Contract proposals for 2018

[brownIEman]

@wide load.... never said that. Stop trying to put words in his mouth.

(and you're not even quoting the language correctly)


What's your contract proposal ?

I'm all ears.



-Bug-

Well now you are bringing me back to questioning your reading comprehension because I did not put quotes around the contract language and I said 'the sentence about...' Which I would think would make it clear to most that I was paraphrasing and not quoting.

So how about this:

The employer agrees to end all performance harassment and measurement. All IBT employees shall perform the work they deem appropriate each day and no more. Where this leads to work unassigned, the employer agrees to immediately hire extra employees who shall be asked to perform such work should they chose. As this will allow the employer the ability to reduce front line supervision to nearly zero, and as the IBT is confident the employer shall see huge gains in business due to the improved service provided by unsupervised employees, it is agreed the employer shall pay to the IBT 15% of all pretax profits for each year of the agreement to be spent as the IBT sees fit (with priority given to shoring up the CS pension fund and all pension funds below X % funding levels). The IBT agrees to pay to the employer the sum of $2B US for every percentage point of market share the employer losses in the US domestic small package delivery market for every year of the agreement.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Well now you are bringing me back to questioning your reading comprehension because I did not put quotes around the contract language and I said 'the sentence about...' Which I would think would make it clear to most that I was paraphrasing and not quoting.

So how about this:

The employer agrees to end all performance harassment and measurement. All IBT employees shall perform the work they deem appropriate each day and no more. Where this leads to work unassigned, the employer agrees to immediately hire extra employees who shall be asked to perform such work should they chose. As this will allow the employer the ability to reduce front line supervision to nearly zero, and as the IBT is confident the employer shall see huge gains in business due to the improved service provided by unsupervised employees, it is agreed the employer shall pay to the IBT 15% of all pretax profits for each year of the agreement to be spent as the IBT sees fit (with priority given to shoring up the CS pension fund and all pension funds below X % funding levels). The IBT agrees to pay to the employer the sum of $2B US for every percentage point of market share the employer losses in the US domestic small package delivery market for every year of the agreement.

UPS wouldn't lose business on purpose to get that 2 billion......

 

[Article 3]

Well now you are bringing me back to questioning your reading comprehension because I did not put quotes around the contract language and I said 'the sentence about...' Which I would think would make it clear to most that I was paraphrasing and not quoting.

So how about this:

The employer agrees to end all performance harassment and measurement. All IBT employees shall perform the work they deem appropriate each day and no more. Where this leads to work unassigned, the employer agrees to immediately hire extra employees who shall be asked to perform such work should they chose. As this will allow the employer the ability to reduce front line supervision to nearly zero, and as the IBT is confident the employer shall see huge gains in business due to the improved service provided by unsupervised employees, it is agreed the employer shall pay to the IBT 15% of all pretax profits for each year of the agreement to be spent as the IBT sees fit (with priority given to shoring up the CS pension fund and all pension funds below X % funding levels). The IBT agrees to pay to the employer the sum of $2B US for every percentage point of market share the employer losses in the US domestic small package delivery market for every year of the agreement.

A.) It's loses not losses.
B.) This sounds like the hiring techniques to get hourly to go into management.
C.) You must not have been around in 97 when two years prior to that we were on self-directed work teams. We still netted a billion dollars which was normal and the employees were a lot happier because the dispatch wasn't stupid.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

What's your contract proposal ?

So how about this:

The employer agrees to end all performance harassment and measurement. All IBT employees shall perform the work they deem appropriate each day and no more. Where this leads to work unassigned, the employer agrees to immediately hire extra employees who shall be asked to perform such work should they chose. As this will allow the employer the ability to reduce front line supervision to nearly zero, and as the IBT is confident the employer shall see huge gains in business due to the improved service provided by unsupervised employees, it is agreed the employer shall pay to the IBT 15% of all pretax profits for each year of the agreement to be spent as the IBT sees fit (with priority given to shoring up the CS pension fund and all pension funds below X % funding levels). The IBT agrees to pay to the employer the sum of $2B US for every percentage point of market share the employer losses in the US domestic small package delivery market for every year of the agreement.

Put your proposal on paper, and submit it to the company committee.

We'll see how that goes.


Thanks for playing.



-Bug-

 

[Bubblehead]

The employer agrees to end all performance harassment and measurement. All IBT employees shall perform the work they deem appropriate each day and no more.

Who are "they"?

