what do part timers want in 2013

[brown_trousers]

cap·i·tal·ism

   /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.



I agree. Capitalism is the reason a company is created and invested in. In exchange, the people who invest reap financial gains.

I work a full time job as a manager for a small company less than 300 people and make a good living . The owners are second and third generation. They run the company by the founders philosophy "take care of your people " We are very very successful.

Good point. Capitalism has its advantages and disadvantages, just like any system. Fortunate for us though, there are no laws requiring UPS to conform to extreme capitalist principles. And many, many businesses here in America have shown us what success can come of giving more back to its workers as opposed to outside investors.

In fact, and I may be wrong on this one, but didn't Jim Casey himself build this company on the principle of sharing his success and/or profits with his employees. I think I remember reading that somewhere.

 

[beentheredonethat]

I go back to my other question. What is a reasonable profit for a company to make? I suggest that a 12% profit margin is not huge as others suggested. I want to work for a company that makes a profit. Somehow, it seems that if the company makes a profit, then it's "too much". That profit should be shared with the workers. I would totally agree with you if the workers were making far less then peers in other industries. But not many companies pay the same amount of money we pay our drivers. Not many companies put in the kind of money we put in for HW and Pension for PT employees. I think rewards have been shared. It just seems that there is a mentality that if the company makes money then "we" should get more money. Lots of people shared your opinion. Folks who worked for the airline industry, folks who worked in the auto industry in Detroit. However, when they took too much and their companies faced competition, they went into bankruptcy, they shrunk in size and a lot of those people lost in the long run.

 

[brown_trousers]

I go back to my other question. What is a reasonable profit for a company to make? I suggest that a 12% profit margin is not huge as others suggested. I want to work for a company that makes a profit. Somehow, it seems that if the company makes a profit, then it's "too much". That profit should be shared with the workers. I would totally agree with you if the workers were making far less then peers in other industries. But not many companies pay the same amount of money we pay our drivers. Not many companies put in the kind of money we put in for HW and Pension for PT employees. I think rewards have been shared. It just seems that there is a mentality that if the company makes money then "we" should get more money. Lots of people shared your opinion. Folks who worked for the airline industry, folks who worked in the auto industry in Detroit. However, when they took too much and their companies faced competition, they went into bankruptcy, they shrunk in size and a lot of those people lost in the long run.

Again, its a good question, and I'm not a business major so I don't really understand the complexities of profit vs cost vs etc... But I can't really imagine the difference in UPS making a 100% profit margin vs a 5% profit margin. Except that shareholders would see a larger dividend.

given a 100% profit margin, does UPS become huge, taking over the whole industry and creating a monopoly on shipping?
or...
given a 5% profit margin, does UPS declare banckruptcy, or maybe go out of business completely?

What difference will be seen at UPS making a smaller profit margin vs a larger one???

It just seems that there is a mentality that if the company makes money then "we" should get more money

Well thats just the mentality of the whole United States. Just as businesses compete to get a larger share of their market, we as workers compete to get a larger share of their profit. Its the circle of life, well business life!

Folks who worked for the airline industry, folks who worked in the auto industry in Detroit. However, when they took too much and their companies faced competition, they went into bankruptcy, they shrunk in size and a lot of those people lost in the long run.

yeah, I'll agree with you there. I see that kind of mentality here also. Unfortunately, I think that even if UPS was operating in the red and facing tough decisions, we Teamsters would be very reluctant to give up wages and/or benefits... but... Luckily we aren't in that situation. With UPS operating in the green, there is enough money to keep up with raises, remain competitive, and produce a profit. Its a win/win/win situation.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Again, its a good question, and I'm not a business major so I don't really understand the complexities of profit vs cost vs etc... But I can't really imagine the difference in UPS making a 100% profit margin vs a 5% profit margin. Except that shareholders would see a larger dividend.

given a 100% profit margin, does UPS become huge, taking over the whole industry and creating a monopoly on shipping?
or...
given a 5% profit margin, does UPS declare banckruptcy, or maybe go out of business completely?

