telematicks

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I read in his post that he thinks what I said was the stupidest thing posted on this board . He obviously does not read well!!

I did not read that part. You and I may rarely agree but I do think that you know what you are talking about and take pride both in your work and in the way you fulfill your steward duties.

 

[Catatonic]

I read in his post that he thinks what I said was the stupidest thing posted on this board . He obviously does not read well!!

Well she is from "The Other Side" and is not known for being too PC. Don't let it bother you.

 

[The Milkman]

It may be wrong somewhere I guess, If your local has allowed a termination based on telematics you have some serious problems. I can prove over 100 problems with telematics on a weekly basis and as such can have any discipline thrown out based on that. No one in my area of the country has ever been disciplined based on telematics. The only thing stupid here is that some local has allowed it to happen.

They have nothing better to do but watch you, thinking that everyone is out to screw the company. It's amazing to me that back in 81 when I started the company made tons of money and still does to this day.. Can they ever think that most long term workers take pride in their work to make this company the Giant it is today? No they just try to find ways to fire people for sometimes little infractions and they will go all out even in court to make it stick, again I say that some day NO ONE will want to work for UPS no matter how much money they throw at them per hour. Word gets around about the at times terrible working conditons and the stuff management puts you through

 

[over9five]

Well she is from "The Other Side" and is not known for being too PC. Don't let it bother you.

Yup, she's definitely not a people person...

 

[The Other Side]

I read in his post that he thinks what I said was the stupidest thing posted on this board . He obviously does not read well!!

Ok, I guess judging from this response, and that of Hoaxter and Over9.5, I have to break it down to 3rd grade level for you to understand.

Lets start again with what you posted. You said ""The Union does not recognize it for discipline""

This statement alone, standing on its own merit is incorrect as I demonstrated by posting the actual agreement between UPS and the Teamsters. Here it is again:

"no employee shall be discharged on a first offense if such discharge is based solely upon information recieved from gps or any successor system unless he/she engages in dishonesty (defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the company).

Who is correct? You or the contract?

The national contract was ratified by you and the others that voted for its passage in 2008. This paragraph was a part of the contract then and its part of the contract now, therefore THE UNION DOES RECOGNIZE TELEMATICS FOR DISCIPLINE.

This is what makes your statement the dumbest thing said on this board in recent days. Of course the Union recognizes it for discipline or it wouldnt be in the contract.

Now, this paragraph, while if read incorrectly, may lead someone without the knowledge of contractual understandings to form an incorrect opinion, it in no way is avoidable.

Indeed, in each local and region, there are supplementals, riders and MOU's that contain other side agreements with the company. Some of those agreements supercede other language 9 out of 10 times. In this case, with respect to telematics, its the last 10 out of 10 and no rider or supplemental can overide this.

Soberups then added this gem

"Those of us in the Western Region are protected by the superior language in Article 28 section 2 of the Western Region Supplement;

"No Employee(s) shall suffer suspension or discharge without the employee(s) having been given a written warning notice.......

(a) in cases of(1) proven dishonesty; (2) drinking of alcoholic beverages while on duty; (3) recklessnes resulting in a serious accident while on duty (4) the carrying of unauthorized passengers; (5) unprovoked assault on an employee or supervisory employee while on duty; (6) selling, transporting or use of illegal narcotics while in the employement of the Employer; or (7) willful, wanton or malicious damage to the Employers property, shall be dischargeable offenses without the necessity of a warning letter being in effect."

What he fails to add up is the last part of this agreement.

.....shall be dischargeable offenses without the necessity of a warning letter being in effect."

In the case of proven dishonesty, there does not need to be a warning letter issued previously in order to justify a termination.

Now, lets take an example.

If a driver sheets (records as delivered) 10 streets while parked on main street just before lunch, then punches out for lunch and continues delivering those recorded stops while on lunch, and UPS can show through telematics that the vehicle was still moving on lunch, and the telematics can place this driver stop by stop (ignition off, ignition on) at the same addresses where he previously sheeted the stops before lunch, they could make a case for falsifying delivery records.

This would be an act of dishonesty, telematics would not only confirm the act, but clarify the action from start to finish.

Now, UPS can discharge this employee for proven dishonesty based on both the national language and in the west under article 28 section 2. Now, the only break that the company could offer, is that the national language states that the employee cannot be fired for a FIRST OFFENSE from information solely obtained through telematics, however, it could make a case that the employee intended to "DEFRAUD" the company out of a properly recorded package and try to make the discharge stick on that basis. Depending on the severity of the act, it could stick.

