In the end, who wins??? And at what cost?

[Analbumcover]

Their master plan is to depend on their supervisors, and that's when they'll find out what we all know, they're worthless.

That's pretty terrifying in and of itself if that's what a multibillion dollar company like UPS has as a contingency plan.

 

[brownIEman]

It's Saturday
Relax
All I was trying to say the company cannot cry poor

No, they have no leg to stand on crying poor.

They do continue to lose market share.

The lasting legacy from '97 is the company tried to get a business model that would allow them to return to the position as the best service, lowest cost market leader that they had actually lost prior to '97. The IBT refused to consider that business model.
What they wound up with is a model were UPS is profitable, but not competitive.

They will continue losing market share in an ever increasing market. When the market plateaus, they will lose volume along with market share loss. That's a decade or maybe more off yet, but it's coming.

I certainly can't fault you for getting what you can get prior to that happening. Whether they admit it to themselves or not, that is what the C- suite dwellers have been doing for years.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

No, they have no leg to stand on crying poor.

They do continue to lose market share.

The lasting legacy from '97 is the company tried to get a business model that would allow them to return to the position as the best service, lowest cost market leader that they had actually lost prior to '97. The IBT refused to consider that business model.
What they wound up with is a model were UPS is profitable, but not competitive.

They will continue losing market share in an ever increasing market. When the market plateaus, they will lose volume along with market share loss. That's a decade or maybe more off yet, but it's coming.

I certainly can't fault you for getting what you can get prior to that happening. Whether they admit it to themselves or not, that is what the C- suite dwellers have been doing for years.

It's very sad the company is focusing on the now and not the future

While on Earth would you increase the dividend by a couple billion dollars a year and then put out long-term notes for a couple billion dollars a year?
Jim Casey is spinning in his grave


I want the company to continue to make record profits so it will continue to exist.

Just my opinion they're looking for how much can I squeeze out now and they are not worried about the future and that is not how this company was founded

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

That's pretty terrifying in and of itself if that's what a multibillion dollar company like UPS has as a contingency plan.

They're a $100B company because we're good at what we do, not because we're so well managed.

 

[Pullman Brown]

No, they have no leg to stand on crying poor.

They do continue to lose market share.

The lasting legacy from '97 is the company tried to get a business model that would allow them to return to the position as the best service, lowest cost market leader that they had actually lost prior to '97. The IBT refused to consider that business model.
What they wound up with is a model were UPS is profitable, but not competitive.

They will continue losing market share in an ever increasing market. When the market plateaus, they will lose volume along with market share loss. That's a decade or maybe more off yet, but it's coming.

I certainly can't fault you for getting what you can get prior to that happening. Whether they admit it to themselves or not, that is what the C- suite dwellers have been doing for years.

Explain not being competitive?

 

[Pullman Brown]

No, they have no leg to stand on crying poor.

They do continue to lose market share.

The lasting legacy from '97 is the company tried to get a business model that would allow them to return to the position as the best service, lowest cost market leader that they had actually lost prior to '97. The IBT refused to consider that business model.
What they wound up with is a model were UPS is profitable, but not competitive.

They will continue losing market share in an ever increasing market. When the market plateaus, they will lose volume along with market share loss. That's a decade or maybe more off yet, but it's coming.

I certainly can't fault you for getting what you can get prior to that happening. Whether they admit it to themselves or not, that is what the C- suite dwellers have been doing for years.

Also, I think the fight is not about having the money to increase labor costs, which they have, but that increasing labor costs will limit future investments in the company which obviously is a key principle behind capitalism. Thoughts?

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

Also, I think the fight is not about having the money to increase labor costs, which they have, but that increasing labor costs will limit future investments in the company which obviously is a key principle behind capitalism. Thoughts?

I think they don't need to give $8B+ to shareholders if they're so concerned with capital expenditures.

 

[brownIEman]

Also, I think the fight is not about having the money to increase labor costs, which they have, but that increasing labor costs will limit future investments in the company which obviously is a key principle behind capitalism. Thoughts?

As I said, getting what they can get we while the getting is good. That's what the c-suites are doing on my opinion.

 

[brownIEman]

It's very sad the company is focusing on the now and not the future

While on Earth would you increase the dividend by a couple billion dollars a year and then put out long-term notes for a couple billion dollars a year?
Jim Casey is spinning in his grave


I want the company to continue to make record profits so it will continue to exist.

Just my opinion they're looking for how much can I squeeze out now and they are not worried about the future and that is not how this company was founded

Agreed.
This company was founded with the long term in mind. It was owned by the people that ran it everyday. Now it is more a traditional, publicly traded 'what was your last quarter profit' type company.