At a very high level, Think of it for your own families household budget. The money you bring in from your paycheck is the "Income", all the money you spend (mortgage, insurance, food, entertainment etc etc) is your expenses. To make the math real simple, let's assume you earn $100 dollars in a week. For that same week, if you spent $105 dollars then you are getting in trouble since you spent $5 more then you took in and are running a deficit. If you spent only $95 dollars then you came out ahead $5. When you do that, you are running a 5% operating profit. In UPS example, they came out ahead $12 and is running a 12% profit margin.
Now, keep in mind, not everything shows up on the expenses. For example, if you borrowed money to buy your house, the expenses (per UPS cash flow) is only paying the interest only on the debt. Eventually you and UPS needs to pay that money back. So the profit can do that. (UPS borrowed heavily to pay the 6-7 billion dollar withdrawal for central states a few years ago). UPS has indicated they will borrow billions to buy TNT. Also, UPS like many companies pay divideds, so some of that money goes for the dividend payment. Also, UPS buys back stock from the market so there aren't as many shares outstanding.

Any company for any quarter can lose money and it's not a problem. But if you work for a company that loses money quarter after quarter after quarter. Most people will find they will soon be out of a job. (Since no one will work there). Or if they are lucky and the company reorganizes, they still have a job, but their pay is cut or the benefits reduced etc.

 

[beentheredonethat]

I work a full time job as a manager for a small company less than 300 people and make a good living . The owners are second and third generation. They run the company by the founders philosophy "take care of your people " We are very very successful.

PT Stewie, I have a question for you. I'm sure being a private company you don't know what the profit margin is for that company or what the family who owns it makes themselves. You seem very happy at this company and that is great. You also indicated the company is successful and they take care of the people.

My question is, would your opinion change if you found out that company has a profit margin of 40% (over 3 times UPS profit margins). What if you found out the company owners made tens of millions of dollars running the company. Would you still have the same opinion of the company? Or would you at that point say we want more money? It's not fair?

My point is that what you do and what you are paid s/b independent of what the company earns. Once you earn money and then invest in a company, you are risking your money, but you can be rewarded when the company makes money.

 

[brown_trousers]

At a very high level, Think of it for your own families household budget. The money you bring in from your paycheck is the "Income", all the money you spend (mortgage, insurance, food, entertainment etc etc) is your expenses. To make the math real simple, let's assume you earn $100 dollars in a week. For that same week, if you spent $105 dollars then you are getting in trouble since you spent $5 more then you took in and are running a deficit. If you spent only $95 dollars then you came out ahead $5. When you do that, you are running a 5% operating profit. In UPS example, they came out ahead $12 and is running a 12% profit margin.
Now, keep in mind, not everything shows up on the expenses. For example, if you borrowed money to buy your house, the expenses (per UPS cash flow) is only paying the interest only on the debt. Eventually you and UPS needs to pay that money back. So the profit can do that. (UPS borrowed heavily to pay the 6-7 billion dollar withdrawal for central states a few years ago). UPS has indicated they will borrow billions to buy TNT. Also, UPS like many companies pay divideds, so some of that money goes for the dividend payment. Also, UPS buys back stock from the market so there aren't as many shares outstanding.

As it was explained to me, a company's net profit is calculated after they decide how much they wish to reinvest into infastructure, operating costs, and/or share buybacks. So any money that is not reinvested is considered "net profit" and must be distributed as dividends to share holders.

I don't think the family budget analogy would work here. Because any extra money you made over budget, would go back to your original investor (which in this analogy would arguably be your parents, as they invested largely into your life).

But back to my original question.. what difference will we see at UPS if it makes a smaller profit margin vs a larger one???

Any company for any quarter can lose money and it's not a problem. But if you work for a company that loses money quarter after quarter after quarter. Most people will find they will soon be out of a job. (Since no one will work there). Or if they are lucky and the company reorganizes, they still have a job, but their pay is cut or the benefits reduced etc.