 

[Bubblehead]

In a sense you are correct. UPS could collect the data and try to come up with a formula for applying specific weight and size for each actual package. It would not be like flipping a switch as you seem to think and would likely involve potentially millions of dollars worth of code design development and testing.

Now if UPS spent that kind of money on developing that improved accuracy package allowance, do you really think in the long run you would get more of an allowance? Or do you think in the current environment some miserable SOB of a former operations manager at corporate would make dann sure it resulted in a net loss of allowance? Would you take a wager?

In any event it would not even address your other variables like percentage of red lights and floors.

UPS burps million$ without skipping a step.

How many million$ did they spend just to get out of the TNT deal in Europe a few years back? ($220 million)

How many millon$ did they spend on implementing, across the board, that joke of a program called ORION?

What was the cost to retrofit the entire fleet with telematics sensors and keyless ignition?


What it comes down to, is that the allowances are an arbitrarily conceived metric, based on little factual data, designed to only hypnotize the employee, both driver and management, into "chasing the rabbit".

To make the equation factual, defeats the purpose, so it will never happen.

Wake up and liberate yourselves my brothers and sisters!!!
Divorce yourself from these numbers and watch the stress leave the job, while your paychecks get bigger.

 

[Bubblehead]

In the wake of this most recent discussion, I will endeavor to make my first "contract proposal" in this thread, because I initially saw it as a diversion and "meaningless fluff".

Since my initial reaction to this thread, I have saw fit to assist TU in their contract pledge drive, as well as attended my Local's meeting on the subject several Sundays ago.
I have also had some candid conversations with some of the people who will be at "the table".

My thought process was, and is, that anything we can do to engage the members in order to wake them up, is a good thing no matter who is doing it.

So with that in mind, I propose National Master language (much like Article 40 that supercedes any forward language, Rider, or addendum) that eliminates all bonus/incentive programs company-wide.

 

[burrheadd]

In the wake of this most recent discussion, I will endeavor to make my first "contract proposal" in this thread, because I initially saw it as a diversion and "meaningless fluff".

Since my initial reaction to this thread, I have saw fit to assist TU in their contract pledge drive, as well as attended my Local's meeting on the subject several Sundays ago.
I have also had some candid conversations with some of the people who will be at "the table".

My thought process was, and is, that anything we can do to engage the members in order to wake them up, is a good thing no matter who is doing it.

So with that in mind, I propose National Master language (much like Article 40 that supercedes any forward language, Rider, or addendum) that eliminates all bonus/incentive programs company-wide.

Runner- Gunners

Not gonna be happy

 

[Bubblehead]

Runner- Gunners

Not gonna be happy

Perhaps we could just "impose" it on them?

 

[1989]

Their numbers suck. They can take away any time but it's not going to change how long it takes me to get it done. I'm really not worried about it more do they rarely say anything to me. They can ride with me any day of the week and I will glad demonstrate every method they have.

Even on Sunday?

 

[brownIEman]

UPS wouldn't lose business on purpose to get that 2 billion......

Highly unlikely. The market has gotten so big that that that 1% market share would likely be worth more than $2B. So, no, UPS would not purposefully give up slightly more than 2 billion to make just 2 billion. UPS made around $51B in 2016 and only has about 24% market share. But I just threw that number out, they could negotiate it down to be slightly less than the revenue from the market share to be sure that the better financial incentive was to gain back market share rather than go after the reimbursement.

 

[brownIEman]

A.) It's loses not losses.
B.) This sounds like the hiring techniques to get hourly to go into management.
C.) You must not have been around in 97 when two years prior to that we were on self-directed work teams. We still netted a billion dollars which was normal and the employees were a lot happier because the dispatch wasn't stupid.

Thanks for catching the spelling error. Appreciate it.

How would a plan to reduce front line management to nearly zero be a selling point for hourly to become management?

I was around during the work teams (can't call em that though remember? The IBT said you already have a team, the TEAMSTERS!!! remember reading that propaganda in the break room. So UPS changed it to self directed work groups). I had a brief debate about them with Bubblehead on this thread a couple weeks back :
New 9.5 question. (Hopefully)

Anyway, that whole thing was such a debacle that a CEO was pushed out over it. Do you also remember the market share UPS was losing in '95 due to its higher cost to serve? I remember meetings about market share and rising costs that was justification for consolidating the CSTC's that used to be in every district. I remember one bullet point in the meetings that indicated the bean counters had determined that had UPS not raised its rates that year, its profits would have been zero. Was that really true? No idea, but that was the narrative the company was pushing to management and non-bargaining unit/technical employees.

