lystn

Nasir and Matt discuss UPS laying off 250 employees over the decision by one worker. They also answer a question on the best techniques to keeping employees long-term. Update: Those 250 employees have been rehired. Full Podcast Transcript NASIR: Welcome to Legally Sound Smart Business. This is Nasir Pasha. MATT: This is Matt Staub. NASIR: And we’re ready to go on Episode 30. Talking about UPS. MATT: Yeah, we have a good UPS story here that happened and this was in New York. Basically, because of the actions of one of the employees – and, for some reason, I thought that UPS drivers weren’t necessarily all employees but some of them were independent contractors, but I know you’re not going to get into that because I know you hate the distinction between the two. NASIR: Please, no. MATT: There was a 90-minute protest by one of the UPS drivers and it happened and people kind of went along with it. As a result, they have already dismissed 20 of the workers and they’re planning on terminating another 230. So, 250 potential employees are going to be let go because of one person’s 90-minute protest. I think he was a union activist. Of course, it was over an hour’s dispute, too. I’m sure it’s something that’s probably legitimate. I don’t know if you heard about this story at all but it seems like UPS might not be making the best call in this situation. NASIR: Well, it’s not easy. I think it’s tough. Basically, I think these drivers are in a union and, for whatever reason, when you have employees in a union, all the rules tend to change when it comes to employment law issues. There’s a lot of provisions in there but, basically, what UPS is saying is that, yeah, you have a right to do certain things and a lot of unions have a right to strike and so forth, but this particular action of this particular protest is against the labor contract that we have. Therefore, it’s blatant in subordination and it’s an illegal conduct. Therefore, we have every right to terminate the employee for this. I don’t know if it’s the case that the employee was doing the 90-minute protest and the other employees joined him but I thought that the protest was because that one particular employee was terminated for misconduct and then these other 250 employees did a 90-minute protest. Either way, the point is still the same. MATT: Yeah, it was kind of unclear. It makes a lot more sense than how I described it previously. Here we are. A group of 250 employees walked out for 90 minutes. That’s what it was. NASIR: We have a long history in our country of striking and protesting. Without getting into the details and politics of unions in itself, I think the most important thing to get from this is that (1) UPS is not going to terminate and also hold to that termination – they haven’t backed up on this – without a pretty solid standing ground in doing this. Keep in mind, too, I also read that some of these cities – including New York – are not necessarily too happy about UPS’s actions and are threatening to terminate the contracts that they may have with UPS as well. MATT: UPS took a pretty no-nonsense approach to this. I kind of respect it, assuming they did it in the most legally appropriate way possible of just saying, “Hey, we have people that are walking out or protesting. We’re not going to put up with that. If that’s what you’re going to do, we’re just going to get rid of you.” 250 is a lot of people, don’t get me wrong, but the distribution center has 1,400 workers. I guess they can find people to replace them. NASIR: For an hour and a half, I mean, they claim that, because of that hour and a half, things get delayed and, if things get delayed, then they incur penalties from it. That’s probably true and so forth and there’s no doubt that they probably incurred some expense from this, but I think the point is they wanted to make a point so this wouldn’t happen again or they won’t be manipulated through these protests.