How about another example, What if a driver has 5 stops left at the end of the day, and he wants to go home, he stops and records all 5 stops as NI 1 or CLO 1 while staying in the same parked position, and nowhere near the actual stops. Telematics will create an alert, the ctr team will see it, find the packages and investigate the action.

The company would then terminate the driver for failing to properly record those stops or "smoking them" interpreted as a dishonest action. There does not need to be a warning letter issued for this offense as the action is described in article 28 section 2 of the west as a dishonest act.

The driver who would do this is "defrauding" the company out of a properly recorded package and also, would be in violation of article 37 of the national master agreement: section 1 in part:
"...and employees shall perform thier duties in a manner that best represents the employers interest."

Telematics is not to be taken lightly. In 2013 there is alot riding on negotiations with respect to telematics. The door was opened in 2008 for its use as a discipline tool and look for the company to try and expand the language for discipline.

What you are seeing now with telematics is only a trial run for its use. The company is working hard collecting the data & studying the cases of discipline from implementation to present. They are looking at what mistakes they are making and how better to form contract language in the future to avoid further mistakes.

Just because those in the system have not seen the discipline levels increase because of telematics as of yet, it will only be a matter of time before it gets to your center.

One of the biggest actions that the company is focusing on is spohr through the use of telematics. Three day "demonstrated standards rides" are the hot topics right now.

The sup goes out on car with a driver, before that ride, the sup reviews a couple of months of weekly averages (piece count, stops, pickups blah blah blah) then, establishes an average in each criteria. Then, after three days on car, the sup makes an analysis of the days and creates a daily spohr average based on a three day average.

Then the driver goes back onroad without the sup. In most cases, the drivers who do it all wrong seem to go faster when a sup is on car than when they are off car. This begins the long process of trouble. Using only telematics, the sup then confronts the driver when the demonstrated spohr average (sup on car) falls below the three day average. If the driver cannot get the spohr back up to where it was while the sup was on the car, the sup goes back out again with the driver. Again, the driver seems to hit the spohr but after the sup leaves the car, the daily averages fall off.

This is where the company starts the discipline process using only telematics.

Now before you all start with the "fair days work for fair days pay thing" or the " the union doesnt recognize production"...know that I already know this.

Thats not the point.

The point is that the union and the company made an agreement with respect to telematics and that agreement has brought us trouble as drivers. There is more to follow in the coming months as this program goes nationwide.

There will always be those drivers who think they can beat the system, or cheat and those drivers will always get canned no matter what we all believe. What we can do is understand the contract and the limitations of our protections and simply do the job correctly.

Understanding each portion of the contract, its riders and supplements along with its intentions is the best way to avoid misunderstandings.

Never read into the contract anything that is NOT contained in it. Statements like "the union does not recognize it" is a classic example of reading something into the contract that isnt there.

Listening to "we have superior language" is also something that is laughable.

Everything in our contract is in there for a specific reason. Agreements at the negotiation table are made to satisfy both parties. Any belief that the Teamsters can solely negotiate protections for us without some compromise to the company is foolish.

Peace.

 

[soberups]

In the case of proven dishonesty, there does not need to be a warning letter issued previously in order to justify a termination.

Now, lets take an example.

If a driver sheets (records as delivered) 10 streets while parked on main street just before lunch, then punches out for lunch and continues delivering those recorded stops while on lunch, and UPS can show through telematics that the vehicle was still moving on lunch, and the telematics can place this driver stop by stop (ignition off, ignition on) at the same addresses where he previously sheeted the stops before lunch, they could make a case for falsifying delivery records.

This would be an act of dishonesty, telematics would not only confirm the act, but clarify the action from start to finish.

.

You missed the entire point of what I posted.

Under the Western Supplement, Telematics data by itself is not proof.

In your hypothetical example, if the driver in question was called into the office and questioned about the discrepancies in his delivery records, and his response was "I do not recall"...then he could not be terminated based solely upon the GPS/Telematics data.

What happens here is that management becomes aware of the discrepancies and, rather than immediately questioning the driver, they instead go out and perform on-area observations.

The following day, the driver is questioned about the inconsistencies in his delivery records vs. GPS/Telematics and given an opportunity to explain what happened. What the driver does not know at this point is that management has already been watching him and already knows the answers to the questions that they are asking. If the driver has in fact been falsifying records or cheating, he will normally start lying about it and at this point the dishonesty becomes provable.

I must also point out that the action you describe in your hypothetical example (pre-recording stops from a fixed location and then delivering them later) is not in and of itself a dishonest act. It is a methods violation, although there may be valid reasons for doing it anyway. I have done it that way myself during peak season when working with a helper. It only becomes dishonesty if you lie about it when questioned. It is an important distinction because a methods violation is subject to the progressive discipline language while dishonesty (or provable dishonesty in the West) is grounds for immediate discharge.

