Express handing resi deliveries to Ground

[MAKAVELI]

Irrelevant. We have Ground running alongside Express. One has a compensation program that is markedly superior than the other and yet Ground isn't a model of mass turnover. IWBF and bbsam aren't having trouble keeping drivers because of Express/UPS. There's always a group of people willing to settle for less. Always have been, always will be.

Ground does have a high turnover but would be much higher if Express had Union representation. I can't think of a single company that has 2 divisions, one union one not and doing the same job.

 

[It will be fine]

Ground does have a high turnover but would be much higher if Express had Union representation. I can't think of a single company that has 2 divisions, one union one not and doing the same job.

Why do you think it would make any difference? You guys claim Express has better pay and benefits and I’ve never lost a driver to express. Express being union wouldn’t change anything.

 

[bacha29]

Ground does have a high turnover but would be much higher if Express had Union representation. I can't think of a single company that has 2 divisions, one union one not and doing the same job.

There's likely to be some flash points and confrontations as they try to get Ground and Express integrated but just exactly what can Express drivers do about it? The answer is absolutely nothing as they continue to see their own numbers dwindle .

 

[MAKAVELI]

Why do you think it would make any difference? You guys claim Express has better pay and benefits and I’ve never lost a driver to express. Express being union wouldn’t change anything.

Because the difference would be much greater than it is now. Even within the Express division the difference in pay between topped out couriers and new to mid-range has caused turnover. We have some guys on the top that make close to UPS pay and then those in the middle making $5-10 less an hour. We have had plenty of ground drivers come and go here but not one leave to ground.

 

[MAKAVELI]

There's likely to be some flash points and confrontations as they try to get Ground and Express integrated but just exactly what can Express drivers do about it? The answer is absolutely nothing as they continue to see their own numbers dwindle .

The only thing we can do is get out and find a better job.

 

[bacha29]

The only thing we can do is get out and find a better job.

Why do you think it would make any difference? You guys claim Express has better pay and benefits and I’ve never lost a driver to express. Express being union wouldn’t change anything.

The reason Express didn't want them was because by the time you were done with them they were so beat up physically that whenever they did manage to get an interview whether it's at Express or elsewhere a simple once over by the interviewer and he could plainly see the physical wear and tear on the person and would know right away that the individual represented risk factors that immediately disqualified that person as an ideal candidate.

 

[MAKAVELI]

The reason Express didn't want them was because by the time you were done with them they were so beat up physically that whenever they did manage to get an interview whether it's at Express or elsewhere a simple once over by the interviewer and he could plainly see the physical wear and tear on the person and would know right away that the individual represented risk factors that immediately disqualified that person as an ideal candidate.

That was the case years ago but presently they hire anyone breathing that can pass a background/drug test.

 

[Operational needs]

The reason Express didn't want them was because by the time you were done with them they were so beat up physically that whenever they did manage to get an interview whether it's at Express or elsewhere a simple once over by the interviewer and he could plainly see the physical wear and tear on the person and would know right away that the individual represented risk factors that immediately disqualified that person as an ideal candidate.

They had no problem hiring plenty of former Ground drivers where I am.

 

[It will be fine]

They had no problem hiring plenty of former Ground drivers where I am.

Nope when those 25 year olds quit from me they are worn out. Can’t handle all those envelope deliveries. Lol.

 

[Bingo]

This is the kind of ignorance that is all too common. People in group plans pay for prenatal care for their co=workers all the time, and group plans ARE always cheaper. There is NO copay OR deductible for any of the 10 essential benefits, so you can see your doctor and get tested at least once annually for NO out of pocket. I thought everyone knew all that 10 years after those changes took effect.

