Sadly, the example was not that absurd, as there were just such slackers in the center I worked in. I heard one was fired after I left but came back, and one wound up killing someone after I left. To be sure, such slackers are the exception, but they exist and the pathological way in which so many posters on this site deny their existence does get under my skin I will admit.
The incentive for the union is easy to understand. The slower each member of a workforce goes, the more members are needed to get the work done, therefor the more dues paid to the union. Simple finance.
As to profitability, yes, the union gives lip service to the idea that it wants the company to make a profit. But it is pure lip service
Oh, there was plenty of ineptitude in the operations I worked in, on both sides of the hourly/management divide. Some stellar talents as well.
Well of course the allowances are irrelevant. "My union does not recognize any production standards", isn't that the script?
In a word, no. That is not how MIP works.
Two things here -
1 - You said the manager was concerned about his "sub-par" production numbers. Are you sure he only meant less than scratch as sub-par? I had trainees that were not running scratch regularly on training routes but doing a decent job comparatively, and I fought for them to qualify.
2 - your story of him going back to night after 9 years is a play on emotions and totally irrelevant. While it sucks for him, and I get that, I do, that has nothing to do with whether or not he is cut out to be a driver. I can only remember one FT driver trainee I was assigned that actually DQ'd. He worked nights, had been with the company about 7 years waiting for his shot I think. I did everything I could to try to help him be successful. We went out on a training route with about 6 hours worth of work. I made sure it stayed that way and would come in early to cut work off if the PDS skewed the route. I hand drew maps of the route to show him the sequence breaks and the side street naming conventions in the resi area. After just a few days he was out over 12 hours with 6 hours of work, and he DQ'd himself. Nice guy, it was heartbreaking and I felt horrible, but he was simply not cut out to be a driver, and I had mad respect for him that he recognized it. "This job is not for everyone" is a term that gets thrown around a bunch in regards to UPS driving. I really get the feeling that when union types such as yourself say it, you are only paying it lip service, the attitude among most here is that when your turn comes up in seniority, that is it, you should just become a driver. My impression is when a union rep says "this job is not for everyone" it is just lip service, much like
the "we want the company to make a profit" bit.
Did they designate the route as a training route after the 35yr guy retired? In our district we could do so. What is more important to me is did they dispatch it correctly as a training route? Also, if your 35 year guy was routinely 1.5-2 hours over, why was that? Was he a poor driver? (yes, that is possible). How did the cover drivers do when he was on vacation? Were they all 1.5 -2 over, or did most of them run nearer scratch? What was this trainees over? If the vet ran 1.5-2 over and your trainee was still 3+ over after day 20, then I'm going to have to be on your center managers side on this one.
Fair enough, point to you grammar nazi.
I was not the weakest of supervisors in my operations, but I was certainly not a really strong operator. I was way too soft on hourlies to ever be considered a strong operator. I preferred to resolve issues without conflict and tried to see the best in everyone I worked with. I fought with my superiors defending my employees more often than I ever fought with my direct reports. So there may be some truth to your theory. As to my ability to do the work and build a solid "case" on the slackers I admit I never really tried (although I doubt any case would have been solid enough with our labor dept). See, I never tried to build a "case" to fire anyone. I always looked at any termination as a failure on the part of management. So I merely tried to work with the slackers in my group to make them better. I was successful with some. With others I was marginally successful but only temporarily and they would back slide. With some I was a dismal failure. It is what it is.
I can say without reservation that all of that had no bearing on my tapping out. My tapping out was due solely to family obligation. Although I freely admit not having to deal with any of that crap for the rest of my life did have a bearing on my last day being just that much more joyous.
I get it. I am not sure you do. Remember, the qualifying probation period is the one period UPS owns, so to speak. It is the one period where UPS can
DQ someone for almost any reason and it is more incumbent on you as this employees representative to build a case as to why he should not be DQ'd.
You have not done that in this case IMO.
Here again you make the emotional argument. I will give you that one. Emotionally, I feel for the guy, I really do,
but his years of service and being sent back to PT, as badly as it sucks, has absolutely no place in making a case that he should not have been DQ'd. Do you
get that?[/QUOTE
Your "example" was absurd and declared a "joke" and I agree.
The Union fights for all members equally, as we are duty bound, by law, to do just that?
The Union also realizes the necessity for the Company to be profitable in order to negotiate good contracts for all members.
Not sure what incentive there is to defend "slackers", over and above what is legally required.
Perhaps you need to accept the ineptitude of the operations you worked in, and the feebleness of those labor departments, who were unable to make "your" cases against these "slackers" stick?
Irrelevant???...allowances are irrelevant, really???
Isn't that the same "irrelevant" criteria the "chosen 18%" are compensated over and above on in bonus centers?
Isn't that the criteria that plays a role in management MIP bonuses?
It was for sure the criteria this trainee was held to, when he failed to "scratch" the route...and is for sure why he found himself back in the night sort again, after 9 years with the Company.
That certainly sounds reasonable, had the route been an established "training route".
Instead we are talking about a route that was vacated by a 35 year driver in my loop, who retired weeks prior to this trainee being assigned to it.
This retired driver (like every other driver in the 4 car loop) was routinely 1.5-2 hours over allowed every day for a decade.
"and" is a conjunction and should never start a sentence, which is why it looked so ridiculous capitalized.
That being said, you normally come off as fairly objective, but this "slacker theory" of your's stinks of your professional failures as a manager, aside from disqualifying trainees.
How many drivers got over on you, due to your inability to do the work and build a solid case on these "slackers"?
Is that why you tapped out?
I don't know if you can see it now?...but you don't "get it".
Because while you say "it's on" my "weak management team", the reality is the weight is squarely on the unjustly disqualified, 9 year part time sort employee, who found himself on the outside looking back in for the next opportunity to be arbitrarily judged by the next center manager.
