked a court ruling for Canada
Maybe the "City of Ontario" is what threw me off.You sure about that?
NP I read the same thing just wasn't sure it was Canada.Maybe the "City of Ontario" is what threw me off.
Nothing illegal about that as long as one person in the room is aware in all but 12 states.There had to be more to those "scenarios" because you just cannot record at will without the other party being aware....unless the employer has a court order...or signs stating that audio and video are being recorded.
So why can't I leave an audio recorder in the BM's office and record all their morning meetings?
OK, since you will not go out and search for something that contradicts your beliefs:
Check out this privacy protection of rights site:
https://www.privacyrights.org/workplace-privacy-and-employee-monitoring#4b
It states that the employer has the right to listen and record company provided devices such as GPS, telephones, PCs, laptops, tablets and other mobile communication devices.
I agree with this ... and it is consistent with what I already know to be true.Yes it does and the law does allow this.
The law allows UPS to record "data" from the IVIS.
The law allows UPS to record anything the driver inputs into the IVIS.
The law allows UPS to record any conversation the driver has if he is using the IVIS as his communication device.
The laws you pointed to regard recording conversations while people are using communication devices, not using the communication device to record a person.
The law does NOT allow UPS to use the IVIS to record in cab audio without a court order. This would be the same as placing a tape recorder in the vehicle. It is illegal.
And lastly, even if you think UPS can skirt the law, even if they are recording a conversation, under law, they must stop the recording once they hear that it a personal call.
Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 friend.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983) ruling:
An important exception is made for personal calls. Under federal case law, when an employer realizes the call is personal, he or she must immediately stop monitoring the call.
I agree with this ... and it is consistent with what I already know to be true.