You are 100% correct about the company wishing to move forward with Telematics as a tool for discipline, and that drivers who have been cutting corners or cheating had better get their act together. But most of the concerns that I am hearing about the new technology are coming from honest people who are simply afraid of getting hauled into the office and arbitrarily fired based upon nothing more than a Telematics report that may not be accurate. And the fact of the matter is that the safeguards in the contract language will prevent that from happening. If you are doing your job correctly and are 100% honest with your management team (subject to the limits of your ability to recall what may have happened days or even weeks ago) then you have nothing to fear from Telmatics.

 

[pretzel_man]

You missed the entire point of what I posted.

Under the Western Supplement, Telematics data by itself is not proof.

In your hypothetical example, if the driver in question was called into the office and questioned about the discrepancies in his delivery records, and his response was "I do not recall"...then he could not be terminated based solely upon the GPS/Telematics data.

What happens here is that management becomes aware of the discrepancies and, rather than immediately questioning the driver, they instead go out and perform on-area observations.

The following day, the driver is questioned about the inconsistencies in his delivery records vs. GPS/Telematics and given an opportunity to explain what happened. What the driver does not know at this point is that management has already been watching him and already knows the answers to the questions that they are asking. If the driver has in fact been falsifying records or cheating, he will normally start lying about it and at this point the dishonesty becomes provable.

I must also point out that the action you describe in your hypothetical example (pre-recording stops from a fixed location and then delivering them later) is not in and of itself a dishonest act. It is a methods violation, although there may be valid reasons for doing it anyway. I have done it that way myself during peak season when working with a helper. It only becomes dishonesty if you lie about it when questioned. It is an important distinction because a methods violation is subject to the progressive discipline language while dishonesty (or provable dishonesty in the West) is grounds for immediate discharge.

You are 100% correct about the company wishing to move forward with Telematics as a tool for discipline, and that drivers who have been cutting corners or cheating had better get their act together. But most of the concerns that I am hearing about the new technology are coming from honest people who are simply afraid of getting hauled into the office and arbitrarily fired based upon nothing more than a Telematics report that may not be accurate. And the fact of the matter is that the safeguards in the contract language will prevent that from happening. If you are doing your job correctly and are 100% honest with your management team (subject to the limits of your ability to recall what may have happened days or even weeks ago) then you have nothing to fear from Telmatics.

Honest question here.... Just trying to understand your point....

If a driver records a delivery as a "not in" and Security checks Telematics (or DIAD GPS) and sees that the driver never drove to the address....

Does this qualify for discipline? I think this is a likely example of direct discipline for dishonestly from telematics.....

I agree that many others are methods violations, data recording errors, etc.

 

[soberups]

How about another example, What if a driver has 5 stops left at the end of the day, and he wants to go home, he stops and records all 5 stops as NI 1 or CLO 1 while staying in the same parked position, and nowhere near the actual stops. Telematics will create an alert, the ctr team will see it, find the packages and investigate the action.

The company would then terminate the driver for failing to properly record those stops or "smoking them" interpreted as a dishonest action. There does not need to be a warning letter issued for this offense as the action is described in article 28 section 2 of the west as a dishonest act.

.

In this hypothetical example, its not the Telematics data that will get the driver fired for dishonesty...its what he says to his management team when he is questioned versus what they are able to prove with their investigation that will get him fired for dishonesty.

If he told them the truth..."I sheeted them as NI1 because I needed to get off of work early"....then he has committed a rather serious methods violation. It becomes dishonesty when he lies about it. And the ultimate proof of that lie cannot be solely based upon Telematics/GPS data. In this example, in order to make the case for termination airtight, the investigation performed by the management team would include going to the actual addresses in question and getting statements from the customers as to whether or not the driver ever actually made a delivery attempt. The Telematics data by itself, uncorraborated by any other statements or evidence, is not sufficent proof.

I must also point out that your hypothetical example is not somethiing that any ethical driver would ever need to be concerned about. A driver who would "smoke" packages and falsify records in the manner you describe deserves to get fired for dishonesty.

 

[soberups]

Honest question here.... Just trying to understand your point....

If a driver records a delivery as a "not in" and Security checks Telematics (or DIAD GPS) and sees that the driver never drove to the address....

Does this qualify for discipline? I think this is a likely example of direct discipline for dishonestly from telematics.....

I agree that many others are methods violations, data recording errors, etc.

Security would first be obligated to go out to the customer and ask them if the driver ever showed up or left a delivery notice. By itself and with no other evidence, the Telematics GPS data would not be sufficent to fire the driver for dishonesty unless he told a provable lie when questioned about it.

