Buyout in 2013

[COH_IE]

As you probably have heard, more change in this regard is coming.

do tell...

 

[beentheredonethat]

I do have issues with management that complains (rightfully so) about the lack of stock growth, but then are not willing to support things the management committee does to try and spur it (at least keep it from getting worse).

There is a policy about management's responsibility in this area.

We all have plenty to be unhappy about, but Casey spoke of constructive dissatisfaction. Not just dissatisfaction.

I agree, Casey spoke of constructive dissatisfaction. However, he also spoke of partnership. Casey spoke of using 10% of profits to be rewarded to managers as MIP and later amended to 15% of profits and include supervisors as well. I'm thru with 100% following UPS dogma from the top, when they pick and choose what they want to do. When they want something from us, they bring up partnership and Jim Casey. Although Jim Casey is brought up less and less also the term "partnership" is brought up less and less. Now they talk about market pay.

As far as what the mgmt committee does or doesn't do. They have set up mgmt to compete against each other instead of a mgmt team to work with each other. We have procedures on how to handle problems instead of working to solve problems. They have set up multiple contracts with the teamsters yet as a corporation don't realize that there are different provisions in the contracts so what makes sense in one area, doesn't make sense in another. Case in point. In NY city area HW was based on employees on payroll, if they qualified in the time period they were paid 100% for HW contributions. In New England employees were paid for hours paid. Yet they treated everyone like NY and had bare bones employees to reduce HW costs. There are a ton of others where we make stupid decisions and we are told to follow them. THen we get yelled at when we do what we are told to do since it didn't produce the desired results. Yet if we did the right thing and got the results, we get yelled at for not following the plan. You can't have it both ways. Yet that is what corporate is trying to do. Also, many who are grade 20 and above don't quite realize anymore.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

The real answer to why our supervisors & managers were paid above the market hasn't been discussed yet. The real reason was that (once upon a time) we hired all our front line supervisors from the drivers ranks. Since our drivers were the highest paid in the industry, you had to pay a higher supervisor wage rate if you were going to attract good candidates.
This was true for decades. Drivers and management worked very hard and were paid very well.

Then in the last ten years, we started to lose market share. We looked at our cost per delivered/picked up package vs. the competition and realized that although our drivers were the hardest working people in the delivery business, we couldn't give them enough work in a day to make up for our competitor's lower wage scale. Since the drivers wages are based a negotiated contract, there was going to be no relief in hourly compensation. The only bucket of compensation that was available for cost control, was management. IMO, that's one reason we've moved to a more "market based" management compensation structure.
I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but let's face facts. If the board of directors thought we could run the company with 1/2 the current management workforce, they would do it in a second. Management is a control and planning cost. In a perfect world, you'd have as little management as possible.

The sad part of this discussion is that I'm not sure that a young supervisor today will have the same chance that I had for financial success. The change in the calculation for M.I.P. was huge. Our management team is outstanding, and I wish I could "turn the clock back" to give everyone an equal chance to have their hard work rewarded.

You know far more than I on the subject, but aren't you forgetting the 97 strike and also the IPO? I guess my point is that the bottom line of cost per pc. is sometimes lost as more important, than the myriad the background noise which contributes to that cost per pc.

You mention the obviously above avg. wages and salaries UPS has offered, but then again UPS's success was and is, because it attracts some of the best people. Not a chicken or egg thing, but it makes me wonder that those days are over.

Job markets are ridiculously heavy handed towards employers, but that's going off topic. Over time, that will in part create larger divides in mgmt compensation?

I agree that days of a UPS a "middle class" management compensation should dwindle. And I expect rank-and-file hourlies to take a hit, too (but not the union bosses!)

 

[pretzel_man]

Pretzel here's my question to you on what you just stated. In the past I was always told, and I had believed it to be true, that yes UPS did pay more then others (for front line mgmt). We expected more from our people and our people worked longer hours to get the job done.

1st question.. Was this statement above basically true?

