Telematics and discipline.

[Mugarolla]

I'm sure that management is shocked at this fraudulent behavior and has been for years.

Especially since GPS and telematics were added.

Shocking.

How can they really be shocked when most of them do the same thing...lie cheat and steal.

 

[AKCoverMan]

This is complete and total BS!!

Telematics only works when the PC is
linked to a DIAD.

Car washers do not generate Telematics' violations.

Actually we have had a number of them, mostly bulkhead door events when the inside staff moves the car before you have finished at check in counter and punched out.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Actually we have had a number of them, mostly bulkhead door events when the inside staff moves the car before you have finished at check in counter and punched out.

....hence the "Telematics only works when the PC is linked to a DIAD"...

 

[soberups]

First time posting, been reading for years. Anyways got a warning letter for a seat belt today for 1 seatbelt violation and for .01 miles. Is this new standard. What gets me is I was trained to do it the old way and always have a few a day but not a word is ever said. Have guys with miles of seatbelt violations and nothing gets said expect so and so needs to buckle up.

Depending on the quality of the paper you could either wipe your ass with that warning letter or else use it to line a birdcage. It might also come in handy to start a fire or wrap fish with. It certainly isn't good for anything else; the contract is very clear that Telematics cant be used for discipline. Your supervisor was probably given a quota of warning letters to issue so he is just spewing them out to look like he is doing something important.

 

[soberups]

No one saw me and they can't prove jack . Just at the point after 20 yrs I'm really starting to see what a screwed up place this really is. On car gave me the letter and said it's just part work they are making him do. Just tired of the crap.

Be grateful for the fact that the work that you do actually matters. Imagine how miserable and degrading it would be to have to meet a warning letter quota in order to justify your job. Imagine having to be a weasel who sneaks around and spies on people in order to find things to harass them about. At least we can look at ourselves in the mirror at night and be proud of what we see.

 

[soberups]

Our center manager is a bit more reasonable and allows us to start the PC every 5-10 minutes to keep the cab warm.

That's really noble of him, but if its below freezing I wouldn't give a whether he "allowed" me to or not. The corporate idiot who came up with the "no idle" and "no breaking trace" rule did so from the comfort of a heated office with a bathroom down the hall, so if I need to idle for heat or break trace to find a bathroom I could care less about his rules or what Telematics might have to say about it.

 

[soberups]

So dishonesty is defined as an act to "defraud the Company".

With the new no tolerance attitude about drivers that scan, drive, and then deliver next day airs after the commit time just how is telematics able to be used to terminate that driver (without other corroborating evidence) when the Company isn't frauded...the customer is?

(A) The company is being defrauded because the driver is intentionally falsifying a delivery record and putting the company in the position of having to issue a refund to that customer.
(B) The driver cant be terminated based upon Telematics info alone, he has to be directly observed. Drivers who scan air and then deliver it later to beat the deadline tend to be habitual offenders and sooner or later they will draw managements direct attention.

 

[soberups]

Any answers out there?

Intentional falsification of a delivery record or intentionally misrepresenting your actions to the company constitutes fraud. It would be the same as if you added miles to your odometer reading in order to increase your planned day and look better on the report.

 

[oldngray]

Driving extra miles to make service on packages is different and not intent to defraud despite how some in management claim it to be.

 

[soberups]

It is dishonesty, but is it defrauding the company? It is worth a shot to say that it is not. I would argue that the section means to defraud the company monetarily.

I am not saying I am right or that I could win it, but unlike Upstate, I would give it my best shot. Win or lose.

You aren't right and you wouldn't win it because intentional dishonesty is an act of fraud against the company.

We had a driver get fired for this exact thing, but the termination was because he got scared and changed his story when he was questioned and on that basis alone the case for dishonesty was upheld. Had he kept his mouth shut and said "I don't recall" and stuck with that story, the company would not have had anything but a Telematics report to go on.

What management will do is ask questions that they already know the answer to, in the hope that they can catch the driver in a lie. Or they will keep asking the same question over and over, in the hope that the driver will get scared and change his story. Once that happens, they nail him for the lie and the Telematics information becomes a moot point.

 

[MobileBA]

dont you use gatorade bottles in Yamhill County?

 

[soberups]

dont you use gatorade bottles in Yamhill County?

No.

 

[Mugarolla]

Had he kept his mouth shut and said "I don't recall" and stuck with that story, the company would not have had anything but a Telematics report to go on.

If the driver is "defrauding" the company, as you say he is in this scenario, the Telematics report is enough evidence for a discharge. So even if he stuck to his story, he would have been discharged.