Luckily that's not the situation at UPS

 

[brown_trousers]

My point is that what you do and what you are paid s/b independent of what the company earns. Once you earn money and then invest in a company, you are risking your money, but you can be rewarded when the company makes money.

That philosophy is a double edged sword. referring back to your previous example of the airline companies and GM. Should those employees have considered dwindling profit margins when negotiating their wages? Or should they just keep negotiating wages/benefits while turning a blind eye to the negative profit margins of their company, thereby keeping profit margins and wages completely independent of each other.

 

[beentheredonethat]

As it was explained to me, a company's net profit is calculated after they decide how much they wish to reinvest into infastructure, operating costs, and/or share buybacks. So any money that is not reinvested is considered "net profit" and must be distributed as dividends to share holders...............
But back to my original question.. what difference will we see at UPS if it makes a smaller profit margin vs a larger one???

You aren't correct on net profit. Items that you mentioned like dividends and share buybacks is what the company does with the profit. As well as reinvesting in infrastructure such as Worldport expansion, or buying TNT.
If UPS sees a smaller profit margin that is recurring, then UPS won't have the money to reinvest in itself. We won't be able to buy companies like TNT, we won't be able to invest in all the Health care companies we have bought. We won't be able to have expanded worldport. Now, many will think, big deal, we don't need TNT, we don't need the healthcare companies, we don't need another DIAD. For you more seasoned drivers, how do you think the business would be like today if we never decided to become an airline and invests billions into our Air division? What would UPS be like today, if we didn't invest billions into technology and we decided to keep you all on paper? Because UPS had a decent amount of profit we had the money to invest so that we could keep existing volume and gain more profitable volume. Similarly, if we didn't invest in Europe and Asia, we wouldn't have the International inbound and export volume. So if we have very low profit margins, it won't impact us immediately, we will reduce our investments in the future. But, over a period of time this will seriously hurt the company. Also, by reducing profits, it probably will cause the stock price to decline. (For those of you who own stock this will hurt you financially). Also, if the profit declines, they may reduce or stop the dividend. Again impacting shareowners.

 

[anonymous4]

Wait, what is this discussion even about anymore? What are you really getting at beentheredonethat? I think most of us have understood what you're saying since junior high at the latest. Are you setting yourself up to make the implication that UPS is or is not making enough profit as to involve what teamsters should or should not ask for in the coming contract?

 

[beentheredonethat]

No, others have stated that UPS makes HUGE profits. My point is that 12% is not HUGE. Also, that 12% then gets spent on multiple things including investing in airplanes, worldport expansion, TNT purchases, dividends etc. I'm just countering the idea that has been said many times that we need to get ours since UPS makes a HUGE profit. I'm all for UPS paying a leading industry pay rate. I'm all for having good benefits for our people. I just don't understand the mentality that people seem to believe they are getting screwed because the company makes money. I further stated that a lot of companies that paid incredible pay rates became noncompetitive (airlines, car industry etc) those employees had it good for a while. However, in the long run they were also hurt when the company couldn't keep up. Working for a profitable company is a good thing. Many on here think it's not.

 

[Inthegame]

No, others have stated that UPS makes HUGE profits. My point is that 12% is not HUGE. Also, that 12% then gets spent on multiple things including investing in airplanes, worldport expansion, TNT purchases, dividends etc. I'm just countering the idea that has been said many times that we need to get ours since UPS makes a HUGE profit. I'm all for UPS paying a leading industry pay rate. I'm all for having good benefits for our people. I just don't understand the mentality that people seem to believe they are getting screwed because the company makes money. I further stated that a lot of companies that paid incredible pay rates became noncompetitive (airlines, car industry etc) those employees had it good for a while. However, in the long run they were also hurt when the company couldn't keep up. Working for a profitable company is a good thing. Many on here think it's not.

We should all hope UPS is around many many years after we all retire. I just hope their careful with those TNT purchases.