If yes, 2nd question. How does our front line (supvs\mgrs) being paid above the market compare to them working harder and longer then what others work at other companies?

I personally believe the answer was Yes to question 1, and for question 2, UPS decided to ignore that when they saw other Supervisors and mgrs were paid less at other companies.

However, I am now of the opinion, if UPS wants to pay me market pay, I will give them market effort. (maybe even slightly above market effort).

BeenThere:

1st answer: I heard the same as you, although never from an official source. It was either work of mouth or from informal discussions.

2nd answer: When the market study was done a few years ago, a good friend in corporate told me about it. He told me that after the changes, supervisors and managers were still above market pay for similar jobs. He said that Division managers were about equal and that above that level they were still somewhat behind. I did not see the study personally, but have no reason to not believe him.

So, here is opinion and what I've seen. I work a lot with people at high levels in other companies. I'm often asked my advice because of my background at UPS. Based on what I've seen, I think the study is right, but I also see some discrepancies.

In other companies, often similar jobs to our supervisors are not management positions. They therefore get lower pay.

Will this change to "market pay" result in market effort? Time will tell.

There is no doubt that we have lost a lot over the years. I could go on for an hour about that. However, I put the cause of that in a different place than others.

I just completed my 37th peak season. Even though I don't work in operations today, more than half of my time was in operations; Hub, Feeder, Package, Int'l. I do regularly get into centers, a few times a month.

When I do, I still see great people in both management and hourly ranks. That part is unchanged at least. I have not given up faith yet.

 

[Dragon]

I agree, Casey spoke of constructive dissatisfaction. However, he also spoke of partnership. Casey spoke of using 10% of profits to be rewarded to managers as MIP and later amended to 15% of profits and include supervisors as well. I'm thru with 100% following UPS dogma from the top, when they pick and choose what they want to do. When they want something from us, they bring up partnership and Jim Casey. Although Jim Casey is brought up less and less also the term "partnership" is brought up less and less. Now they talk about market pay.

As far as what the mgmt committee does or doesn't do. They have set up mgmt to compete against each other instead of a mgmt team to work with each other. We have procedures on how to handle problems instead of working to solve problems. They have set up multiple contracts with the teamsters yet as a corporation don't realize that there are different provisions in the contracts so what makes sense in one area, doesn't make sense in another. Case in point. In NY city area HW was based on employees on payroll, if they qualified in the time period they were paid 100% for HW contributions. In New England employees were paid for hours paid. Yet they treated everyone like NY and had bare bones employees to reduce HW costs. There are a ton of others where we make stupid decisions and we are told to follow them. THen we get yelled at when we do what we are told to do since it didn't produce the desired results. Yet if we did the right thing and got the results, we get yelled at for not following the plan. You can't have it both ways. Yet that is what corporate is trying to do. Also, many who are grade 20 and above don't quite realize anymore.[/QUOTE]

Exactly

I just ask that I am allowed to run my center. I don't need constant missiles in the air from the DRONE flying at 25,000ft above my center.....I don't need a data miner to send me an email demanding an answer on every little internal measurement thats not on plan. Promote the data miner if he/she thinks they can do better.

Give me a cost plan that I can actually make. You would be amazed how much better things run with the right staffing.

Did we forget its people that actually move packages and not spreadsheets?

Constructively disatisfied does not mean (stupid decisions).

I can go on but I think I have made my point.

 

[tourists24]

I agree, Casey spoke of constructive dissatisfaction. However, he also spoke of partnership. Casey spoke of using 10% of profits to be rewarded to managers as MIP and later amended to 15% of profits and include supervisors as well. I'm thru with 100% following UPS dogma from the top, when they pick and choose what they want to do. When they want something from us, they bring up partnership and Jim Casey. Although Jim Casey is brought up less and less also the term "partnership" is brought up less and less. Now they talk about market pay.

