Possible termination "on topic"

[Operational needs]

The problem with zero tolerance policies is that they are also zero brain policies. Every situation is different, a good employee who makes a bad decision in his off time shouldn't necessarily be terminated immediately, it should depend on the merits of the case. An employee drinking and driving on the job, that is a no brainer... immediate termination. My concern is when employers start getting too involved in what we do in our personal lives. Where do you draw the line there?

Not saying a company whose employees drive on public roadways shouldn't monitor their employee's driving records, in fact I believe they are legally required to. But it's unrealistic to expect people to act against their own self-interest. When the options are to tell now and lose your job now, or wait until the company finds out, then lose your job, that's a no-brainer. As such, it's in any company's best interest to have a policy that encourages honesty by offering the employee a way to keep their job as long as they report these types of things as soon as possible.

You are speaking as a UPS employee and I am as a FedEx employee. FedEx does not consider Ground drivers FedEx employees. FedEx is very demanding in what it expects of their contractors and in turn, THEIR employees.

If the policy was different for Ground drivers and they admitted up front they got a DWI, in what capacity could they continue to work? At Express, we can work inside for 12 or 18 months (not sure which). Inside employees at Ground actually work for FedEx.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

You are speaking as a UPS employee and I am as a FedEx employee. FedEx does not consider Ground drivers FedEx employees. FedEx is very demanding in what it expects of their contractors and in turn, THEIR employees.

If the policy was different for Ground drivers and they admitted up front they got a DWI, in what capacity could they continue to work? At Express, we can work inside for 12 or 18 months (not sure which). Inside employees at Ground actually work for FedEx.

Understood. The very fact that FedEx has so much control over its contractor's business operations is an indication of an employer/employee relationship. I've always felt this was the case though. The fact that this has yet to be established in court is dumbfounding.

In this particular case what I feel would be fair is that the OP should be able to keep his job as long as he is upfront, he maintains his license one way or the other, goes through diversion, and signs a last chance agreement to inform his employer immediately of any changes to his licensure status (among other stipulations I haven't thought of, I'm sure). Failure to abide would be grounds for termination for cause, and should prevent the OP from claiming unemployment benefits.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Understood. The very fact that FedEx has so much control over its contractor's business operations is an indication of an employer/employee relationship. I've always felt this was the case though. The fact that this has yet to be established in court is dumbfounding.

In this particular case what I feel would be fair is that the OP should be able to keep his job as long as he is upfront, he maintains his license one way or the other, goes through diversion, and signs a last chance agreement to inform his employer immediately of any changes to his licensure status (among other stipulations I haven't thought of, I'm sure). Failure to abide would be grounds for termination for cause, and should prevent the OP from claiming unemployment benefits.

I disagree. Anybody who takes a job that involves driving a company truck is informed when they take that job what is required and expected of them. A DUI should automatically disqualify that person from a driving position for at least a year.
If someone in my family were killed or injured by a driver with a known DUI offense, you can rest assured that there would be a lawsuit of epic proportions against that company. This liability alone is what would prevent a company from extending employment. I have no sympathy for the reckless abuse of freedom when it endangers others.

 

[bbsam]

I had a driver I had to let go for a failed drug test. He's a great driver now...for Express.

Found out through his mom that they don't do ransoms at Express. WTF?!?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I disagree. Anybody who takes a job that involves driving a company truck is informed when they take that job what is required and expected of them. A DUI should automatically disqualify that person from a driving position for at least a year.
If someone in my family were killed or injured by a driver with a known DUI offense, you can rest assured that there would be a lawsuit of epic proportions against that company. This liability alone is what would prevent a company from extending employment. I have no sympathy for the reckless abuse of freedom when it endangers others.

I'm not sympathetic either, if anyone hurts or kills someone while driving under the influence, losing their job should be the least of their worries, they should be facing a prison sentence. I'm just trying to point out why someone in the OP's situation would not want to self report, and why that is a direct result of FedEx policy. I'd be ok with DQ'd for a year, but in the OP's case, the immediate loss of income would be a deterrent from self reporting, even with the chance of getting his job back down the road.

As a direct result of their own policy, FedEx likely has any number of people who have recently gotten dui's still driving for them at any given time, which is what they should really be concerned about. If the state deems that the OP, or anyone else in a similar position, is fit to drive, and doesn't suspend his license, or issues an occupational exception, why should FedEx be at increased liability? If the driver was driving drunk on the job, that's a different story.

 

[Fred's Myth]

I had a driver I had to let go for a failed drug test. He's a great driver now...for Express.

Found out through his mom that they don't do ransoms at Express. WTF?!?

Yes, they do "randoms" at Express, most often it's the Swings who are required to have Haz Endorsement, and drivers they are suspicious of drug or alcohol abuse (makes 'random' kinda ironic).

 

[bbsam]

Yes, they do "randoms" at Express, most often it's the Swings who are required to have Haz Endorsement, and drivers they are suspicious of drug or alcohol abuse (makes 'random' kinda ironic).

The unrandomness of it may make it all obvious. He's a swing and a very good one. Management may simply not want to "know".

 

[Fred's Myth]

I'm not sympathetic either, if anyone hurts or kills someone while driving under the influence, losing their job should be the least of their worries, they should be facing a prison sentence. I'm just trying to point out why someone in the OP's situation would not want to self report, and why that is a direct result of FedEx policy. I'd be ok with DQ'd for a year, but in the OP's case, the immediate loss of income would be a deterrent from self reporting, even with the chance of getting his job back down the road.

As a direct result of their own policy, FedEx likely has any number of people who have recently gotten dui's still driving for them at any given time, which is what they should really be concerned about. If the state deems that the OP, or anyone else in a similar position, is fit to drive, and doesn't suspend his license, or issues an occupational exception, why should FedEx be at increased liability? If the driver was driving drunk on the job, that's a different story.

