UPS Whistleblowers- Happy National Whistleblowers Appreciation Day!

[rickyb]

since obama america usually hits its whistleblowers with the espionage act

 

[Thebrownblob]

since obama america usually hits its whistleblowers with the espionage act

Different kind of whistle blowers Ricky LOL

 

[rickyb]

Different kind of whistle blowers Ricky LOL

maybe they will use espionage act on corporate whistleblowers soon

 

[35years]

Similar to the Keter audits, that really did nothing but create a harassment culture for UPS to threaten people if they did not learn their safety questions, not really making people safe just stressed and harassed.

Keter actually only lasted a couple years in our bldg...UPS got the "OK" to do the audits for Keter...And Keter was doing the audits in place of OSHA.

Yeah...UPS making sure UPS is being safe. What a joke!

 

[Integrity]

Deals are definitely made. Maybe not strictly cash but promises that they never keep

They do make settlements. I think this covert is reasonable. Providing both parties are settling in “good faith”.

I don’t know much about OSHA in regards to this but I do know UPS local management struggles with doing most things in “good faith”.

The 1994 CSA involved a $3,000,000 fine from UPS and a written “promise” to significantly change operating methods and work conditions.

 

[Thebrownblob]

They do make settlements. I think this covert is reasonable. Providing both parties are settling in “good faith”.

I don’t know much about OSHA in regards to this but I do know UPS local management struggles with doing most things in “good faith”.

The 1994 CSA involved a $3,000,000 fine from UPS and a written “promise” to significantly change operating methods and work conditions.

This is one area you and I will definitely agree, UPS does not operate in good faith when they make “deals”
They are constantly trying to find ways to skirt or get out of them completely

 

[Analbumcover]

If I was management in Integrity's hub I would be scared to death. He's like a walking talking OSHA violations handbook. I'd be darn sure to cross my Ts and dot my Is

 

[Integrity]

Should the company use discipline to correct the behavior?

Do you think when all else fails that local management has a right to initiate progressive discipline to correct an employee belligerently not follow a UPS Safe work method/training?

 

[Trucker Clock]

The 1994 CSA involved a $3,000,000 fine from UPS and a written “promise” to significantly change operating methods and work conditions.

Wrong again, as usual.

The 1992 CSA agreement only dealt with damaged hazmat packages. That’s it. No significant change of operating methods or working conditions.

Only hazmat responders and training on what to do if you come across a leaking hazmat package came out of the agreement.

Don’t touch, leave area, notify sup. That’s it.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Do you think when all else fails that local management has a right to initiate progressive discipline to correct an employee belligerently not follow a UPS Safe work method/training?

Define belligerent? Answering safety questions correctly? Not drinking 3 gallons of water? Perhaps a lunchbox check by management without the proper nutrition you get a warning letter? That’s a very arbitrary term and I do not wish to allow management to define it, your solutions would do just that. How do I know? I see it every day. With your statement it appears you desire a government agency or the company to force someone to do something you feel is important. But may or may not actually be anything more than busywork.

 

[Integrity]

Wrong again, as usual.

The 1992 CSA agreement only dealt with damaged hazmat packages. That’s it. No significant change of operating methods or working conditions.

Only hazmat responders and training on what to do if you come across a leaking hazmat package came out of the agreement.

Don’t touch, leave area, notify sup. That’s it.

Yes 1992, not 1994. You are correct.

United Parcel Service, Inc. - 04/01/1994 | Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Not significant?

 

[Lineandinitial]

If I was management in Integrity's hub I would be scared to death. He's like a walking talking OSHA violations handbook. I'd be darn sure to cross my Ts and dot my Is

They probably use an eye dropper to squirt some colored water on the floor to occupy him for the rest of the day.
Then there’s shiny objects, squeaky toys….doesn’t take much to entertain a lunkhead.

 

[Trucker Clock]

Yes 1992, not 1994. You are correct.

United Parcel Service, Inc. - 04/01/1994 | Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Not significant?

Significant that OSHA saw there was a problem with damaged hazmats. But not a significant change of operating methods or working conditions. To the average employee, the only change was to not touch the package and leave the area.

No other operating method or working condition was addressed except for leaking hazmat packages, and these were relatively few and far between.

 

[Integrity]

Wrong again, as usual.

The 1992 CSA agreement only dealt with damaged hazmat packages. That’s it. No significant change of operating methods or working conditions.

Only hazmat responders and training on what to do if you come across a leaking hazmat package came out of the agreement.

Don’t touch, leave area, notify sup. That’s it.

I disagree with you assessment of the impact of this OSHA/UPS Settlement agreement.

We’re you working for UPS at this time.

I was.

 

[Integrity]

Define belligerent? Answering safety questions correctly? Not drinking 3 gallons of water? Perhaps a lunchbox check by management without the proper nutrition you get a warning letter? That’s a very arbitrary term and I do not wish to allow management to define it, your solutions would do just that. How do I know? I see it every day. With your statement it appears you desire a government agency or the company to force someone to do something you feel is important. But may or may not actually be anything more than busywork.

I will rephrase my question:

Do you think when all else fails that local management has a right to initiate progressive discipline to correct an employee who refuses to follow a UPS Safe work method/training?

 

[Integrity]

They probably use an eye dropper to squirt some colored water on the floor to occupy him for the rest of the day.
Then there’s shiny objects, squeaky toys….doesn’t take much to entertain a lunkhead.

I definitely would report any liquid spilled on the floor as per “slips and falls” training.

Not sure what other point your are trying to make.

You appear to be sympathetic with the the company and not sympathetic to the needs of some employees.

Is this an accurate assessment of where your sympathies?

 

[Thebrownblob]

I will rephrase my question:

Do you think when all else fails that local management has a right to initiate progressive discipline to correct an employee who refuses to follow a UPS Safe work method/training?

My opinion is irrelevant what does the contract say?

 

[Integrity]

Significant that OSHA saw there was a problem with damaged hazmats. But not a significant change of operating methods or working conditions. To the average employee, the only change was to not touch the package and leave the area.

No other operating method or working condition was addressed except for leaking hazmat packages, and these were relatively few and far between.

Did you experience the change at UPS when this happened? or

Did you at least read the CSA completely?

 

[Trucker Clock]

I disagree with you assessment of the impact of this OSHA/UPS Settlement agreement.

We’re you working for UPS at this time.

I was.

Yes I was.

The settlement was to handle damaged hazmats properly. How can you disagree with what the settlement says or the impact of “handle damaged hazmats properly.”

The settlement only impacted damaged hazmat handling. That’s it.

Disagree all you want. You’re wrong again, as usual.

 

[Trucker Clock]

Did you experience the change at UPS when this happened? or

Did you at least read the CSA completely?

The only change I saw was that a trained hazmat responder would remove the damaged package, instead of a sup throwing it in a tote and removing it.

No change in operating methods or working conditions at all, except that someone trained took care of the damaged hazmat. Not really significant.