Democrats want BETTER- by saving the 20% off the top that insurers are taking away that could be spent on care. So many people are so ignorant of what Medicare For All would do that they would rather pay a $500 premium plus a higher deductible and copay for 'private' insurance than pay a $400 tax for better coverage. Medicare lets patients see just about any doctor, while most private insurance has networks.' And the US already pays more for health care than MFA will cost the country. If your employer is paying now, they can still pay under Medicare for All. Their premiums would be LOWER and employees could demand getting back the difference in wages. And as long as insurers offer plans that cover at the minimum the same as medicare for all, MOST democrats approve of medicare for all or something similar.

And you have no clue, obviously, about deductibles under Obama care. They don't apply to MOST care at all, so are higher for the remaining services up to a point, the difference is that under Obamacare, when you reach your $6000 annual deductible, that's it, except for continuing premiums. Under old plans, You would have deductibles even for basic care under most plans, or you had to pay the entire deductible before you got ANY covered care. Under Obamacare, you reach your deductible, and you don't start hitting co-insurance. Co-insurance is what made most people go bankrupt- NOT the deductible. And if you have a serious condition, you don't have a lifetime cap OR and ANNUAL cap OR co-insurance you can't afford. That saves lives. The coverage under Obamacare is much more extensive, at the cost of deductibles that APPEAR to the ignorant to be higher. But because those deductibles don't apply to most care, most people won't be paying them.

It is hard for stupid people to see things that take more than 4 words to explain- like MAGA, which sounds good but means nothing. But the ignorant love it!!!!

You are still clueless. NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS FREE. Those so called 10 essential free benifits are paid by higher premiums and higher deductables. If they were not required, one would be able to go to the open market and get health care at a much lower price. Just like you can pick your types of coverage for auto and home,one should be able to do so for health.Medicare for all is a socialist wet dream. It would just be a tax burden so large that our country would possible go into a depression. Also millions of medical insurance jobs would be lost. If you want to lower health care
1- Tort reform- too many unneccessary tests are done because Doctors are afraid being sued
2- People who use a higher portion of health care,should pay a higher portion
3- A la carte- pay only for the coverage you want and need
4- Health insurance for medically necessary procedures only. Not every 60 year old needs a knee replacement,not every transgender needs a sex change etc

 

[It will be fine]

You are still clueless. NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS FREE. Those so called 10 essential free benifits are paid by higher premiums and higher deductables. If they were not required, one would be able to go to the open market and get health care at a much lower price. Just like you can pick your types of coverage for auto and home,one should be able to do so for health.Medicare for all is a socialist wet dream. It would just be a tax burden so large that our country would possible go into a depression. Also millions of medical insurance jobs would be lost. If you want to lower health care
1- Tort reform- too many unneccessary tests are done because Doctors are afraid being sued
2- People who use a higher portion of health care,should pay a higher portion
3- A la carte- pay only for the coverage you want and need
4- Health insurance for medically necessary procedures only. Not every 60 year old needs a knee replacement,not every transgender needs a sex change etc

Your solution is bankrupting old people? I don’t think that’s politically feasible.

 

[MAKAVELI]

You are still clueless. NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS FREE. Those so called 10 essential free benifits are paid by higher premiums and higher deductables. If they were not required, one would be able to go to the open market and get health care at a much lower price. Just like you can pick your types of coverage for auto and home,one should be able to do so for health.Medicare for all is a socialist wet dream. It would just be a tax burden so large that our country would possible go into a depression. Also millions of medical insurance jobs would be lost. If you want to lower health care
1- Tort reform- too many unneccessary tests are done because Doctors are afraid being sued
2- People who use a higher portion of health care,should pay a higher portion
3- A la carte- pay only for the coverage you want and need
4- Health insurance for medically necessary procedures only. Not every 60 year old needs a knee replacement,not every transgender needs a sex change etc

Telling a person what they medically need or don't need sounds pretty Communist to me.