 

[brown_trousers]

Wait, what is this discussion even about anymore? What are you really getting at beentheredonethat? I think most of us have understood what you're saying since junior high at the latest. Are you setting yourself up to make the implication that UPS is or is not making enough profit as to involve what teamsters should or should not ask for in the coming contract?

Im pretty sure he is saying that the success and/or decline of UPS (or any company) should have no bearing on what we negotiate for raises or paycuts, they should be made completely independent of each other.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Im pretty sure he is saying that the success and/or decline of UPS (or any company) should have no bearing on what we negotiate for raises or paycuts, they should be made completely independent of each other.

You said it differently then I would, but very close to my opinion. My opinion is the pay you make should be somewhat based on what the job entails, and also what other companies pay for similar jobs. One of the reasons our drivers make more then others is that they are more efficient. However, another benefit UPS has had for years is we had incredible density and we had multiple PPS (pieces per stop). AS FDX Ground grows and grows, that advantage is being minimized. If we keep going like we have, eventually we will no longer be competitive. Similar to how legacy airlines were hurt when newer companies came on the scene (Southwest, Airtran, Jet Blue etc). We can't kill the golden goose and try to squeeze every gram of gold out of her. Eventually there will be none left.

 

[beentheredonethat]

One last point, no one has ever answered the question. How much is too much? What profit margin should a company make and the employees say "Yeah that's good".

 

[menotyou]

I have no concern about how much they make. What I do have a concern with is them saying they can't afford this or that when I see what those same people are making, what their benny's, and what they have in the UPS bank account.

 

[upsman2940]

Every time we raise our rates FedEx raises theirs... And they still don't profit as much ups does. We don't have to worry till FedEx changes their business model that makes them more efficient. They send out 4/5 drivers to do what I do by myself.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Every time we raise our rates FedEx raises theirs... And they still don't profit as much ups does. We don't have to worry till FedEx changes their business model that makes them more efficient. They send out 4/5 drivers to do what I do by myself.

Published rates are virtually the same between the carriers that is true. But FDX can and does discount the published rates more then UPS can. Our rate structure for ground is higher then FDX. One of the reasons that we have been able to still be profitable is that we have better density then FDX Ground does. By having density we can run more stops per hour and we deliver more Pieces per stop. However, if you look at the FDX yearly statements in 2009 FDX ground did 3.4 Million Pkgs/Day, in 2011 they did 3.746 Million Pkgs/day. That's about 1/3 million pkgs per day more in two years. They are growing density. The Smartpost volume was 827 thousand Pkgs/Day in 2009. In 2011 it was 1.432 Million pkgs per day. That's a huge increase in smartpost volume. The more volume they get in that network, the better and more efficient that network can run. If they keep growing at the rate they have been growing we will eventually lose the density advantage we have over them. Combine that with their lower cost and it will be bad news for UPS. Now, this won't happen in 1 year, or 2 years or probably even 5 years. But unless something changes, we will be in trouble. Look at the FDX annual report. You will see some scary stuff. They are growing faster then we are and they are winning market share in the ground network.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

...which is why something needs to be done about the wage disparity between Ground and UPS. Since we can't control their labor costs, we need to get a handle on ours, which is why I think we will see a two-tiered wage system for new FT hourlies, if not in 2013, most certainly in 2019, with a lower starting wage, longer progression and lower top rate.

 

[brown_trousers]

...which is why something needs to be done about the wage disparity between Ground and UPS. Since we can't control their labor costs, we need to get a handle on ours, which is why I think we will see a two-tiered wage system for new FT hourlies, if not in 2013, most certainly in 2019, with a lower starting wage, longer progression and lower top rate.

I think it would be hard to sell that idea at the negotiating table. Maybe if our company was facing certain doom like GM was, it would be easier to sell the idea.

at the very least, I hope the teamsters would consider it, but only as a bargain to get something else pushed through that we really want to see.

Just as we teamsters would be giving up a HUGE amount of future wages in allowing them to install a two-tiered wage system, we would want them to give us something huge in return. Thus is how negotiating works.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

....signing bonus and continued paid healthcare?