Again, the OP is the employee of a Ground Contractor, but is still driving a truck with FedEx painted on the side, which to a lawyer screams 'sue me". THAT is why FedEx doesn't want anyone with a questionable record driving.

At Express, you would be driving a company owned vehicle, and are REQUIRED to report ANY moving violation before getting behind the wheel, or face immediate termination. Self-reporting allows you 90 days to find a non-driving position within the company. Last I was aware, it took a year to qualify for a driving position again.

 

[Fred's Myth]

The unrandomness of it may make it all obvious. He's a swing and a very good one. Management may simply not want to "know".

As a Swing, I averaged twice a year for a random. Another Swing at my station had to report for a random 5 days in a row. I doubt it's the luck of the draw.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Again, the OP is the employee of a Ground Contractor, but is still driving a truck with FedEx painted on the side, which to a lawyer screams 'sue me". THAT is why FedEx doesn't want anyone with a questionable record driving.

At Express, you would be driving a company owned vehicle, and are REQUIRED to report ANY moving violation before getting behind the wheel, or face immediate termination. Self-reporting allows you 90 days to find a non-driving position within the company. Last I was aware, it took a year to qualify for a driving position again.

I get it, but if they want people like the OP to self report, their policy needs to be changed so that it gives them an incentive to do so. As it is, the drivers are better off keeping their mouths shut, which puts FedEx at increased liability.

I know it gets tricky dealing with employer/contractor issues, but this (FedEx logos on trucks and uniforms) is yet another indicator that these people actually have an employer/employee relationship with FedEx. If anyone were ever successful at establishing such a relationship in court, it could be catastrophic for FedEx. UPS would silently back any such court cases if they really wanted to put the hurt to FedEx.

 

[It will be fine]

I get it, but if they want people like the OP to self report, their policy needs to be changed so that it gives them an incentive to do so. As it is, the drivers are better off keeping their mouths shut, which puts FedEx at increased liability.

I know it gets tricky dealing with employer/contractor issues, but this (FedEx logos on trucks and uniforms) is yet another indicator that these people actually have an employer/employee relationship with FedEx. If anyone were ever successful at establishing such a relationship in court, it could be catastrophic for FedEx. UPS would silently back any such court cases if they really wanted to put the hurt to FedEx.

Are you a Ford employee if your car advertises the Ford logo? How about when you wear a GAP shirt?
I agree with your analysis on the issue of reporting, but your attempt to create an employer relationship is legally dubious and unnecessary for the current discussion.

 

[bacha29]

Are you a Ford employee if your car advertises the Ford logo? How about when you wear a GAP shirt?
I agree with your analysis on the issue of reporting, but your attempt to create an employer relationship is legally dubious and unnecessary for the current discussion.

Guys you could go back and forth regarding differences in company policy as it pertains each operating all day long if you want to but one fact still remains. Whoever's operating authority numbers is on the side of the truck he and he alone has the final say and you guys all know whose number is on the side of the one you drive.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Are you a Ford employee if your car advertises the Ford logo? How about when you wear a GAP shirt?
I agree with your analysis on the issue of reporting, but your attempt to create an employer relationship is legally dubious and unnecessary for the current discussion.

I'm not the one who brought up the contractor/employer issue, it's secondary to the main topic. I'm not trying to create a relationship, simply pointing out that someone could potentially establish the relationship in a court case. A company requiring their contractors to use their logos falls under the control test a judge would use to determine if an employer/employee relationship exists. Here's a pdf from the dept of labor that should shed light on the issue.

 

[It will be fine]

I'm not the one who brought up the contractor/employer issue, it's secondary to the main topic. I'm not trying to create a relationship, simply pointing out that someone could potentially establish the relationship in a court case. A company requiring their contractors to use their logos falls under the control test a judge would use to determine if an employer/employee relationship exists. Here's a pdf from the dept of labor that should shed light on the issue.

It's not required.

 

[The Youngin' Of It All]

Guys you could go back and forth regarding differences in company policy as it pertains each operating all day long if you want to but one fact still remains. Whoever's operating authority numbers is on the side of the truck he and he alone has the final say and you guys all know whose number is on the side of the one you drive.

Bacha, you said exactly what I was going to say. It's all about that USDOT 265752. Not my own DOT number but FedEx's, hence the "Operated by FedEx Ground," decal put above it to state who the real motor carrier in control is. By having this, FedEx regulates the rules in terms of the contractor's trucks, who gets to drive them (driving experience), and the Federal, State, and Quarterly inspections, which they so often harass you about if the truck is deemed roadworthy or not. Why is that? Because it represents THEIR DOT number. The last thing they want is THEIR safety rating in the tank and you best believe they're not going to put that in someone else's hands like OP's if they knew he was a representation to their DOT number and something they could of foreseen from happening did happen. BBSAM also was correct with what he stated earlier too about the new process where they find out any immediate MVR incidents. Only a matter of time before this is a done deal.

 

[bbsam]

Vehicles under 10000 pounds don't have DOT numbers.

 

[The Youngin' Of It All]

Are you referring to my post?

 

[bbsam]

Are you referring to my post?

In general.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Vehicles under 10000 pounds don't have DOT numbers.

Unless they transport specified Hazardous Goods.

 

[oldrps]

Let's say this driver keeps driving and hits another vehicle, not due to drinking, just accidently has a wreck. The other driver hires a lawyer. The lawyer discovers this driver had been arrested a week before for a DUI. The lawyer would have a field day with FedEx and the contractor in court. This person is a huge liability to FedEx and the contractor.