Article 6

Section 6.

Technology and Discipline

No employee shall be discharged if such discharge is based solely
upon information received from GPS or any successor system
unless he/she engages in dishonesty (defined for the purposes
of this paragraph as any intentional act or omission by an
employee where he/she intends to defraud the Company). The
Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating
evidence any other violations warranting discharge. The
degree of discipline dealing with off-area offenses shall not be
changed because of the use of GPS.

 

[soberups]

If the driver is "defrauding" the company, as you say he is in this scenario, the Telematics report is enough evidence for a discharge. So even if he stuck to his story, he would have been discharged.

Article 6

Section 6.

Technology and Discipline

No employee shall be discharged if such discharge is based solely
upon information received from GPS or any successor system
unless he/she engages in dishonesty (defined for the purposes
of this paragraph as any intentional act or omission by an
employee where he/she intends to defraud the Company). The
Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating
evidence any other violations warranting discharge. The
degree of discipline dealing with off-area offenses shall not be
changed because of the use of GPS.

The key word is "intentional".

The company has to prove intent, which it cant do in this case if the employee keeps his mouth shut.

We also have superior language to this in the Western Region; terminations can only be upheld on provable dishonesty and uncorroborated Telematics data is not considered proof.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

The drivers intent was to avoid a late air and subsequent talk with by sheeting the air before the commit and then driving to the stop, clearly defrauding the customer.

 

[Mugarolla]

The drivers intent was to avoid a late air and subsequent talk with by sheeting the air before the commit and then driving to the stop, clearly defrauding the customer.

I agree with Upstate. The driver intended to avoid a late air by scanning it before 10:30 when he was no where near the stop. According to the legal definition of fraud, see earlier post, this act is not only defauding the customer, but also the company.

 

[Mugarolla]

The key word is "intentional".

The company has to prove intent, which it cant do in this case if the employee keeps his mouth shut.

We also have superior language to this in the Western Region; terminations can only be upheld on provable dishonesty and uncorroborated Telematics data is not considered proof.

Easy to prove. Our telematics show driver scanned package 3 miles from the stop. Scanned at 10:29. Driver did this to scan the package before 10:30 so the air would not show up as late even though he was 3 miles from the stop.

Do not see any language anywhere in the Western Region Supplement that prohibits discharge from uncorroborated telematics data regarding dishonesty. Please enlighten me.

 

[soberups]

Easy to prove. Our telematics show driver scanned package 3 miles from the stop. Scanned at 10:29. Driver did this to scan the package before 10:30 so the air would not show up as late even though he was 3 miles from the stop.

Do not see any language anywhere in the Western Region Supplement that prohibits discharge from uncorroborated telematics data regarding dishonesty. Please enlighten me.

I am on vacation and do not have my copy of the contract in front of me so I cannot quote it verbatim, but it is either art 26 or 27 of the Western Supplement under suspensions and discharges. One of the listed cardinal offenses is provable dishonesty and uncorroborated Telematics data is not proof.

I am not doubting the intent of the driver in your case, but in the similar case we had in our building it wasn't the Telematics data that got him fired; it was the fact that he got scared and changed his story under questioning which in and of itself is de facto proof of dishonesty. Had our driver simply kept his mouth shut and denied any knowledge of what he was being accused of, the company would not have had the proof they needed to uphold his termination.

Telematics data is not infallible. I was once brought into the office and questioned over my decision to back 95 yards at 20MPH in a customers parking lot. I was able to clearly show on a satellite photo that backing 95 yards at that location would have caused me to drive clear through the back wall of the customers warehouse and down into the creek behind it, which of course did not happen. The data was simply wrong.

 

[soberups]

The drivers intent was to avoid a late air and subsequent talk with by sheeting the air before the commit and then driving to the stop, clearly defrauding the customer.

Do I agree with your assessment of his intentions? Yes.

Is uncorroborated Telematics data sufficient proof of that intent to uphold a termination at panel? No.

 

[oldngray]

By itself telematics or GPS can't be used for termination. Despite what UPS tries to claim, it is not 100% infallible. It can be used to spot problems then target someone. Or pressure and harass someone into admitting guilt. If questioned, always say the GPS must be wrong. Many times it might be. I had issues with driver follow ups a couple of times where GPS tried to say I misdelivered packages to the wrong house. Their GPS data was clearly wrong because it showed the deliveries on streets I never deliver. Only a minor annoyance for me and hardly anything to get terminated about but the same principles still apply. And don't do stupid like falsifying records just to claim you made service. Even if GPS can't be used by itself UPS will then observe you and you would then be toast.