The reality, however, is that behavior such as this does not occur in a vacuum. A driver who is stupid or dishonest enough to risk his job by stiffing a package isnt going to only do it once. He will do it again, he will lie about it, and a basic investigation by the management team will easily give them all of the proof they need to show the guy the door.

 

[Dragon]

Ok, I guess judging from this response, and that of Hoaxter and Over9.5, I have to break it down to 3rd grade level for you to understand.

Lets start again with what you posted. You said ""The Union does not recognize it for discipline""

This statement alone, standing on its own merit is incorrect as I demonstrated by posting the actual agreement between UPS and the Teamsters. Here it is again:

"no employee shall be discharged on a first offense if such discharge is based solely upon information recieved from gps or any successor system unless he/she engages in dishonesty (defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the company).

Who is correct? You or the contract?

The national contract was ratified by you and the others that voted for its passage in 2008. This paragraph was a part of the contract then and its part of the contract now, therefore THE UNION DOES RECOGNIZE TELEMATICS FOR DISCIPLINE.

This is what makes your statement the dumbest thing said on this board in recent days. Of course the Union recognizes it for discipline or it wouldnt be in the contract.

Now, this paragraph, while if read incorrectly, may lead someone without the knowledge of contractual understandings to form an incorrect opinion, it in no way is avoidable.

Indeed, in each local and region, there are supplementals, riders and MOU's that contain other side agreements with the company. Some of those agreements supercede other language 9 out of 10 times. In this case, with respect to telematics, its the last 10 out of 10 and no rider or supplemental can overide this.

Soberups then added this gem

"Those of us in the Western Region are protected by the superior language in Article 28 section 2 of the Western Region Supplement;

"No Employee(s) shall suffer suspension or discharge without the employee(s) having been given a written warning notice.......

(a) in cases of(1) proven dishonesty; (2) drinking of alcoholic beverages while on duty; (3) recklessnes resulting in a serious accident while on duty (4) the carrying of unauthorized passengers; (5) unprovoked assault on an employee or supervisory employee while on duty; (6) selling, transporting or use of illegal narcotics while in the employement of the Employer; or (7) willful, wanton or malicious damage to the Employers property, shall be dischargeable offenses without the necessity of a warning letter being in effect."

What he fails to add up is the last part of this agreement.

.....shall be dischargeable offenses without the necessity of a warning letter being in effect."

In the case of proven dishonesty, there does not need to be a warning letter issued previously in order to justify a termination.

Now, lets take an example.

If a driver sheets (records as delivered) 10 streets while parked on main street just before lunch, then punches out for lunch and continues delivering those recorded stops while on lunch, and UPS can show through telematics that the vehicle was still moving on lunch, and the telematics can place this driver stop by stop (ignition off, ignition on) at the same addresses where he previously sheeted the stops before lunch, they could make a case for falsifying delivery records.

This would be an act of dishonesty, telematics would not only confirm the act, but clarify the action from start to finish.

Now, UPS can discharge this employee for proven dishonesty based on both the national language and in the west under article 28 section 2. Now, the only break that the company could offer, is that the national language states that the employee cannot be fired for a FIRST OFFENSE from information solely obtained through telematics, however, it could make a case that the employee intended to "DEFRAUD" the company out of a properly recorded package and try to make the discharge stick on that basis. Depending on the severity of the act, it could stick.

How about another example, What if a driver has 5 stops left at the end of the day, and he wants to go home, he stops and records all 5 stops as NI 1 or CLO 1 while staying in the same parked position, and nowhere near the actual stops. Telematics will create an alert, the ctr team will see it, find the packages and investigate the action.

The company would then terminate the driver for failing to properly record those stops or "smoking them" interpreted as a dishonest action. There does not need to be a warning letter issued for this offense as the action is described in article 28 section 2 of the west as a dishonest act.

The driver who would do this is "defrauding" the company out of a properly recorded package and also, would be in violation of article 37 of the national master agreement: section 1 in part:
"...and employees shall perform thier duties in a manner that best represents the employers interest."

Telematics is not to be taken lightly. In 2013 there is alot riding on negotiations with respect to telematics. The door was opened in 2008 for its use as a discipline tool and look for the company to try and expand the language for discipline.

What you are seeing now with telematics is only a trial run for its use. The company is working hard collecting the data & studying the cases of discipline from implementation to present. They are looking at what mistakes they are making and how better to form contract language in the future to avoid further mistakes.

Just because those in the system have not seen the discipline levels increase because of telematics as of yet, it will only be a matter of time before it gets to your center.

