Restructuring - The good, bad and ugly.

[hubrat]

upstate your point may be the intent but application tends to be that some meet the criteria you have defined while many other grievances are as I described. I've seen enough of them written over the years in operations I have worked and others. you have quite a few people in the ranks that could definitely teach management a thing or two about greed.

crow said something about integrity. the only integrity in the process is that a business agent will chase every dishonest grievance presented with vigor to save his worthless job.

Spoken just like one who is concerned about his bear costs.

You clearly haven't dealt with the same business agents I have.

 

[tieguy]

Spoken just like one who is concerned about his bear costs.

You clearly haven't dealt with the same business agents I have.

bear costs? what does the costs of injuries have to do with a dishonest grievance process? If you're going to fire a shot at me then at least try to stay in the same ball park.

Are you telling me your business agents would squash BS and or dishonest grievances?

 

[hubrat]

bear costs? what does the costs of injuries have to do with a dishonest grievance process? If you're going to fire a shot at me then at least try to stay in the same ball park.

Are you telling me your business agents would squash BS and or dishonest grievances?

I was responding to this statement:

...the only integrity in the process is that a business agent will chase every dishonest grievance presented with vigor to save his worthless job.

You are mistaken. And yes, I believe that my business manager would discourage a blatently dishonst grievance.

>$ paid for grievences = <$ in management's pocket. Am I mistaken about this? Bear cost was incorrect terminology, but are you telling me grievances don't affect center manager's budget?

 

[pretzel_man]

I was responding to this statement:



You are mistaken. And yes, I believe that my business manager would discourage a blatently dishonst grievance.

>$ paid for grievences = <$ in management's pocket. Am I mistaken about this? Bear cost was incorrect terminology, but are you telling me grievances don't affect center manager's budget?

I am not aware that grievances affect a budget or plan.....

They will impact the cost per piece and other metrics. If you are saying that the center and UPS are impacted one way or another, yes that's correct. Not in a "budget" really.

 

[FracusBrown]

I was responding to this statement:



You are mistaken. And yes, I believe that my business manager would discourage a blatently dishonst grievance.

>$ paid for grievences = <$ in management's pocket. Am I mistaken about this? Bear cost was incorrect terminology, but are you telling me grievances don't affect center manager's budget?

I am not aware that grievances affect a budget or plan.....

They will impact the cost per piece and other metrics. If you are saying that the center and UPS are impacted one way or another, yes that's correct. Not in a "budget" really.

It may affect cost per piece, but it's minuscule. A district has a cost of approximately $1 million per day. There is no direct connection to management's pocket with a grievance settlement. Utilities, vehicles, fuel, buildings and plant equip, repairs and a whole slew of things are charged directly to the centers/divisions. They are oblivious when it comes to cost. The only elements they pay attention to are the elements that are specifically tracked.

 

[tieguy]

I was responding to this statement:



You are mistaken. And yes, I believe that my business manager would discourage a blatently dishonst grievance.

>$ paid for grievences = <$ in management's pocket. Am I mistaken about this? Bear cost was incorrect terminology, but are you telling me grievances don't affect center manager's budget?

I believe your BA would not have his job very long if he squashed grievances. I've seen too many BA's in to many locals support fishing expeditions to believe any have integrity. The process is inherently dishonest.

 

[hubrat]

I believe your BA would not have his job very long if he squashed grievances. I've seen too many BA's in to many locals support fishing expeditions to believe any have integrity. The process is inherently dishonest.

I said he would discourage B.S. What I see go to panel around here requires no less than who, what, where, when, how, and how often and proof to back it up.

You have clearly not experienced the grievance process from an hourly's perspective.

I am sorry for being rude to you. It was an emotional reaction, yes, because the union reps that I deal with do have my best interest, as well as their own, in mind. They are human, and to say that they will all act unprofessionally to save what you call their "worthless jobs" is no different than someone saying all or most managers at UPS are slimeballs. It's just not true. If I have an issue that I cannot work out with management and a shop steward, and I stand to lose something of value to me whether it's dough or health or freaking respect I will darn well get my money's worth from the Teamsters.

There are dishonest takers in all professions. I am getting my money's worth outta the Union. UPS is getting theirs outta me.

I'm sure some people do try to abuse the process. But if the company is paying it out, odds are that there has been some impropriety on the part of management at some point.