 

[Article 3]

Thanks for catching the spelling error. Appreciate it.

How would a plan to reduce front line management to nearly zero be a selling point for hourly to become management?

I was around during the work teams (can't call em that though remember? The IBT said you already have a team, the TEAMSTERS!!! remember reading that propaganda in the break room. So UPS changed it to self directed work groups). I had a brief debate about them with Bubblehead on this thread a couple weeks back :
New 9.5 question. (Hopefully)

Anyway, that whole thing was such a debacle that a CEO was pushed out over it. Do you also remember the market share UPS was losing in '95 due to its higher cost to serve? I remember meetings about market share and rising costs that was justification for consolidating the CSTC's that used to be in every district. I remember one bullet point in the meetings that indicated the bean counters had determined that had UPS not raised its rates that year, its profits would have been zero. Was that really true? No idea, but that was the narrative the company was pushing to management and non-bargaining unit/technical employees.

It appeared to be that Kelly was softening (trying to) the resolve of the unionized workforce prior to the CBA negotiations by using self directed work groups hence attempting to make us all feel like "owners" of the company. I believe that Hoakster said "disagree".

That failed and here we are. Divorced step children.

BTW, the management comment was an attempt at comedy.

 

[brownIEman]

It appeared to be that Kelly was softening (trying to) the resolve of the unionized workforce prior to the CBA negotiations by using self directed work groups hence attempting to make us all feel like "owners" of the company. I believe that Hoakster said "disagree".

That failed and here we are. Divorced step children.

Kelley was not CEO during the self directed work groups. Oz Nelson was. That was his baby. Were you around then?

But you are correct, the company was trying to get a more engaged work force to try and win back the market share it was loosing. Kelley and co offered bonuses based on company profits to the drivers in the 97 negotiations. And in 95 or early 96 they offered UPS stock for sale to hourly and non-management employees.

Those attempts failed.

And yes, but not just divorced step children, divorced red-headed step children. The company's business model became one of remaining profitable even when it could not remain competitive. So it continues to make a profit every year, and lose market share every year. The business model has become essentially, compensate its service providers way more than the rest of the industry, and beat them like rented mules to get the money's worth out of them.
Makes for a ty environment, but it seem to have worked for the past 20 years.

If you were around in 95 ish, I hope you are close to getting out. That's for your sake by the way, not any kind of slight.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Even on Sunday?

Hell yeah. Give some double time.

 

[upschuck]

Oh and I missed this part. These measurements are not entered into OUR system by all shippers. Many shippers use 3rd party systems or their own software developed in house (usually so it can tie in seamlessly with their own data systems) to do their shipping. They import our rate tables, but it is not UPS's software they use for shipping.

What about the Dim Wt scanners on the unload of the hubs?

 

[Article 3]

Kelley was not CEO during the self directed work groups. Oz Nelson was. That was his baby. Were you around then?

But you are correct, the company was trying to get a more engaged work force to try and win back the market share it was loosing. Kelley and co offered bonuses based on company profits to the drivers in the 97 negotiations. And in 95 or early 96 they offered UPS stock for sale to hourly and non-management employees.

Those attempts failed.

And yes, but not just divorced step children, divorced red-headed step children. The company's business model became one of remaining profitable even when it could not remain competitive. So it continues to make a profit every year, and lose market share every year. The business model has become essentially, compensate its service providers way more than the rest of the industry, and beat them like rented mules to get the money's worth out of them.
Makes for a ty environment, but it seem to have worked for the past 20 years.

If you were around in 95 ish, I hope you are close to getting out. That's for your sake by the way, not any kind of slight.

You are partially correct. Oz started the self-directed work groups but Kelly was there during that time also as CEO and the self-directed work issues quit after the work stoppage in 97.
If I was 21 in 1995 that would only make me 43 today and under what Pension Plan do you ask me to retire?
When you keep shooting from the hip sometimes you shoot yourself in the foot.

By the way I have to ask you what is your definition of "works"?

Most package car drivers have very good input on how to make their route efficient and take care of customers that ship or receive a good volume thru UPS.
They used to have good input respect now we've got some monkey that couldn't even load and went into management as a PDS telling them how to take care of the people that write our paychecks. Stupidity abounds arrogantly.