As far as what the mgmt committee does or doesn't do. They have set up mgmt to compete against each other instead of a mgmt team to work with each other. We have procedures on how to handle problems instead of working to solve problems. They have set up multiple contracts with the teamsters yet as a corporation don't realize that there are different provisions in the contracts so what makes sense in one area, doesn't make sense in another. Case in point. In NY city area HW was based on employees on payroll, if they qualified in the time period they were paid 100% for HW contributions. In New England employees were paid for hours paid. Yet they treated everyone like NY and had bare bones employees to reduce HW costs. There are a ton of others where we make stupid decisions and we are told to follow them. THen we get yelled at when we do what we are told to do since it didn't produce the desired results. Yet if we did the right thing and got the results, we get yelled at for not following the plan. You can't have it both ways. Yet that is what corporate is trying to do. Also, many who are grade 20 and above don't quite realize anymore.[/QUOTE]

Exactly

I just ask that I am allowed to run my center. I don't need constant missiles in the air from the DRONE flying at 25,000ft above my center.....I don't need a data miner to send me an email demanding an answer on every little internal measurement thats not on plan. Promote the data miner if he/she thinks they can do better.

Give me a cost plan that I can actually make. You would be amazed how much better things run with the right staffing.

Did we forget its people that actually move packages and not spreadsheets?

Constructively disatisfied does not mean (stupid decisions).

I can go on but I think I have made my point.

Dragon,,,, I have disagreed many times on BC with you, but I am impressed with your post on this one..... I wish you could run your own center also...

 

[beentheredonethat]

BeenThere:

2nd answer: When the market study was done a few years ago, a good friend in corporate told me about it. He told me that after the changes, supervisors and managers were still above market pay for similar jobs.......Based on what I've seen, I think the study is right, but I also see some discrepancies.

In other companies, often similar jobs to our supervisors are not management positions. They therefore get lower pay.

.

Pretzel, thanks for your perspective. I have a followup question of your opinion.

The first paragraph said that after the changes supervisors and managers are still above market pay for similar jobs, yet the next paragraph indicates that at other companies the similar jobs are done by non management people, hence those similar jobs are paid lower then UPS pays.

So are they comparing admins\specialists at one company and comparing to supervisors at UPS?

I will agree that many years ago esp in staff jobs there were tons of "supv" jobs that didn't need to be and we have gotten better at moving a lot of those jobs to "technicians" or "specialists" levels.

My other concern as I mentioned before is looking at the district IE dept (which I used to be in, but not anymore) All the IE supvs are in the same exact job grade\band. Anyone who has done IE, knows that certain jobs are harder or need more experience or knowledge then other jobs. Yet we made each job the same when it comes to job grade. That is ridiculous. I was told by higher sources that initially it was going to be different grades assigned to the different jobs but the Dist IE Mgrs balked saying managing that would be harder for them to manage and rotate people this way.

Personally, the idea of the job grades\bands I think is a good one. I just think it's ridiculous of how it was implemented. Case in point, all supervisors are band 20 I believe and letters from A - friend is what I've seen. When you think of the literally hundreds and hundreds of different supervisor jobs out there. Why weren't there more like A-Z for slotting all the various jobs?

Here's another one... A center had two On road supervisors and a PL supervisor (FT). The Preload supervisor quit. One of the on road's had done every job PL\LS\OR and had been with UPS for years. The other on road was relatively knew and only had done on road. He had never done the PL job. You would think this is a good opportunity to get the new supervisor into a job he hasn't done yet and to crosstrain him. What did UPS do? The mgr\div mgr decided it was easier to slide the experienced on road supv to the PL job and no need of worrying if the PL would run well. Well a few months later the new pay bands kicked in. The experienced supervisor was slotted as a PL supv and therefore a lower job level then the other less inexperienced FT Supv. That FT PL supv was over the max for the PL job rate and got no raise the following year. Whereas if he had been still a FT OR supv he would have not been over that max and had recieved a raise.

