| Just to show the history of UPS's infringements, and the length of time VOSA have been ignoring not just complaints from Dave & I, but from other employees as well. More from http://www.trucker-net.com/index3.asp 28th July 2010 As you can all see this site is still up and running? It must be clear to you all by now that UPS through their disreputable Managers do not care about their Employees past or present, Employees are only numbers and a means to an end As all Employees at UPS can see UPS has a total disregard for the Laws of the Land their only consideration when they are in conflict with the Law is how much will it cost. UPS has a large Human Resources Department, which would appear to be a complete waste of time because UPS appears to treat their Employees (Human Resources) as a disposable asset. UPS Help Line numbers are also a complete waste of time because when you use them to make a complaint, the problem you complained about is handed back to the problem causer and the so called open door system turns out to be a brick wall system where everything is covered up and swept under the carpet. UPS also has the Unions twisted around their little finger so much that at some depots they operate an illegal pay system (Bonus based on Mileage and Loading) contrary to article 10 in the new Drivers Hours Regulations supported by the URTU against Drivers best interest. UPS also has a total disregard for the 48 Hour Working Time Directive also supported by the URTU and I have a letter from Graham Bird (URTU) stating his support for both the above As You all now know when you tried to change to the largest Union in Great Britain “UNITE” they did not want to know you one wonders why? VOSA is well aware of the legal problems at UPS Just wait until one of you is involved in a fatal accident and it can be proved one or more of the above was a contributing factor in the accident, VOSA and the Police will no longer turn a blind eye to the situation at UPS regarding Illegal working practices, then you will see UPS use large amounts of Money and legal services to defend themselves but your Unions will not want to know you, therefore please bury your heads in the sand and keep on thinking it will not happen to you as sure as an egg is an egg it will !!! 20th December 2009 Many thanks to you all, for all your support, emails and comments, but most of your comments if published would identify either you your depot or both and at this moment in time many of you have been castigated for even talking to me Thanks once again and a Very Merry Christmas to you all. Please keep the comments coming!!! |
| UPS has no scruples, the company regularly insists on drivers working time in excess of the 48 hour working time directive, and its drivers commit many Tachograph infringements. UPS also insists that drivers record other work on their Tachograph cards as Periods of Availability. UPS drivers regularly work in excess of 13 hours every day. UPS managers loose many Tachograph cards, one wonders why? UPS pays its drivers on a bonus system based on mileage covered and loading or unloading, UPS also pays an extra bonus for excess mileage;;;;; all of which is contrary to article 10 in the new driver’s hour’s regulations. They say that encouraging drivers to complete excessive mileage by offering a financial incentive does not affect road safety!!! We all know different!!! With the exception of UPS managers and VOSA. All the above have been brought to the notice of VOSA by several drivers at the company, but VOSA chooses to turn a blind eye to the situation. UPS therefore keeps on breaking and bending the rules for their own financial gain. WILL SOMEONE HAVE TO BE KILLED BEFORE WE ARE LISTENED TO???? |
From UPS's own National Transport Compliance Manual
Background
London :
At the beginning of 2003, an inspector from VOSA (Vehicle
Operator Services Agency) visited one of UPS’ London facilities. The inspection had been prompted by comments
made by a former employee.
The Inspector found that the controls for managing
tachograph charts and driver compliance were virtually non existent. Whilst a
loose procedure existed, it was not being followed and in any case did not adequately
cover all aspects of the legislation.
On this first occasion, the inspector focused his
attention on the control and completion of tachograph charts. His findings can
be summarily categorized as follows:
Centre Field completion of the charts was
incomplete and/or incorrect
Odometer readings between the last found closing
reading and the next found starting reading were not continuous
No proper control procedures were being followed
No audit or follow up analysis was carried out
The inspector also made observations that “driver’s did not appear to take any
ownership of the charts”, and that they [the driver’s] “appeared to believe that it was solely the
Company’s responsibility”.
The result of this inspection was that UPS Ltd, along with
an individual driver, were charged and taken to court to answer for the
identified failings.
UPS Ltd
UPS Ltd was charged on October 20th 2003 with ten counts of
‘Permitting a driver to improperly complete tachograph charts’ and a further
six counts of ‘failing to produce tachograph charts on demand’. The company was found guilty on all counts
and fined a total of £23,200 – including £500 costs. The cost of UPS’ legal representation was undoubtedly
considerably higher, and the cost to our reputation is impossible to quantify.
Driver (UPS
Employee)
An individual driver was also charged on ten counts of ‘failing
to properly complete tachograph charts’.
He was personally fined a total of £500
It is most important to note that the charges were samples
only and had the inspector so wished, he could have stated many more instances
from the investigation.
It is also very noteworthy that the potential fine to both
UPS and the driver for each occurrence was the same. In other words, the court
could have applied a fine of £5,000 for each occurrence. In the event, the
court took the view that UPS has a greater responsibility than the employee and
therefore applied the fines accordingly:
£50 per occurrence for the employee (1% of the potential) and £2,000 per
occurrence for UPS (40% of the potential).
Bury St. Edmunds:
Later in 2003, a different inspector, from a different
Traffic Area, visited the Bury St. Edmunds centre in Suffolk .
This visit was reportedly prompted by one of the Bury St. Edmunds
drivers overtaking the Traffic Commissioner on the A14 dual carriageway in Suffolk . On the basis that the Commissioner therefore
knew the driver to be breaking the speed limit, the inspector visited Bury St.
Edmunds with the specific objective of investigating the Company’s controls on
Speeding.
His investigation revealed numerous occasions where he was
able to prove that the vehicle had exceeded the speed limit for the category of
road on which it was traveling. The investigation also found significant
quantities of odometer discrepancies – missing mileage – for which the company
was unable to produce tachograph charts. Thirdly, his investigation revealed a
further significant quantity of break infringements.
In similarity to London ,
he found that whilst a procedure did exist, it was not being adequately
followed, and as previously stated, it did not adequately cover all aspects of
the legislation. Again in similarity to London , the inspector
found that – for the period investigated – no follow up and/or corrective
actions were taking place.
In the case of the inspection at Bury St. Edmunds, VOSA
did not take any action against UPS through the courts which was a matter of
some surprise in view of the quantity of seriousness of the investigation
findings. They did however recommend to the Traffic Commissioner that the
Company be called to a Public Enquiry to account for its failings.
The Public Enquiry was called because the Commissioner
felt that the quantity of speed and break infringements – both directly related
to public safety – was sufficient to cause concern over safety to the public.
The Inquiry was held in July 2004. The Centre manager,
Division Manager and District Manager were called to give evidence and were
supported by a team of lawyers. At the time of writing, the verdict is unknown.
The big question?
Why do VOSA continue to accept this level of infringements and for so long
Seems like a lot of backhanders
No comments:
Post a Comment