It may affect cost per piece, but it's minuscule. A district has a cost of approximately $1 million per day. There is no direct connection to management's pocket with a grievance settlement. Utilities, vehicles, fuel, buildings and plant equip, repairs and a whole slew of things are charged directly to the centers/divisions. They are oblivious when it comes to cost. The only elements they pay attention to are the elements that are specifically tracked.

A center manager is anything but oblivious when it comes to cost. Most everything they are involved in is about money. Uniforms, supplies, accidents, injuries, lost time....any possible thing that can cost money comes out of the center's budget. Large centers that generate more revenue pay more out of their budgets than smaller centers for accidents and injuries, because the smaller centers do not generate enough revenue to cover their true costs. An accident that costs the company $71 can cost a center thousands.

My guess would be that payout for grievances is handled in the same manner.

The way I understand it, any budget surplus or debit is reflected in the center manager's bonus.

 

[hubrat]

I missed the point where this thread turned into a union discussion, though I am certain the restructuring will have a big impact during negotiations.

I love, love, love this article. I referenced it a while back in thread Making Unions Matter Again. This lady has some really good ideas.

http://www.thenation.com/article/156811/making-unions-matter-again

 

[tieguy]

I said he would discourage B.S. What I see go to panel around here requires no less than who, what, where, when, how, and how often and proof to back it up.

You have clearly not experienced the grievance process from an hourly's perspective.

no thank god. I've seen too many hourlies lied to by stewards and BA's who pretend to be real concerned but really look at the case as nothing but an excuse to go to panel and eat and drink well on the union dime.

Seen too many cut back room deals to save one guy while they serve up another.

And I've seen too many that present cases they should be shot for at a panel.

Some of the best union leadership I've ever seen never had the political skills to get elected to lead a union.

 

[FracusBrown]

I said he would discourage B.S. What I see go to panel around here requires no less than who, what, where, when, how, and how often and proof to back it up.

You have clearly not experienced the grievance process from an hourly's perspective.

I am sorry for being rude to you. It was an emotional reaction, yes, because the union reps that I deal with do have my best interest, as well as their own, in mind. They are human, and to say that they will all act unprofessionally to save what you call their "worthless jobs" is no different than someone saying all or most managers at UPS are slimeballs. It's just not true. If I have an issue that I cannot work out with management and a shop steward, and I stand to lose something of value to me whether it's dough or health or freaking respect I will darn well get my money's worth from the Teamsters.

There are dishonest takers in all professions. I am getting my money's worth outta the Union. UPS is getting theirs outta me.

I'm sure some people do try to abuse the process. But if the company is paying it out, odds are that there has been some impropriety on the part of management at some point.



A center manager is anything but oblivious when it comes to cost. Most everything they are involved in is about money. Uniforms, supplies, accidents, injuries, lost time....any possible thing that can cost money comes out of the center's budget. Large centers that generate more revenue pay more out of their budgets than smaller centers for accidents and injuries, because the smaller centers do not generate enough revenue to cover their true costs. An accident that costs the company $71 can cost a center thousands.

My guess would be that payout for grievances is handled in the same manner.

The way I understand it, any budget surplus or debit is reflected in the center manager's bonus.

Your understanding is incorrect. No bonus is directly tied to the centers budget. They talk about cost, but are unaware of some of the biggest items that affect true cost. Ask a center manager how much their fuel or utility or actual accident (not BEAR) cost was for any particular month. Uniforms, Bear, and a few other targeted areas a closely watched. Grievance cost is not on the radar screen.

 

[tieguy]

Your understanding is incorrect. No bonus is directly tied to the centers budget. They talk about cost, but are unaware of some of the biggest items that affect true cost. Ask a center manager how much their fuel or utility or actual accident (not BEAR) cost was for any particular month. Uniforms, Bear, and a few other targeted areas a closely watched. Grievance cost is not on the radar screen.

To that point I'm sometimes surprised that labor costs does not earn more attention. I think it would have if the lines were clearly drawn between right and wrong. But as anyone knows that attends these panels right and wrong takes a back seat to the whims of an arbitrator or other issues.

the last panel I went to saw a package driver who had been fired 5 times and suspended numerous additional times get another chance by selling some sob story about personal difficulties with a marriage.

Saw a guy who has had 10 accidents get anther chance. I wonder if the BA will lose any sleep when that guy goes out and kills someone on his next accident.

Both cases cost both sides a lot of money to present and hear. Neither case should have made it this far.