These are the things we see closer to the front lines that make us shake our head and realize things aren't the way they were before.

Now.. Personally, my job has not been put in pay bands (yet). They may very well do that this year, but who knows. My gut opinion is my job hasn't been banded yet, since my job responsibilities match up quite nicely with consulting firms where the pay for an average person is about 20 - 50% higher then my gross pay. I know I wont' be getting that kind of raise. I'm just interested to see how they spin it so that we won't get raises when we do get banded. Sorry for being cynical, but UPS has made us that way over the last 5+ years.

 

[j13501]

You know far more than I on the subject, but aren't you forgetting the 97 strike and also the IPO? I guess my point is that the bottom line of cost per pc. is sometimes lost as more important, than the myriad the background noise which contributes to that cost per pc.

You mention the obviously above avg. wages and salaries UPS has offered, but then again UPS's success was and is, because it attracts some of the best people. Not a chicken or egg thing, but it makes me wonder that those days are over.

No, I'm not forgetting them, in fact on page 5 of this thread, I posted some comments regarding management consultants that UPS retained following the 1997 strike and their beliefs on management compensation.

What I am saying is that as customers perceive Fed Ex Ground's service as equivalent to ours, they start to look at price as the key issue in selecting a carrier. It's not that the "background noise" is lost in cost per pc. It's that regardless of "background noise", if we can't price competitively against our competition, (because our cost structure is higher) we will lose market share. That is the true bottom line. The challenge for the management committee is how to bring down cost, so we stay competitive. They have decided that reducing regions, reducing districts, cutting management headcount, changing the compensation structure, etc, is what is needed to maintain our market share in the U.S.

Meanwhile, they are taking the right steps to expand worldwide, so that our success in the future will be in markets where we don't have such high structural wage rates. Our percentage of overall profits that come from international continue to expand every year.

Your last statement wonders if "those days are over". I hope not, because we always need good people in management. I just think that the management committee believes we can still retain good people, while reducing management headcount & compensation. I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Your last statement wonders if "those days are over". I hope not, because we always need good people in management. I just think that the management committee believes we can still retain good people, while reducing management headcount & compensation. I guess we'll see what happens.

I hope you are correct also. However, I have seen a lot of good young mgmt people leave UPS for greener pastures. (And they are greener for newer mgmt people). I am not too impressed with a lot of the remaining newer mgmt people. Right now we are still doing OK since we still have quite a few folks in their forty's and fifties still in mgmt. However, every year we are losing some good mgmt people to retirement. Quality is slipping, Loads not being picked up at customers, hubs not closing on time. (I'm not talking about Dec, I'm talking about January).

 

[pretzel_man]

Pretzel, thanks for your perspective. I have a followup question of your opinion.

The first paragraph said that after the changes supervisors and managers are still above market pay for similar jobs, yet the next paragraph indicates that at other companies the similar jobs are done by non management people, hence those similar jobs are paid lower then UPS pays.

So are they comparing admins\specialists at one company and comparing to supervisors at UPS?

I will agree that many years ago esp in staff jobs there were tons of "supv" jobs that didn't need to be and we have gotten better at moving a lot of those jobs to "technicians" or "specialists" levels.

My other concern as I mentioned before is looking at the district IE dept (which I used to be in, but not anymore) All the IE supvs are in the same exact job grade\band. Anyone who has done IE, knows that certain jobs are harder or need more experience or knowledge then other jobs. Yet we made each job the same when it comes to job grade. That is ridiculous. I was told by higher sources that initially it was going to be different grades assigned to the different jobs but the Dist IE Mgrs balked saying managing that would be harder for them to manage and rotate people this way.

Personally, the idea of the job grades\bands I think is a good one. I just think it's ridiculous of how it was implemented. Case in point, all supervisors are band 20 I believe and letters from A - friend is what I've seen. When you think of the literally hundreds and hundreds of different supervisor jobs out there. Why weren't there more like A-Z for slotting all the various jobs?

