Welcome to Stupid Saturday

pkgdriver

Well-Known Member
235 stops, did 40ish, worked my limit of 6, went home. Would have been more productive but dispatching errors along with trailer pulling, sprinkle in a bulked out 800 is a recipe for fail.
200 stops in a p500...Plenty of bigger cars around. Two beds and one fireplace in the load. 100 of the 200 were paled in the 6000/6999 range. 10am start time. Called onroad and asked if the 2 S packages(Omaha/Best Buy) should take any priority since I may not be able to finish. No was the answer ...stay on trace. They then changed their mind four hours later after I asked again. Was about 4pm before I could move in the car and get any work done. Just finished the last Omaha Steak at 615 pm and got the message to head back to the center. Punch out 1900...98 stops done

Was the biggest cluster I've seen in 30 peaks. Hey got back safe and the weather was great. Nothing was delivered on my bid route Saturday either.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
You should go into management since you want to make decisions at the management level.
If you want to call the shots, either get into management or start your own business.
You are paid to execute the decisions by your management.
That's just plain common sense which you normally seem to have in abundance ... but not in this instance.
Article 37 of the Master Agreement specifically prohibits over-supervision, harassment and coercion.
Instructing drivers to falsify delivery records is a direct violation of this Article.
We had horrific snow and ice recently which created a large number of EC stops, especially in my area. We were told to simply pull the PAL labels off of EC packages without even scanning them; the stops were recorded EC en masse, which was entirely legitimate given the circumstances. It was also transparent and aboveboard, as opposed to telling drivers to dishonestly record EC stops simply to prop up a failed dispatch.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
Article 37 of the Master Agreement specifically prohibits over-supervision, harassment and coercion.
Instructing drivers to falsify delivery records is a direct violation of this Article.
It is your premise that it is which of these?
 
Last edited:

BrownTexas

Well-Known Member
I always sheeted EC when packages were missed due to weather and missed for everything else, never heard a word and felt good about myself on my ride home.
You've sheeted packages as EC even though they weren't just to hide missed? If this is true, I feel bad for the other union members you represent.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
I get a chuckle when self-righteous truck drivers think they can do it better than a company that's been in business for 109 years.
And it bugs me these same truck drivers would grieve a management person doing our work, but it's OK for them to make management decisions.
Really?
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
It is you're premise that it is which of these?
All three, but in particular coercion.

We have also taken DIAD training that gives specific instructions on what EC means and the manner in which we are allowed to use it.

Being given conflicting instructions under threat of discipline is also an Art 37 violation.
 

Big Arrow Down...D

Leave the gun,take the cannoli
I get a chuckle when self-righteous truck drivers think they can do it better than a company that's been in business for 109 years.
And it bugs me these same truck drivers would grieve a management person doing our work, but it's OK for them to make management decisions.
Really?
IMG_0694.JPG

Took the family to the City for a play...went here for lunch.
 

clean hairy

Well-Known Member
I'm curious... is there anyone that has been disciplined for not showing on a Saturday?
I was!
Warning Letter for refusing to report to work as instructed (A Saturday which was optional 6th punch)
Got home slapped together the Protest of Warning Letter Grievance.
Turned it in the next day for the local to deal with.
 

clean hairy

Well-Known Member
This can still get you fired. At panel when they ask you "did you know what you were doing was dishonest?" That yes answer you give them will keep you terminated.
Seems to be a double edge sword there.
Refusing to work as directed, or, perform a dishonest act by working as directed.
Unless you could be safe by refusing to perform a dishonest act which a higher up was instructing you to perform.
 

Steward773

Well-Known Member
You've sheeted packages as EC even though they weren't just to hide missed? If this is true, I feel bad for the other union members you represent.

Wrong, if packages were missed due to weather... I sheeted EC, if they were missed due to other reasons (missloads) I sheeted missed.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
All three, but in particular coercion.

We have also taken DIAD training that gives specific instructions on what EC means and the manner in which we are allowed to use it.

Being given conflicting instructions under threat of discipline is also an Art 37 violation.
Honestly, that is silly.
Standard procedures can be superseded by local management.
Again, people should use common sense.
They really should teach common life needs in high school like Chain of Command used by 99% of US Corporations and companies.
They should also teach household finances and parenting but that's another discussion.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
It's laughable that drivers would follow instructions from management instructing them to be dishonest (a dischargable offense).
Your analysis seems to me to be dishonest (according to me). :glare:
If you read through the entire thread, the current discussion is about whether a driver should work as directed when given written (on DIAD, for instance) instructions that are different than standard procedures.
The premise is drivers should work as directed if it is not unsafe or illegal. There is some who conjecture that dishonest equals illegal but the two are different sets.
So with this summary of the thread to this point, please give your opinion on this scenario:

A driver is instructed to sheet packages up as EC and come on in.
The driver asks for verification on the DIAD and receives written verification that he/she is being instructed to do something that that the driver perceives as being dishonest (or a snow cone or a piece of pizza, really doesn't matter what the driver calls it).
Should the driver work as directed or refuse and sheet per standard procedure.
 

BrownTexas

Well-Known Member
Seems to be a double edge sword there.
Refusing to work as directed, or, perform a dishonest act by working as directed.
Unless you could be safe by refusing to perform a dishonest act which a higher up was instructing you to perform.
There is no double edge sword. They can't make you be dishonest. Plain and simple.
 

BrownTexas

Well-Known Member
Honestly, that is silly.
Standard procedures can be superseded by local management.
Again, people should use common sense.
They really should teach common life needs in high school like Chain of Command used by 99% of US Corporations and companies.
They should also teach household finances and parenting but that's another discussion.
Corporate Training supersedes local instruction. Diad training is proof. Local management can lie and deceive. Diad training is always law.
 
Top