One of the biggest actions that the company is focusing on is spohr through the use of telematics. Three day "demonstrated standards rides" are the hot topics right now.

The sup goes out on car with a driver, before that ride, the sup reviews a couple of months of weekly averages (piece count, stops, pickups blah blah blah) then, establishes an average in each criteria. Then, after three days on car, the sup makes an analysis of the days and creates a daily spohr average based on a three day average.

Then the driver goes back onroad without the sup. In most cases, the drivers who do it all wrong seem to go faster when a sup is on car than when they are off car. This begins the long process of trouble. Using only telematics, the sup then confronts the driver when the demonstrated spohr average (sup on car) falls below the three day average. If the driver cannot get the spohr back up to where it was while the sup was on the car, the sup goes back out again with the driver. Again, the driver seems to hit the spohr but after the sup leaves the car, the daily averages fall off.

This is where the company starts the discipline process using only telematics.

Now before you all start with the "fair days work for fair days pay thing" or the " the union doesnt recognize production"...know that I already know this.

Thats not the point.

The point is that the union and the company made an agreement with respect to telematics and that agreement has brought us trouble as drivers. There is more to follow in the coming months as this program goes nationwide.

There will always be those drivers who think they can beat the system, or cheat and those drivers will always get canned no matter what we all believe. What we can do is understand the contract and the limitations of our protections and simply do the job correctly.

Understanding each portion of the contract, its riders and supplements along with its intentions is the best way to avoid misunderstandings.

Never read into the contract anything that is NOT contained in it. Statements like "the union does not recognize it" is a classic example of reading something into the contract that isnt there.

Listening to "we have superior language" is also something that is laughable.

Everything in our contract is in there for a specific reason. Agreements at the negotiation table are made to satisfy both parties. Any belief that the Teamsters can solely negotiate protections for us without some compromise to the company is foolish.

Peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen, HE GETS IT!!

 

[Dragon]

Then the driver goes back onroad without the sup. In most cases, the drivers who do it all wrong seem to go faster when a sup is on car than when they are off car. This begins the long process of trouble. Using only telematics, the sup then confronts the driver when the demonstrated spohr average (sup on car) falls below the three day average. If the driver cannot get the spohr back up to where it was while the sup was on the car, the sup goes back out again with the driver. Again, the driver seems to hit the spohr but after the sup leaves the car, the daily averages fall off.

What happens when the supervisor is on the car, is all the drama the driver creates everyday (you can fill this part with your own comments) is cut out and the driver is focused on the job. Do this pretty much everyday when the supervisor is not on the car and you have nothing to worry about. You can have a bad day every once in a while but not every day is a bad day.

 

[The Other Side]

You missed the entire point of what I posted.

Under the Western Supplement, Telematics data by itself is not proof.

In your hypothetical example, if the driver in question was called into the office and questioned about the discrepancies in his delivery records, and his response was "I do not recall"...then he could not be terminated based solely upon the GPS/Telematics data.

What happens here is that management becomes aware of the discrepancies and, rather than immediately questioning the driver, they instead go out and perform on-area observations.

The following day, the driver is questioned about the inconsistencies in his delivery records vs. GPS/Telematics and given an opportunity to explain what happened. What the driver does not know at this point is that management has already been watching him and already knows the answers to the questions that they are asking. If the driver has in fact been falsifying records or cheating, he will normally start lying about it and at this point the dishonesty becomes provable.

I must also point out that the action you describe in your hypothetical example (pre-recording stops from a fixed location and then delivering them later) is not in and of itself a dishonest act. It is a methods violation, although there may be valid reasons for doing it anyway. I have done it that way myself during peak season when working with a helper. It only becomes dishonesty if you lie about it when questioned. It is an important distinction because a methods violation is subject to the progressive discipline language while dishonesty (or provable dishonesty in the West) is grounds for immediate discharge.

You are 100% correct about the company wishing to move forward with Telematics as a tool for discipline, and that drivers who have been cutting corners or cheating had better get their act together. But most of the concerns that I am hearing about the new technology are coming from honest people who are simply afraid of getting hauled into the office and arbitrarily fired based upon nothing more than a Telematics report that may not be accurate. And the fact of the matter is that the safeguards in the contract language will prevent that from happening. If you are doing your job correctly and are 100% honest with your management team (subject to the limits of your ability to recall what may have happened days or even weeks ago) then you have nothing to fear from Telmatics.

Sober,

A good clean discussion about the realities of contractual application is good for all members. Lets further the discussion by examining your points.

1) "Under the Western Supplement, Telematics data by itself is not proof."

I am "personally" familiar with the language in the west as I sat at the table in 92,97 and 2002. Where in 2011 does it state in the western supplement that Telematics, GPS or any other successor device by itself is not proof?