Here's another one... A center had two On road supervisors and a PL supervisor (FT). The Preload supervisor quit. One of the on road's had done every job PL\LS\OR and had been with UPS for years. The other on road was relatively knew and only had done on road. He had never done the PL job. You would think this is a good opportunity to get the new supervisor into a job he hasn't done yet and to crosstrain him. What did UPS do? The mgr\div mgr decided it was easier to slide the experienced on road supv to the PL job and no need of worrying if the PL would run well. Well a few months later the new pay bands kicked in. The experienced supervisor was slotted as a PL supv and therefore a lower job level then the other less inexperienced FT Supv. That FT PL supv was over the max for the PL job rate and got no raise the following year. Whereas if he had been still a FT OR supv he would have not been over that max and had recieved a raise.

These are the things we see closer to the front lines that make us shake our head and realize things aren't the way they were before.

Now.. Personally, my job has not been put in pay bands (yet). They may very well do that this year, but who knows. My gut opinion is my job hasn't been banded yet, since my job responsibilities match up quite nicely with consulting firms where the pay for an average person is about 20 - 50% higher then my gross pay. I know I wont' be getting that kind of raise. I'm just interested to see how they spin it so that we won't get raises when we do get banded. Sorry for being cynical, but UPS has made us that way over the last 5+ years.

So, here is my take.....

Are we comparing admins and specialists at one company to supervisors here?

(First, remember this is my personal opinion based on observations, not what I was told.)
Not really, but its not 100% apples to apples. From my personal experience, other companies make a different distinction between management and non-management. I believe UPS being unionized chose to say that you are either hourly or management.
I've seen other companies where people have very skilled, technical, and important posititions not being called supervisors. They do very similar things to a UPS supervisor, but not 100% the same.

You asked about job grades and bands....

As you said, in general, I think the idea is good. Just very poorly implemented. The bands (A-friend) are just for pay. There are a few thousand job models. They just slotted the models into fewer pay bands. Again, I think that's okay. There is also supposed to be a way to pay someone for their skill (a lawyer for instance), but not have to then say that they are at a higher management level. Again, a good idea.

However, as you mentioned they tagged this to the job you have not your skill. This is just plain wrong. If a very qualified on road supervisor is assigned as a hub supervisor, that person's pay could be implemented. I think that is okay if the person asked to be given the job, but if they are forced to do so because of UPS needs, that is wrong.

Final point you made.... Unless you are below the minimum of the new band, you won't get an adjustment. In addition, they limited the adjustment improperly I think.

Good luck

 

[island1fox]

Pay raises --no pay raises---Buyout ---no Buyout.

Do any of you know what is going on in our economy today ???

Thank God every day for the great Company you work for and enjoy the working "experience"

I have been retired for a few years---loving it --but look back on the "good old days" and realize --just like High School and College years----you will miss them when they are gone !!!!

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

maybe I will say the same thing when i get my pension check!..No wait a minute....I like my job but not the evil people I work for .I will miss some of my customers..... but not all the headaches...snow, sweating your butt off in the BROWN EZ BAKE OVEN! when its 99 degrees outside! Most of all I wont miss the stupid answers and put downs from people wearing ties!!!Good ole days??

 

[BrownSuit]

I'm just going by the changes imposed on UPS when it became public.
Level 20 is the lowest level of VP at UPS which has defined responsibilities and authority.
Consequently, all significant forms at UPS (PDD's, RFCs, etc.) require a Level 20 or higher before it will be acted on.
Most real decisions at UPS (within my purview*) are made at a Level 20 or higher.
Shortly after UPS went public, the level 18's were gathered in Corporate and explained the fact that there would be a significant differences in compensation and benefits going forward (along with increased authority and accountability).
These expressed differences along with my observations (albeit in the Corporate arena) have led me to strongly believe that there is a clear and observable difference in Level 20 and above. I have even spoke of this "apparent" new level of partnership with Level 20's, Level 22's and even one Level 24. They did not object to this way of viewing the partnership and seemed to acknowledge its existence.