That transformation came from a host of factors, but the biggest single moment that made the largest jump in that transformation was '97. I know most people will say going public in '99. But that was largely a symptom of, and caused by, the shift in the business model forced by '97.

 

[Pullman Brown]

As I said, getting what they can get we while the getting is good. That's what the c-suites are doing on my opinion.

So UPS in your opinion will be a fraction of itself in thirty years?

 

[deeztier]

That's pretty terrifying in and of itself if that's what a multibillion dollar company like UPS has as a contingency plan.

if we do strike, i think UPS' plan was to thin out management by having them quit/walk out. prob not comparable but it's easy to leave when there's a switch in roles and benefits and zero protection... like Elon did with Twitter.

 

[Pullman Brown]

Agreed.
This company was founded with the long term in mind. It was owned by the people that ran it everyday. Now it is more a traditional, publicly traded 'what was your last quarter profit' type company.

That transformation came from a host of factors, but the biggest single moment that made the largest jump in that transformation was '97. I know most people will say going public in '99. But that was largely a symptom of, and caused by, the shift in the business model forced by '97.

The future cannot be known in advance obviously, but investments in the company don’t seem to believe the company isn’t thinking about the future. And they’re being rewarded well for those investments. People talk about losing market share, isn’t that what the vision is better not bigger? I think possibly less jobs will be created but it seems like that’s the point.

 

[Mplayers2006]

I follow your numbers, but what's your point? We made money.

No one is saying when we increase revenue we should get to keep 100% of that as profits.

If you want drivers to make 50/hr and pt 25/hr, then force UPS to control their cost. Force them to earmark money for technology and equipment that will pay for itself and Make your job easier. Other than that, there is no way ups can keep up with your ever demanding wage increases.

 

[brownIEman]

Explain not being competitive?

UPS had around 80% of the US small package market in 97.
So, simply put, UPS delivered around 8 or if every 10 small packages.
Today, UPS delivers around 2 or 3 of every 10 small packages delivered. The current market leader is USPS, they got into the market heavy as email and online banking bill pay, etc decimated their first class mail bread and butter.

UPS' share has dwindled from 8 in 10 to around 3 in 10. Because, as the overall market has exploded due to online commerce, UPS was not competitive enough in largely price, to grab as much of that business as the competition has.

 

[Pullman Brown]

UPS had around 80% of the US small package market in 97.
So, simply put, UPS delivered around 8 or if every 10 small packages.
Today, UPS delivers around 2 or 3 of every 10 small packages delivered. The current market leader is USPS, they got into the market heavy as email and online banking bill pay, etc decimated their first class mail bread and butter.

UPS' share has dwindled from 8 in 10 to around 3 in 10. Because, as the overall market has exploded due to online commerce, UPS was not competitive enough in largely price, to grab as much of that business as the competition has.

Better not bigger

 

[Mplayers2006]

. It isn't a good look that company profited 7 billion more but can't pay people. Any way you slice it "the we have nothing to give" approach only works on imbiciles and people with their heads up their asses.

no one in the teamsters leadership can point where and how would these demands be paid for. It is easy to make demands, but what their demanding is not realistic but absurd.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

if we do strike, i think UPS' plan was to thin out management by having them quit/walk out. prob not comparable but it's easy to leave when there's a switch in roles and benefits and zero protection... like Elon did with Twitter.

Better not bigger.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

no one in the teamsters leadership can point where and how would these demands would be paid for. It is easy to demand things, but what their demanding is not realist but absurd.

What are they demanding?

 

[anonymous23456]

UPS had around 80% of the US small package market in 97.
So, simply put, UPS delivered around 8 or if every 10 small packages.
Today, UPS delivers around 2 or 3 of every 10 small packages delivered. The current market leader is USPS, they got into the market heavy as email and online banking bill pay, etc decimated their first class mail bread and butter.

UPS' share has dwindled from 8 in 10 to around 3 in 10. Because, as the overall market has exploded due to online commerce, UPS was not competitive enough in largely price, to grab as much of that business as the competition has.

Forget about it. Union boys don't care to understand about this issue. This is management issue and Union boys want to layoff all management. The packages will make decision by themselves! Packages will have to grow legs and brains.

 

[brownIEman]

The future cannot be known in advance obviously, but investments in the company don’t seem to believe the company isn’t thinking about the future. And they’re being rewarded well for those investments. People talk about losing market share, isn’t that what the vision is better not bigger? I think possibly less jobs will be created but it seems like that’s the point.

Yes, exactly. Better not bigger is the single biggest open admission I've seen that UPS leadership had accepted the profitable, not competitive model.