What section? What paragraph? Help me out here.

Hopefully, you are not referring to this "no employee shall be disciplined for exceeding personal time based on data recieved from the diad/ivis or other informational technology".

This particular paragraph contained in article 37 is a protection for drivers who show large gaps between stops. In this case, an employee who shows no activity for lets say 20 mins between stops could not be disciplined by telematics, diad or IVIS. The company would have to see the gaps and then place an onroad sup out there to visibly see the gaps and make a determination if the employee is "stealing time" and taking unnecessary breaks.

This language is only good for this one purpose and one purpose only, to determine excessive personal time.

2) "If he told them the truth..."I sheeted them as NI1 because I needed to get off of work early"....then he has committed a rather serious methods violation. It becomes dishonesty when he lies about it. And the ultimate proof of that lie cannot be solely based upon Telematics/GPS data."

There are a couple of flaws with this argument. First, telling them the truth? An admission of a cardinal infraction (dishonesty) and you call that a "serious methods violation" ? Where in the contract do you see the methods section in any of the contractual components?

Company methods are referred to as 3/40 methods, a little outdated using todays technology, but its still referred that way. INTEGRITY is NOT a method violation.

Its a decision. Falsify a delivery and take a chance that you wont get caught and risk your job. Its that easy, I can assure you that there is nothing in the contract that gives you a free pass on INTEGRITY. If you will "lie" (defined for this purpose as falsifying a delivery record) then you are dishonest and the company will remove you.

You say its only becomes dishonest when he lies about it, okay, what if he didnt get caught, would that make it okay then? Why do you think they created this system in the first place? Could it be the thousands of smoked packages everyday in the entire system from guys who you say are not guilty until they "lie" about it?

Lets look again at what it sez in article 6:

""no employee shall be discharged on a first offense if such discharge is based solely upon information recieved from gps or any successor system unless he/she engages in dishonesty (defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the company).""

I raised the typeface for you this time, its sez very clearly, ANY ACT OR OMMISSION by an employee.

You can clearly see that your example of "it only becomes dishonest when he lies about it" is NOT true since both the ACT and the OMMISSION (lie) are covered by this section.

Seeing this, you must understand that the company can "solely" use telematics for discharges for dishonesty. Depending on the severity of the action, the company could give the employee a break on a FIRST OFFENSE, let him/her off with a warning letter, but on a second, third etc etc etc it would be lights out.

Unless you can demonstrate a paragraph in the western region supplement that somehow excludes the members in the west from this language, then I would suggest not recommending to members that somehow they are protected.

This is bad advice.

3) "Security would first be obligated to go out to the customer and ask them if the driver ever showed up or left a delivery notice. By itself and with no other evidence, the Telematics GPS data would not be sufficent to fire the driver for dishonesty unless he told a provable lie when questioned about it."

I am not sure where you are getting your explanations for how the company obligations work, but let me assure you, UPS is trying to make it that much easier for the operators to make a termination decision without the lag of protocol. In your example, you say security would have to go out and ask the customer if a notice was left. What for? GPS will show the vehicle on the wrong street at the wrong time and further, there would be NO SCAN on the notice, and if there was, then another dishonesty charge would be the case. GPS positioning is serious business.

The company didnt invest millions of dollars in technology just to send an LP guy out knocking on doors. It would be prudent for the company to make sure (after the fact), but telematics is a pretty solid system when determining if a driver is sitting in one place sheeting packages for other streets.

I am curious about your "methods violations" versus "dishonesty" claims. In many yards, BA's talk to the members and give the wrong advice, tough union talk and sometimes that advice has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I have heard many explanations from many agents about telematics and I can assure you, most of them are wrong. Most have been out of driving for longer than technology has been out there.

When the company presented the idea of IVIS, DIAD, GPS and telematics to the union, it gave them the impression that they were safety related devices and would only be used for safety training and monitoring.

In the end, they became tools of discipline and in the wrong hands can be exploited.

That being said, on our side of the fence, we have many who cheat the system (signing for packages, bad dr's, stealing, wasting time, blah blah blah) and those guys make it hard on the rest of us.

For years, UPS has had to catch these guys the hard way but in todays UPS, its become only a mouse click away.

Further that with supportive contractual language and you have a recipe for disaster.

I kid with you in my posts, but I would like to see how you formulate your positions by actually seeing what language you based those formulas on.

Show me something in the west that supercedes the language contained in article 6 of the national master agreement relating to GPS, DIAD or any other informational device where it states that the telematic information is not proof.

Peace.

 

[BrownArmy]

...What we can do is understand the contract and the limitations of our protections and simply do the job correctly...

