Part timers

[PiedmontSteward]

You sound like you were one of the lucky part timers who worked a few yrs on the belt and walked right into a driving job. Their have been past contracts with 1.00,1.00, 1.10,1.20 raises and that was when the company wasnt making record profits. If part time pay was higher drivers would get better load quality no doubt. As it is right now UPS has trouble finding any quality workers at 8.50 an hour. Not only do full timers make $20 an hour more than alot of part timers they also get double the hours and ive heard from many driver that you part timers work harder than us.

Rudy has a great point here as does PT Car Washer.. from a labor management perspective, the corporate negotiation team has been doing the company a grave disservice by not raising starting pay since the 1980's. Attendance in my hub (especially in the inbound/outbound) is atrocious - a lot of kids simply don't want to put up with production harassment (especially in the summer months) for bull**** pay ($8.50/hr that gets bumped up to 12.87/hr after four years) and no benefits for a full year. Coupled with the wait to go full time (which is at least 15 years if the person is able to qualify for a CDL, significantly higher if they want a 22.3 position) it causes headaches for the company. The only thing that has driven down turnover at my hub is the awful job market - pre-2007, new hire turnover was well over 60%.

You get what you pay for.

 

[LongTimeComing]

Rudy has a great point here as does PT Car Washer.. from a labor management perspective, the corporate negotiation team has been doing the company a grave disservice by not raising starting pay since the 1980's. Attendance in my hub (especially in the inbound/outbound) is atrocious - a lot of kids simply don't want to put up with production harassment (especially in the summer months) for bull**** pay ($8.50/hr that gets bumped up to 12.87/hr after four years) and no benefits for a full year. Coupled with the wait to go full time (which is at least 15 years if the person is able to qualify for a CDL, significantly higher if they want a 22.3 position) it causes headaches for the company. The only thing that has driven down turnover at my hub is the awful job market - pre-2007, new hire turnover was well over 60%.

You get what you pay for.

I agree wholeheartedly. This has been something that I have brought up on numerous occasions. The amount of stuff that is expected from these part time employees, and the high goals the company sets, is not proportionate to the level of starting pay for these guys. It has been too long since our starting pay has been increased. It's a hard sell anymore these days....it makes things tougher for frontline management as well. Good luck expecting part time sups to be able to 'sell' what upper management is sending down to them when starting pay is 8.50 and a full year wait for benefits. I remember the day back when I would get a new hire and be like "Your pay is nothing to get excited about, but your full benefits start in just a couple of months." No longer is this even the case. Should be at LEAST $10 an hour to start....and I think benefits should go back to starting at 6 months...

 

[ocnewguy]

I don't think it would be radical to match p/t fedex starting pay. I think even the ground guys start at 10.50 or something with benefits after 90 days. 12/18 months for the health insurance is just ludicrous. I've never heard of anything close to that in ANY industry.

10.50 start (11.50 sort) +1 at 90 days, .50 at a year and .75 every year after would be fair i think. Maybe 6 months for bennies. Not holding my breath though.

 

[PiedmontSteward]

Something should definitely be done.. I just checked my pay stubs on UPSers from when I had just hit four years of service. I was making $13.24/hour after four years, not $12.87.

 

[LongTimeComing]

The only counter-argument to any of this is that the starting pay doesn't necessarily mean we will automatically get perfect people. For example...Amazon.com just opened two large distribution centers near us. Those warehouse folks start at something like $12 an hour. We lost about 3 relatively lower seniority part-timers to them. One of those employees was keeping in contact with me. He had applied for a supervisor-type position that paid about $15.50 an hour and promised more hours. He would repeatedly tell me how horrible the work-group was. How he was threatened by female employees about 'beating his ass in the parking lot' after work. How much theft there was. How generally 'ghetto' the employees were. Mind you, this particular individual would have never made it to part-time supervision at UPS, even if he wanted to...but it's just one (probably of many) examples how higher starting rate doesn't directly produce better applicants.

