During the past few years, many companies have found it necessary to installed surveillance cameras in their service vehicles as a mean to help understand the nature of an automobile accident. Not only has the surveillance cameras help those companies recognized the cause of the accident; it has also helped them figured out if the employee negligently provoke the accident.

As a consequence of this effect, employees who have in their service vehicles, the surveillance cameras, have not only improved the way in which they drive, but have also used an ear piece to speak on the cell or have completely stopped communicating on the cell while driving. Therefore, we cannot say that this system of surveillance has not help reduced the accident potential, nor can we say that it has not help employers reduced their liability risk.

So, from that stand point - Union leaders agreed that the system have some benefit. After all, it also help keeps the employee safe from preventable accidents. However, we cannot say the same for all accidents. Some accidents are not avoidable; to say all accidents are avoidable is the same as saying that everyone who holds a driver's license is a defensive driver. An accident occurred because the parties involved are not always aware of the potential danger. This is the reason why it’s referred to as an accident, more often than that it’s unpreventable. Employees will occasionally gets  into accidents, but not all accidents merits a disciplinary action.

How can Union leaders and managements come to an understanding to figure out when a disciplinary action is necessary? Well, for now we know that the incentive for employers to initiate disciplinary actions every time employees disobeyed their rules can help decrease the accident rate. But can we honestly say that all disciplinary actions will result in a decrease on accident rate. Employees have found the later inquiry to be problematic.

The question should be which disciplinary actions if any at all should count against workers termination, because as it is right now, some disciplinary actions are too extreme and they do not take in consideration the employees driving history. Take for example a worker who has been discipline for taking a stop sign. Should this employee be discipline on first count or should he received three warning notification before he is suspended.

The problem is not with the worker with the good driving record, the problem is with the repeated offender, the employee who is consistently violating the traffic laws even after receiving three warning notifications. A driver with good driving record might occasionally break the law, but his punishment should reflect his driving record. He should not receive a worst penalty than his coworker whose driving record is close to suspension. The reason why, is because the worker with the best driving record is more of an asset to the company than the one whose driving privilege is close to termination.

In which district or departments those surveillance cameras are used depends on the company’s statistic and preferences. Most companies will not use cameras in their service vehicles in all district or departments. They may choose to apply this system in places where vehicle accident cases are on the rise. This way there’re able to reduce on cost while decreasing on accident rate.

However, a better way for employers to reduce cost while investing in a system that helps them reduce automobile accidents is to offer the service vehicles with the surveillance cameras to those employees who possesses a bad driving record. By implementing this proposition, fewer cameras will be needed; the focus will then be placed where the risk lies.

Realistically speaking, this system works because not all employees are defensive drivers, because if that was the case, they would not have been any need for surveillance cameras. The accident rate would not have risen to a level that requires surveillance cameras – unless it’s being used for other means. Therefore, why not assign those vehicles to drivers with a bad driving record? This may lead to less video cameras being installed which could result with less money being spent on the company’s part.