End of story.

 

[kiwi]

we are going live on telematics in the middle of this month. this is like ups best way to for sure fire an employee.. has anyone went live on this yet, if so tell me about it thanks . thagame

really sucks they know everything follow all the rules

 

[BigUnionGuy]

In many yards, BA's talk to the members and give the wrong advice, tough union talk and sometimes that advice has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I have heard many explanations from many agents about telematics and I can assure you, most of them are wrong.

Or any other informational device where it states that the telematic information is not proof.

With any provisions of the Western Supplement aside....

The purpose of telematics was to "deter" drivers from going off area.

And thats from being "at the table" as you put it.


While I can agree with some of the points you make.... I can't agree with all.



-Bug-

 

[soberups]

I am "personally" familiar with the language in the west as I sat at the table in 92,97 and 2002. Where in 2011 does it state in the western supplement that Telematics, GPS or any other successor device by itself is not proof? What section? What paragraph? Help me out here.

Telematics did not exist in 92, 97 or 2002. My information is coming from my BA and president of my Local who has represented several members facing termination at panel hearings in 2010. He has also been a member of panels, as well as participating in the committee that actually negotiated the language in question. Another building in my Local just went live with Telematics and the stewards from that building as well as ours (myself included) attended a seminar hosted by this BA where the results of these recent panel hearings were discussed and clarified so that we could better represent our members on the shop floor. What matters here is how the panel interprets the language, not how we as individuals choose to interpret the language.

.

INTEGRITY is NOT a method violation.Its a decision. Falsify a delivery and take a chance that you wont get caught and risk your job. Its that easy, I can assure you that there is nothing in the contract that gives you a free pass on INTEGRITY. If you will "lie" (defined for this purpose as falsifying a delivery record) then you are dishonest and the company will remove you.

Again, I am telling you how recent panels have interpreted the language. We have had members who, when confronted, have immediately come clean and been honest about issues such as prerecording NDA before 10:30 or "smoking" packages, and on a first offense they generally get their jobs back.

You say its only becomes dishonest when he lies about it, okay, what if he didnt get caught, would that make it okay then? Why do you think they created this system in the first place? Could it be the thousands of smoked packages everyday in the entire system from guys who you say are not guilty until they "lie" about it?

No, it would not be OK and yes, his actions are still dishonest. That does not change the fact that, under our labor agreement, in order to prove that the employee was dishonest the company must have more than just a Telematics/GPS report in order for a termination to be upheld. And in recent panel hearings where the terminations were upheld, the company did have additional proof. They used the Telematics to figure out who was dirty, and then they went out and got proof and caught them.

Seeing this, you must understand that the company can "solely" use telematics for discharges for dishonesty. Depending on the severity of the action, the company could give the employee a break on a FIRST OFFENSE, let him/her off with a warning letter, but on a second, third etc etc etc it would be lights out.

Unless you can demonstrate a paragraph in the western region supplement that somehow excludes the members in the west from this language, then I would suggest not recommending to members that somehow they are protected

.


Article 28 Section 2 of the Western Supplement is the relevant language for panel hearings out here since it is superior to what is in the National. Article 28 section 2 is the language that has been used in recent panel hearings to determine whether or not a termination is upheld. I am not advocating dishonesty and I am not suggesting that our members have "nothing to worry about"...all I am saying is that, based upon recent panel hearings, simply showing up on a Telematics report is not sufficient grounds for a termination.

I am not sure where you are getting your explanations for how the company obligations work, but let me assure you, UPS is trying to make it that much easier for the operators to make a termination decision without the lag of protocol. In your example, you say security would have to go out and ask the customer if a notice was left. What for? GPS will show the vehicle on the wrong street at the wrong time and further, there would be NO SCAN on the notice, and if there was, then another dishonesty charge would be the case. GPS positioning is serious business.

The company didnt invest millions of dollars in technology just to send an LP guy out knocking on doors. It would be prudent for the company to make sure (after the fact), but telematics is a pretty solid system when determining if a driver is sitting in one place sheeting packages for other streets.

I was recently questioned about why Telematics showed me backing up 125 feet for a stop with one package. The address in question has a driveway that is 20 feet long. Had the report been accurate, I would have backed all the way through both walls of the building and down into a ravine on the other side. Another driver showed up on the report because he supposedly backed up for 15 city blocks at speeds of up to 35 MPH, a physical impossibility. On a routine basis, the GPS system malfunctions and prompts the alert in my DIAD at every single stop for minutes or even hours at a time even though I am at the correct location. The system is far from perfect and that is why, by itself, the data is not sufficent grounds for proving dishonesty on the part of the driver.