I think, hopefully, that raising the starting pay would provide SOME better candidates, but more importantly, allow the company to feel they can be slightly more picky about what they accept through the door at those base level part time positions.

Here at the airport, all new employees have to submit to a 10 year federal backround check for badge purposes. Any felony is a no-go. Any violent misdemeanor is a no-go. Granted, these are airport commission rules, but effective nonetheless. Maybe something to be looked at for our ground buildings....

 

[ocnewguy]

The thing is if starting pay went up, we could raise the bar when hiring accordingly. Rather than taking the latest batch fresh from county jail we could actually hire people with more qualifications than a pulse.

 

[PT Stewie]

" Good luck expecting part time sups to be able to 'sell' what upper management is sending down to them when starting pay is 8.50 and a full year wait for benefits. I remember the day back when I would get a new hire and be like "Your pay is nothing to get excited about, but your full benefits start in just a couple of months." No longer is this even the case. Should be at LEAST $10 an hour to start....and I think benefits should go back to starting at 6 months... "

Very good point upper management winds up the pt sups and you have kids yelling at other kids. As I have said before numbers on a spread sheet or a number against the amount of packages on a given shift just out of the sort managers reach. "Cannon fodder"

 

[UPSGUY72]

The union needs to address this issue. We are told to work as directed. Seniority doesnt matter as a part timer. Management move part timers around to different areas to benefit their #'s. How does the union let this happen?

Working Pt in the HUB and working FT as a driver out on the Road is to totally different animals. Making every PT job a bid job would open up alot more problems for the PTimers than they realize. Especially the PT that file grievances for less seniority PT working more hours.

 

[Integrity]

Rudy has a great point here as does PT Car Washer.. from a labor management perspective, the corporate negotiation team has been doing the company a grave disservice by not raising starting pay since the 1980's. Attendance in my hub (especially in the inbound/outbound) is atrocious - a lot of kids simply don't want to put up with production harassment (especially in the summer months) for bull**** pay ($8.50/hr that gets bumped up to 12.87/hr after four years) and no benefits for a full year. Coupled with the wait to go full time (which is at least 15 years if the person is able to qualify for a CDL, significantly higher if they want a 22.3 position) it causes headaches for the company. The only thing that has driven down turnover at my hub is the awful job market - pre-2007, new hire turnover was well over 60%.

You get what you pay for.

PiedmontSteard,

Why do you think the IBT has allowed this?

It has been suggested to me that they (IBT and locals) benefit from constant inflow of initiation fees from the high turnover rate this low pay causes.

I guess this suggestion might make sense.

Any thoughts?

Sincerely,
I

 

[Catatonic]

PiedmontSteard,

Why do you think the IBT has allowed this?

It has been suggested to me that they (IBT and locals) benefit from constant inflow of initiation fees from the high turnover rate this low pay causes.

I guess this suggestion might make sense.

Any thoughts?

Sincerely,
I

The Teamsters are all about money ... not that anything is wrong with that.

 

[PiedmontSteward]

PiedmontSteard,

Why do you think the IBT has allowed this?

It has been suggested to me that they (IBT and locals) benefit from constant inflow of initiation fees from the high turnover rate this low pay causes.

I guess this suggestion might make sense.

Any thoughts?

Sincerely,
I

I'm sure there's at least some truth there. However, in my local (which is in a RTW state), we waive initiation fees for part-timers every quarter. Part of this is because it's the right thing to do. The other (major) reason is because very few part-timers would ever sign a union card if it meant they were going to fork over half of their paycheck for their first 2-3 weeks at UPS. Personally, I don't agree with charging initiation fees period for part-timers when their starting pay is $8.50/hour. Maybe if they started at $12.50 and got benefits after 3 months..