Maybe the more acceptable term to be used is Junior and Senior partnership.
I don't really have any strong feelings about this new division in the partnership (It is what it is) as it was always there to some extent. Even a Level 22 (District Manager) did not have freehand to make large expenditures back in the day.

Hoax -

Last time I checked my Class A shares had the same voting rights as Scott Davis. The only difference is he has a whole lot more of them than I do. At the end of the day a partner is a partner, there is no junior or senior level. It seems like these are levels that have unfortunately been created in your mind, possibly while you were out at Innoplex and out of touch with the rest of the company.

I think you would be surprised how many of your so called Junior Partners actually own more of the company than your so called Senior Partners.

This is throughout our company's legacy as it can be seen in all of the writings of our former leaders and even in our policy book with details like addressing each other on a first name basis. It doesn't say that we address Grade 18's and up on a last name basis and those below on a first name basis.

I don't see a problem with your undertone, I see an out of touch employee who might be better suited for retirement and wish you the best as you enjoy the benefits of partnership. When Jim Casey established the company, a partner was a partner. Jim understood that a healthy, thriving company would be creating more partners. Not junior partners, not senior partners, PARTNERS. The measure of partnership was never decision making ability, but ownership in the company. Regardless of the role we all have the ability to make decisions and take actions that impact our Stakeholders.

In the new structure grade 20 and up is a partner, but keep in mind that it tops out at grade 70.

 

[Catatonic]

Last time I checked my Class A shares had the same voting rights as Scott Davis. The only difference is he has a whole lot more of them than I do. At the end of the day a partner is a partner ...

This is throughout our company's legacy as it can be seen in all of the writings of our former leaders and even in our policy book with details like addressing each other on a first name basis.

When Jim Casey established the company, a partner was a partner. Jim understood that a healthy, thriving company would be creating more partners. The measure of partnership was never decision making ability, but ownership in the company.
Regardless of the role we all have the ability to make decisions and take actions that impact our Stakeholders.

In the new structure grade 20 and up is a partner, but keep in mind that it tops out at grade 70.

Like I said, "I don't really have any strong feelings about this new division in the partnership (It is what it is) as it was always there to some extent. Even a Level 22 (District Manager) did not have freehand to make large expenditures back in the day."

The company needs people like you (albeit not high up) ... carry on.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

maybe I will say the same thing when i get my pension check!..No wait a minute....I like my job but not the evil people I work for .I will miss some of my customers..... but not all the headaches...snow, sweating your butt off in the BROWN EZ BAKE OVEN! when its 99 degrees outside! Most of all I wont miss the stupid answers and put downs from people wearing ties!!!Good ole days??

The Partners forum was created to provide our management folks a venue to discuss issues exclusive to them free from comments such as these; in turn, they respect our Union forum by not posting there.

 

[Necropostophiliac]

The Partners forum was created to provide our management folks a venue to discuss issues exclusive to them free from comments such as these; in turn, they respect our Union forum by not posting there.

Good point.
I am glad you set the example and do not post on this thread also.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Good point.
I am glad you set the example and do not post on this thread also.

Wow---and people tell me I don't have a life.

 

[moreluck]

He could've just said ,"practice what you preach" but you would ask for proof.....so he's keeping one-step ahead of you and supplying proof with his post.

 

[Catatonic]

The Partners forum was created to provide our management folks a venue to discuss issues exclusive to them free from comments such as these; in turn, they respect our Union forum by not posting there.

Like I never post in the Union forum! LOL

This forum was created for management to discuss topics that management might be interested in.
Anyone can post here.
As you can see in this thread, non-management posts tend to be ignored ... especially if they are not constructive to the discussion.

 

[Anonymous 10]

He could've just said ,"practice what you preach" but you would ask for proof.....so he's keeping one-step ahead of you and supplying proof with his post.

Old habits die hard.