When the company presented the idea of IVIS, DIAD, GPS and telematics to the union, it gave them the impression that they were safety related devices and would only be used for safety training and monitoring. In the end, they became tools of discipline and in the wrong hands can be exploited.
That being said, on our side of the fence, we have many who cheat the system (signing for packages, bad dr's, stealing, wasting time, blah blah blah) and those guys make it hard on the rest of us.

For years, UPS has had to catch these guys the hard way but in todays UPS, its become only a mouse click away.

Further that with supportive contractual language and you have a recipe for disaster.

You are correct that the technology makes it easier for the company to figure out who is dirty. And those of us who do our jobs the right way have no problem with that.

Where you and I are in disagreement is in how the recent panel hearings are interpreting the language.

You are implying that the only thing that needs to happen for a guy to get fired is for there to be a discrepancy between his delivery records and the GPS that can be interpreted by the company as dishonesty, and that a successful termination is but a "mouse click away". And what I am telling you...based upon recent Western Conference panel hearings....is that you are incorrect.

Truly dishonest drivers are going to be easier to catch...as recent panel hearings have proven.... but a successful termination still requires the company to do more than simply print out a report. And an honest driver who is doing his job correctly does not have to fear getting whacked because of a software glitch in a Telematics system.

Peace.




.[/QUOTE]

 

[soberups]

really sucks they know everything follow all the rules

As one who has been on Telematics for over 2 years now, I can tell you that, for the most part at least, it doesnt suck. And some of the "everything" that they now know is stuff they would really rather not be aware of...like the 2 hr bonus drivers who all of a sudden cant maintain their usual pace once they have to take lunch,close the BH door, wear the seatbelt and drive the speed limit. The lunch-skippers and corner-cutters who used to make management look good on paper...as well as making life hell for the rest of us whenever we had to run their routes...are being forced to slow down and do the job properly.

 

[Jones]

As one who has been on Telematics for over 2 years now, I can tell you that, for the most part at least, it doesnt suck. And some of the "everything" that they now know is stuff they would really rather not be aware of...like the 2 hr bonus drivers who all of a sudden cant maintain their usual pace once they have to take lunch,close the BH door, wear the seatbelt and drive the speed limit. The lunch-skippers and corner-cutters who used to make management look good on paper...as well as making life hell for the rest of us whenever we had to run their routes...are being forced to slow down and do the job properly.

Our trucks are all wired up, we're supposed to go live sometime this summer I think. I'm curious to see how they handle some of these big bonus drivers who have been breaking every rule for years.

 

[Dizzee]

Our trucks are all wired up, we're supposed to go live sometime this summer I think. I'm curious to see how they handle some of these big bonus drivers who have been breaking every rule for years.

Keep in mind that you're being monitored for a period of time before you officially "go live". They like to have a "before and after" comparison once they have things up and running.

If you just follow the methods, telematics is nothing to worry about.

 

[The Other Side]

Sober,

what you are saying is exactly what the problem is. My BA told me this, my President told me that, my secretary treasurer told me this...

Recent panel hearings have NO IMPACT on the daily operation of the business. There has been NO panel hearings in the WEST in 2010, 2009 or last month that established a "PRECEDENT" for the use of telematics or language contained in the collective bargaining agreement.

This is why I say, unless you can find it in the book, it doesnt exist.

Each case that goes to panels in the west is separate from all others unless the company stipulates to a "PRECEDENT" and this my friend, despite all the people in your local who told you so, are incorrect.

Panel hearings, or Deadlock committees which they are more commonly referred to, are not places where language is changed, modified or understandings clarified.

They are small meetings where each side has less than 5 minutes to present a side and a decision made by the panel of 6 (3 union and 3 company) more often than not, its a tie and the matter goes outside where it is negotiated between the labor rep for the company and an executive officer of the union (not the BA).

Here is where most cases are settled...

I know you would not be able to present any evidence to the contrary to what I posted, and I knew you would respond with the "somebody told me"....

This is why I say NOT to give the advice you are giving. You will put someone in a chokehold if they believe what you are saying to them and they risk their careers for tough talk from a BA or Local President.

Many of us have been at the tables. Many of us know how deals are made and contracts formed.

Like I said before, dont accept tough talk as LANGUAGE, dont accept tough talk as a crutch, dont believe that someone who tells you that despite what is written it has a different meaning than what it was intended.

All the drivers in my region are learning that they have to do the job "by the book", forget about "past practice", lose the "learned behaviors" and you will be worry free on the road.

If you take the approach that someone told you that you will be protected if you do the job wrong, then you are a candidate for termination.

Lets leave this conversation with this; "DO THE JOB RIGHT".

Peace