I think the primary reason PT'ers tend to get the shaft is a lot simpler than that: they don't vote. This is for a multitude of reasons; most PT'ers don't see themselves being there after they finish school, they have another job that gobbles up their time so they miss union meetings, or they're too young to give a damn. Groups that don't vote in a democratic institution are, by default, not represented.

 

[Turmlos]

Here at the airport, all new employees have to submit to a 10 year federal backround check for badge purposes. Any felony is a no-go. Any violent misdemeanor is a no-go. Granted, these are airport commission rules, but effective nonetheless. Maybe something to be looked at for our ground buildings....

As much as I'd like to see that, it would never happen. That's asking an awful lot for $8.50 an hour. Besides, how are you going to run a 10 year background check on an 18 or 19 year-old? We don't get many older applicants here.

 

[LongTimeComing]

10 years is the standard FBI background check. I don't know the intricacies of how it works for younger folks....but minors can be charged as adults for many felonies...

I don't expect hubs and centers to do this specifically...but something more needs to happen. My employees also have to submit to drug screening if they are Weight and Balance certified or if they deal with the USPS volume that we handle. I think all potential new employees should be subject to a standard 5 panel piss test...BEFORE we start any of the paperwork or processing.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I think all potential new employees should be subject to a standard 5 panel piss test...BEFORE we start any of the paperwork or processing.

This may surprise some people but I totally disagree with this. If the applicant is going to be a PTer and will have no contact with customers what difference does it make what he/she does on their personal time.

 

[texan]

This may surprise some people but I totally disagree with this. If the applicant is going to be a PTer and will have no contact with customers what difference does it make what he/she does on their personal time.

Sure.. No problem having people with drug hang overs / extreme residue of meth, pot, barbituartes,
crack addictions, and violators of the law working for UPS.

There is no correlation with inablility to adhear with the law and integrity in a work place, is there?

I am sure they have an epiphany when they walk through the door to report to work and adherently
follow all rules to the letter, then leave and go home and become a non-compliant violator again.

It is supposed to be about character in UPS.

That is what is supposed to separate us from the competition.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

...which is why I added the disclaimer of no customer contact...does it really matter that some kid in the unload smoked a joint before coming in that morning?

 

[Brownslave688]

This may surprise some people but I totally disagree with this. If the applicant is going to be a PTer and will have no contact with customers what difference does it make what he/she does on their personal time.

Sure.. No problem having people with drug hang overs / extreme residue of meth, pot, barbituartes,
crack addictions, and violators of the law working for UPS.

There is no correlation with inablility to adhear with the law and integrity in a work place, is there?

I am sure they have an epiphany when they walk through the door to report to work and adherently
follow all rules to the letter, then leave and go home and become a non-compliant violator again.

It is supposed to be about character in UPS.

That is what is supposed to separate us from the competition.

These are some pretty young kids we r talking about. I came to preload so drunk one time I passed out while sorting (mostly just fear of calling in). Usually anyone with a serious drug or alcohol problem will soon be fired for attendance issues. The rest of us grow out of it.

 

[PiedmontSteward]

This may surprise some people but I totally disagree with this. If the applicant is going to be a PTer and will have no contact with customers what difference does it make what he/she does on their personal time.

One of the few times that you'll see me agree with Upstate. Drug tests - without any sort of just-cause and observationally-based testing - are intrusive and an invasion of privacy.

Translation: If you don't come to work ****ed up, you shouldn't get in trouble for getting ****ed up when you're at home.

 

[texan]

I disagree, yet I always welcome different opinions and points of view.

That is what this fine site is about.

 

[Integrity]

...which is why I added the disclaimer of no customer contact...does it really matter that some kid in the unload smoked a joint before coming in that morning?

UpstateNYUPSer,

It matters a great deal if someone is working at UPS under the influence of marijuana.

Individuals who smoke marijuana should not work with or near industrial conveyor equipment.

They would be considered a hazard to themselves and others.

Sincerely,
I