Discussion in 'Fedex Freight' started by SwampRatt, Jan 8, 2016.
No letter here at my house yet. Perhaps the November time frame also is the end of Q2.
Absolute hypocrisy, on the part of some. Expecting professionalism, on one hand, while denying it on the other.
Since I said to stay tuned, I should probably offer an update.
Little has changed. I did not have to revisit the issue until last week. Upon arrival and check-in, I asked to speak to the manager responsible for the restroom policy. That request was denied by the acting supervisor. I did ask what would happen if, after the unit was locked in for loading, there was an urgent need to use the restroom. “Would you physically prevent my access to the facilities?” Rather than answer directly, he said when notified of that situation, he would inform the loader to stop loading, then have someone unsecure the unit to allow me to leave, in order to find a facility. Stressing to him to not take this personally, I noted that this puts me in a potentially uncomfortable, embarrassing, and unacceptable position. Unacceptable, due to the time involved, just to be able to depart, and still face a 10 min ride in search for a suitable location. I apologized and left without the shipment.
Not wanting to get too deeply into the details, I must point out that locally, leadership has been supportive. I have zero complaints thus far, so there has been no need to pursue resolve via higher authority.
My research has so far been unable to find a clear requirement that such a business must provide facilities. Not saying that a requirement doesn't exist, just that I've not (yet) been able to find it. Sadly, the regulations put this burden and it's requirements on our own employer. Unfortunate, since they/we are not the villain here.
“...Thus employees who are members of mobile crews, or who work at normally unattended locations must be able to leave their work location "immediately" for a "nearby" toilet facility. This provision was obviously intended to provide these employees with protection equivalent to that the general provision provides to to employees at fixed worksites.”
Again, I stress that the company has been reasonable thus far. I don't know how far it will go, but at some point our actual customer (Name available upon private request) needs to know that their 3rd party logistics/warehouse is putting an unreasonable burden on drivers, and by extension, the freight companies.A burden with both moral as well as legal compliance implications.
There seems to be a lack of professionalism, respect, and basic decency on the part of this warehouse location (Manager). Certainly not a case of “public” access. We are invited in as a partner/service provider to their customer. Does anyone think for one minute that this policy applies to visitors who come in through the front door, rather than the back?
I don't expect any updates soon, and I hope none are necessary. I don't really want this to become a top priority, or a big deal. Probably unwise to share much more on the topic (in a public forum), unless there is some noteworthy development. Also don't want to be unreasonable, but rest assured, the case will be made through the proper channels if need be.
When Ducker visited our Center he told us Freight would soon be paperless. They in the process of testing several systems
Yeah its only been 15 years or more. What was their rush.
I will offer my update as well. 1 week later and still no letter. Never had an issue with FedEx propaganda before.
A new "City Pete" arrives. Certainly beefier than the baby KWs. Said to be very nice, by the 1st day driver...
Stick with the old girl next to it lol
We got 4 more in for a total of 5.The latest ones have a much needed improvement to the mirrors.Looks like this one has the improved mirror's
Improved mirrors? What's the matter. Don't you guys love those box car Volvo ones with their great blind spots????
We are getting our 52 week average starting on Jan 1, 2017. This wasa announced back in October
That's the 348, I'm surprised they bought those. I thought instead of those T300's they were buying the should have bought the 440 Kenworth (or the T450 before it) and this little Pete is the Pete version of that. The biggest reason is you can get a bigger motor and a little higher vantage point but still real maneuverable.
Yeah, I'm told by reliable sources that it has the same motor and low weight rating (suitable for a pup) as the T300. I've not yet checked it, but have no reason to doubt it. I do question the wisdom of that, and wonder the cost benefit metric that drives the decision.
The probably do which would be stupid but not surprising. I love my little L unit but it was a dog.
The newest 4 appear to have more length in the mirrors than the first.
The first one only has power that is adjusted in and out,not up and down.
The new ones have both.
I'm pretty sure Big Dave's hat can cover the entire mirror.
This is true,which is probably why a longer mirror is needed or the ability to adjust them up and down when backing down into a pit.
Either that or I need to grow a little taller......past that point though.
I think his hat will cover the whole cab.... I know it will cover Wong's car....
I'll give ya one of my hats to sit on......
The latest/greatest vans have improved securement points in the nose... I would guess the newest pups have this as well... Very nice.
Great! More slots for the dock workers to put the bent and twisted strap hooks into instead of the latches that are right next to them.
Separate names with a comma.