 

[brownIEman]

You are partially correct. Oz started the self-directed work groups but Kelly was there during that time also as CEO and the self-directed work issues quit after the work stoppage in 97.
If I was 21 in 1995 that would only make me 43 today and under what Pension Plan do you ask me to retire?
When you keep shooting from the hip sometimes you shoot yourself in the foot.

That is not my recollection. I remember the self directed stuff going out with Oz at the end of '96 and being gone prior to the '97 strike. But it was more than 20 years ago and I am not claiming perfect recall, I can only go by my recollection.
Well, I can't fault your math on being 21 in 95 and 43 now, although I have no idea how I would have known prior to you telling me that you were only 21 in '95. Pardon me for asking a question.

By the way I have to ask you what is your definition of "works"?

It works in the sense that the company remains profitable year over year. As it stands it is not infinitely sustainable in that no matter how large the ecomerce revolution makes the small package delivery market, when UPS' share gets to 0, well in multiplication 0 X N still equals 0 no matter how big N is.

Most package car drivers have very good input on how to make their route efficient and take care of customers that ship or receive a good volume thru UPS.
They used to have good input respect now we've got some monkey that couldn't even load and went into management as a PDS telling them how to take care of the people that write our paychecks. Stupidity abounds arrogantly.

I agree, and this is a large part of why it is workable, in that we can make money, but it is not sustainable.
And yes, most drivers are trying to work in the best interests of the employer and give good suggestions on their dispatch.

There are some drivers however who do not give good input on their routes, and many who do not give good input all of the time. Just one example: In 2006 I was on a PAS deployment team doing 3 day training/trace rides with drivers getting PAS/EDD for the first time. Every evening after the rides, we would take a stack of suggestions from drivers about their trace and review them, make changes in the system in response, and then write up a description of what we did and place the form back in the drivers DIAD slot for the following morning. I remember spending a late night trying to fix a concern of a driver that one particular address range was not his work but kept getting back on his car, his note saying he wants it removed NOW!!!. I could not figure it out. The address range was geographically in the dead center of his route, and giving it to neighboring drivers would pull them out of their area by a mile or so. It made no sense to me, but what do I know I was just a visiting technology guy essentially. Anyway, turns out the address range really had only one address on it, it was a large apartment complex with one entry and one exit. The driver hated it, and he was a very vocal high seniority driver so the local management for years had just given in and given it to neighboring routes which had lower seniority drivers who did not complain about being pulled out of their area to do this guys dirty work. After many hours of researching all the variables I just wrote NO! on the form, put it back in the DIAD slot and went back to the hotel. I know teamsters here are fond of saying management at UPS eat their young, I assure you management are not the only ones with this tendency.

 

[brownIEman]

What about the Dim Wt scanners on the unload of the hubs?

Not every hub has them, and again, that is a seperate system that was not designed to tie in with the time study/DIAD/GTS systems. The data could be merged but would require alot of coding.

 

[brownIEman]

UPS burps million$ without skipping a step.

How many million$ did they spend just to get out of the TNT deal in Europe a few years back? ($220 million)

How many millon$ did they spend on implementing, across the board, that joke of a program called ORION?

What was the cost to retrofit the entire fleet with telematics sensors and keyless ignition?

Yes UPS could afford to do it, but why would they? It still would not be perfect, and after spending millions they would likely wind up with a system that is not all that much closer to reality than the averaging they use now.

What it comes down to, is that the allowances are an arbitrarily conceived metric, based on little factual data, designed to only hypnotize the employee, both driver and management, into "chasing the rabbit".

You have an oversimplified and incorrect view of how the time study measurements work. They are not based on little factual data. They are based on literally decades of hands on work in the field by thousands of mostly former drivers. They are designed to have some measurable goal rather than just saying, well do the best you can and if you suck really, really bad, I'll just have to live with it.

Anyway, that is how it all started. In my experience, not long before I got out it seemed the higher ups found that if they continually turned the dial on the expectation up, while no one could actually meet that expectation, they would get incrementally more than they were getting previously. In essence what I am saying is I agree it has become in many places a completely unrealistic estimate of what a driver should be capable of on a normal day with normal effort under normal condition.
And I believe I have pointed out on numerous occasions that you as drivers should absolutely not give a flying fornication about those numbers. As long as you are giving and honest, fair days work, nothing else matters.

But the guys (and they were thankfully few) who would do things like take nearly twice as long to get back to the car and start the ignition after a stop complete than it took them from stop of ignition to the stop complete, for about half the stops on their route? Those guys were doing to me things that I would normally only allow Mrs. Brownieman do to me, and even then, only after she had bought me diner first.