 

[pretzel_man]

A center manager is anything but oblivious when it comes to cost. Most everything they are involved in is about money. Uniforms, supplies, accidents, injuries, lost time....any possible thing that can cost money comes out of the center's budget. Large centers that generate more revenue pay more out of their budgets than smaller centers for accidents and injuries, because the smaller centers do not generate enough revenue to cover their true costs. An accident that costs the company $71 can cost a center thousands.

My guess would be that payout for grievances is handled in the same manner.

The way I understand it, any budget surplus or debit is reflected in the center manager's bonus.

As others have said, it doesn't work that way. Maybe it should.

 

[tieguy]

As others have said, it doesn't work that way. Maybe it should.

hubrat is refreshing for her idealism but at times shows signs of having drunk too much from the union punch bowl

the myth of center surplus's going into the center manager's pocket is a popular one in union brainwashing school....

 

[hubrat]

I love, love, love this article. I referenced it a while back in thread Making Unions Matter Again. This lady has some really good ideas.

http://www.thenation.com/article/156811/making-unions-matter-again

Thank y'all for the gentle clarification.

I'm still not coming back from mamby pamby land.

The examples Tie provided are extremes. At the other end I have seen a driver beg for medical care for 1-1/2 weeks when no one was questioning his right to it. A call to the business manager resulted in a call to the industrial commission and , voila, there was a doc appt the next day.

Which leads us back on task: a couple people weren't doing their jobs as instructed because they are having to manage way too many people. They're overworked and someone at the low end of the food chain suffered.

The only money lost was by the company b/c of the injury. No grievance was filed. No lawsuit will be b/c this dude really likes his job.

MOST of what I see grieved is somewhere between these two extremes. I have not had to struggle to keep my job. The takers that y'all are talking about are probably the scumbags that bury packages, Etc and make my job harder.

Some honest folks do fall through the cracks and get more than their money's worth from the union. I am personally grateful for this.

There are also a few Sups and managers at both extremes. The scumbags generally get weeded out pretty early. I am concerned about the ones in the middle and at the other extreme, wrongfully dismissed and abused b/c they have no representaion.

The restructuring needs retooling b/c the old style punitive management doesn't work well with it. People are being pushed to do impossible jobs and we all suffer.

hubrat is refreshing for her idealism but at times shows signs of having drunk too much from the union punch bowl

the myth of center surplus's going into the center manager's pocket is a popular one in union brainwashing school....

I knew this was a possiblity. I'm glad I know now.
The company has its own brand of myths about union employees.

 

[tieguy]

Thank y'all for the gentle clarification.

I'm still not coming back from mamby pamby land.

The examples Tie provided are extremes. .

you should get out more. not as extreme as you think

 

[hubrat]

Really? [/COLOR]

the last panel I went to saw a package driver who had been fired 5 times and suspended numerous additional times get another chance by selling some sob story about personal difficulties with a marriage.

Saw a guy who has had 10 accidents get anther chance. I wonder if the BA will lose any sleep when that guy goes out and kills someone on his next accident.

Both cases cost both sides a lot of money to present and hear. Neither case should have made it this far.

I've been around the block a couple times and this still sounds pretty extreme.

 

[tieguy]

Really?



I've been around the block a couple times and this still sounds pretty extreme.

how many panels have you gone to where you have listened to all the cases presented?

 

[Jones]

To that point I'm sometimes surprised that labor costs does not earn more attention. I think it would have if the lines were clearly drawn between right and wrong. But as anyone knows that attends these panels right and wrong takes a back seat to the whims of an arbitrator or other issues.

the last panel I went to saw a package driver who had been fired 5 times and suspended numerous additional times get another chance by selling some sob story about personal difficulties with a marriage.

Saw a guy who has had 10 accidents get anther chance. I wonder if the BA will lose any sleep when that guy goes out and kills someone on his next accident.

Both cases cost both sides a lot of money to present and hear. Neither case should have made it this far.

C'mon now, the BA didn't give him his job back he just presented the guy's case (that's his job). Did any of the company members of the panel vote to reinstate him? Even if it deadlocked that means an independent arbitrator made the decision which begs the question, if terminating this guy was such a slam dunk, why wasn't the company able to make an effective case for it?

 

[tieguy]

C'mon now, the BA didn't give him his job back he just presented the guy's case (that's his job).

I'll keep that in mind when the guy kills someone.

 

[Jones]

I'll keep that in mind when the guy kills someone.

The BA didn't give him his job back, the panel did. Why are you blaming it all on the BA?