 

[bacha29]

You are still clueless. NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS FREE. Those so called 10 essential free benifits are paid by higher premiums and higher deductables. If they were not required, one would be able to go to the open market and get health care at a much lower price. Just like you can pick your types of coverage for auto and home,one should be able to do so for health.Medicare for all is a socialist wet dream. It would just be a tax burden so large that our country would possible go into a depression. Also millions of medical insurance jobs would be lost. If you want to lower health care
1- Tort reform- too many unneccessary tests are done because Doctors are afraid being sued
2- People who use a higher portion of health care,should pay a higher portion
3- A la carte- pay only for the coverage you want and need
4- Health insurance for medically necessary procedures only. Not every 60 year old needs a knee replacement,not every transgender needs a sex change etc

" Open Market"......Healthcare.gov. " Tort reform"...."too many unnecessary tests"......Ever hear of something called "managed care"? You might think of them as "unnecessary" but the insurers case manager might disagree. So your consercuk "too many unnecessary tests" , well thanks to managed care that baseless and tired old claim went away a long time ago.

 

[Maui]

Ground does have a high turnover but would be much higher if Express had Union representation. I can't think of a single company that has 2 divisions, one union one not and doing the same job.

They exist. Tier 1 automotive suppliers have locations that are union and some that are not. The highest paid was union (in Germany), but the highest paid in the US were non-union.

Garbage companies run individual business units. Some are union and some are not. Like Bay Area might be unionized, but not Sac. some of the union location pay better - Seattle, SF Bay, LA. But there were non-union business units that paid better than unionized locations.

I'm sure there are other industries that have union and non-union locations.

 

[MAKAVELI]

They exist. Tier 1 automotive suppliers have locations that are union and some that are not. The highest paid was union (in Germany), but the highest paid in the US were non-union.

Garbage companies run individual business units. Some are union and some are not. Like Bay Area might be unionized, but not Sac. some of the union location pay better - Seattle, SF Bay, LA. But there were non-union business units that paid better than unionized locations.

I'm sure there are other industries that have union and non-union locations.

That may be the case for the auto industry because they have to remain competitive for skilled workers. But in this instance, not likely. With union representation Express employees would have guaranteed wages and benefits through a contract. With Ground, they get the scraps after the contractor takes their cut. In other words you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[bacha29]

That may be the case for the auto industry because they have to remain competitive for skilled workers. But in this instance, not likely. With union representation Express employees would have guaranteed wages and benefits through a contract. With Ground, they get the scraps after the contractor takes their cut. In other words you're comparing apples to oranges.

100% spot on. After Fat Freddy got his cut, the terminal in the past got 40% of what the box originally grossed to take it's cut to pay it's expenses plus show a profit then what was left went to the contractor ......and indeed that poor slug out there everyday in all kinds of weather taking all kinds of abuse busting his posterior for that contractor .....well he gets whatever's left and it really is just scraps .

 

[Maui]

That may be the case for the auto industry because they have to remain competitive for skilled workers. But in this instance, not likely. With union representation Express employees would have guaranteed wages and benefits through a contract. With Ground, they get the scraps after the contractor takes their cut. In other words you're comparing apples to oranges.

I'm just pointing out times I know where union and non-union co-exist.

I largely agree with you with respect to FedEx, but unions are only as good as the representation and it does not guarantee better better pay and/or benefits.

I had a driver that got a $9/hour pay increase from union to non-union within the same company. Each location matters unless it is national/company-wide.

 

[Gone fishin]

The ship has sailed on that front. There are many more Ground drivers than Express already. Most customers don’t even know there’s a difference.

You’re wrong , I literally get complaints every day

 

[It will be fine]

You’re wrong , I literally get complaints every day

Sure you do. At all 3 business stops you do while the Ground guy goes to every business on the block. Ground is far more prevalent than Express these days.

 

[MAKAVELI]

I'm just pointing out times I know where union and non-union co-exist.

I largely agree with you with respect to FedEx, but unions are only as good as the representation and it does not guarantee better better pay and/or benefits.

I had a driver that got a $9/hour pay increase from union to non-union within the same company. Each location matters unless it is national/company-wide.

In most cases location has more to do with pay and benefits than anything else. But when you look at our industry, the Union workers clearly make more on average than non union.