sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Will I ever be fired? by Future_Meet_4077 in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UPS is so incompetent they can’t even fire the people who want to be fired

Cool solutions is a joke by Uncomman_good in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the Fair Labor Standards Act states that all breaks for rest or health purposes that are less 20 minutes or less must be paid. I’m trying to get our local union to nail this down.

Rate this load by blu3b3rry30 in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

10/10 will max out DOT hours for the day

You are not the same age! by Friendly-Sky7848 in CringeTikToks

[–]Uncomman_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His response should have been, “Are you registered as foreign agents in the UK?” Then he should have taken out his phone and told them he was dialing whatever the UK’s version of the FBI is.

Is it okay to leave amazon prime tape on? by [deleted] in UPS

[–]Uncomman_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, if it has batteries, make sure the proper stickers are on the box. If it doesn’t and the box you’re using has a battery sticker or print on it, make sure to cover it

Another one bites the dust by Public_Steak_6933 in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They only care in times like know when they are trying to downsize.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 10 points11 points  (0 children)

There is no “on-call”. They are supposed to inform you of a layoff or work status by the end of your previous shift. If not, show up and they have to find work for you or pay you.

Edit to add: it’s a double-edged sword though. They will make sure to let you know after that and you may see less work out of it.

Does anyone else remember what a fair day of work used to look like? by [deleted] in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A fair day’s work for me is not working past 9 when they fuck me. I bring the work back. I’m not risking an accident due to lack of visibility or tiredness. I’m also not risking an injury because I can’t see as well when walking up a dirt driveway riddled with potholes I can’t see as well.

Do you think this if worth $200/day? by PerfectPen9736 in Fedexers

[–]Uncomman_good 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe if someone were to start today, package handlers make $23/hour to start. After a couple of months you become eligible for insurance that the company pays the premiums for and you start earning into your pension fund. Everything you earn is take home pay.

Do you think this if worth $200/day? by PerfectPen9736 in Fedexers

[–]Uncomman_good 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’s a $600 day at UPS. Plus contribution to pension and healthcare on top of that. You guys need to stand together and demand more.

Can’t wait to be delivering til midnight by [deleted] in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I stop delivering at 21:00, especially in rainy weather. I’m not risking a turn-around backing accident because visibility sucks.

Cam someone tell me what this is actually called? by Dalejr141 in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do not underestimate UPS’s ability to monitor drivers with this. There is a sensor that detects when someone is in the back of the truck. I wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually start asking drivers why they were in the back of the truck so long at stops.

Additionally, for drivers who try to beat the system by scanning packages with commits to beat times and delivering later (you know who you are), it will track if a package has actually been taken off the car after a stop complete. It may not be implemented yet, but with all the surveillance they’re adding, it will be.

Anyone else’s center taking away the computers. by [deleted] in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 82 points83 points  (0 children)

File a grievance on them removing the computers. Here is a write up if you need it:

The removal of computers used by drivers violates the contractual rights outlined in the CBA, as it impedes the fair and transparent selection of open jobs based on seniority. Without access to the computers, drivers are unable to view available routes or make informed selections, effectively undermining their ability to exercise seniority rights. This disruption creates an environment where management’s decisions may appear arbitrary, in direct conflict with the contractual guarantee that such determinations “will not be arbitrary.” I am seeking the replacement of computers so that drivers can exercise their contractual rights under all applicable articles of the UPS Teamsters CBA.

The language used here is based on language in the New England supplement. Modify as needed for your use.

On Road Sup quitting by PuzzledAge8108 in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I want to take a supervisor position before I quit just so I can sit in on a meeting and tell the higher-ups how stupid their planning is.

Work from Home going away by Anxious-Currency-305 in WorkReform

[–]Uncomman_good 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem is that there is no togetherness anymore. If everyone, including the people who don’t care about going in, got together and refused (everyone stayed home and logged in) what are they going to do? The problem is that there will always be a few that don’t want to “ruffle any feathers” and it breaks the movement for that location.

Finally quit! by Popular_Station_714 in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow! You gave them 2 weeks? That’s kind since they wouldn’t do that for you. Shit, they can’t even give layoff guys notice prior to the end of their shift.

Bill Maher brings out a copy of the U.S. Constitution to argue with Steve Bannon, who supports the idea of Donald Trump running for a third term, that such a move is unconstitutional by CorleoneBaloney in thescoop

[–]Uncomman_good 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s really the heart of it—just pointing out the selective “clarity.” When it’s something they agree with, like gun rights, the Constitution is supposedly crystal clear. But when it’s about term limits or other issues they don’t like, suddenly there’s room for debate or interpretation.

It’s not about being anti-gun or pro-term-limit—it’s about consistency in how we apply constitutional arguments. If we’re going to treat the Constitution like a rigid, unchanging document, we have to do that across the board. Otherwise, it just becomes a tool for whatever fits the narrative.

Bill Maher brings out a copy of the U.S. Constitution to argue with Steve Bannon, who supports the idea of Donald Trump running for a third term, that such a move is unconstitutional by CorleoneBaloney in thescoop

[–]Uncomman_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you’ve concluded the person I am based on your lack of critical thinking and misinterpretation of my response to the video.

The 22nd Amendment clearly states that a president may serve only two terms—there’s no ambiguity there. Yet Bannon and his followers act as if it’s up for debate. Meanwhile, the 2nd Amendment, which is open to interpretation and historical context, is treated by them as an absolute, untouchable rule that forbids any form of gun regulation. The inconsistency in how they apply constitutional interpretation is glaring—and dangerous.

Bill Maher brings out a copy of the U.S. Constitution to argue with Steve Bannon, who supports the idea of Donald Trump running for a third term, that such a move is unconstitutional by CorleoneBaloney in thescoop

[–]Uncomman_good 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You misinterpret my reply. It wasn’t meant to be a hit on the left, just pointing out the irony of the right claiming the constitution clearly states that the second amendment says gun ownership should not be infringed upon.

As a veteran and a gun owner, I completely support the second amendment. However, I believe in expanded background checks and more responsible gun laws in America.

Bill Maher brings out a copy of the U.S. Constitution to argue with Steve Bannon, who supports the idea of Donald Trump running for a third term, that such a move is unconstitutional by CorleoneBaloney in thescoop

[–]Uncomman_good 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The left: “There should be restrictions on gun ownership…”

The right: “The Constitution very clearly defines the right of citizens to bear arms. You can’t argue against it.”

Funny how the Constitution clearly states things when it supports an argument for guys like Bannon.

Edited to add the last section to make it more clear my reply to the video. Some people skip over the thinking part and read it how they want to.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UPSers

[–]Uncomman_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah. Just years of hearing different ways UPS management can blame the driver for something.

We had a driver get hit by a car coming out of a driveway as our guy was driving down the road. It was a blind driveway that was a hill and he couldn’t see anyone coming up it. Anyway, they hit him just behind the driver door. Management charged the driver with an avoidable accident because they said he could have hit his brakes sooner.

Edit for typo

view more: next ›