Raw
Raw Member
I don`t feel sorry for management losing their jobs. The majority I`ve worked with are liars and treat hourly`s with no respect. Karma!
EBO?
- Thread starter Instant Expert
- Start date
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
This is the part that puzzles me: without health insurance as a bridge to the retiree plan, no one in their right mind could take this, unless their spouse has a better job than they do. UPS must not care if a lot of 50-54's take this deal, because in my mind, health insurance is a deal breaker. Not many insurance companies will be lining up to sign 50+ year old people: too many preexisting conditions.
I don`t feel sorry for management losing their jobs. The majority I`ve worked with are liars and treat hourly`s with no respect. Karma!
You guys are dumb. The only way the buyout is bad is if your spouse doesn't work. Even then it's not too shabby. No one is losing their jobs they are getting an alternative to being run into the ground. I love the ignorance of the Teamsters. You guys work for UPS you should know better.
Look at it this way, does anyone know someone personally that is devastated over the 1800 jobs being downsized??? We are from all over the country so the 1800 people should know one of us....
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Because they dont need to make it more appealing.
The 50-54 year olds who dont take the buyout will probably wind up getting laid off or whacked anyway. Whether or not they feel that the offer is fair is of no concern to those who wrote the proposal in the first place. Its a business decision and its about numbers, not perceptions of fairness or loyalty.
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
That is a false assumption.
Individuals will be laid-off no doubt but it will based on positions and not an individuals age.
Over 40 is a protected age group and UPS will be very careful to not concentrate lay offs in the over 40 group because class-action law suits are very expensive, even if the company wins.
You can be assured they will not concentrate on minority groups or females either.
White males under 40 should be anxious if they are in positions being reduced.
Quiet, it is white male under 40 season, Ha..Ha...Ha...Ha...
With such a difference in the 50 -53 package, makes you wonder if the plan was designed to have them stay on. As I have stated in other posts the 54+ plan should have included the supervisors, they are all going to retire in 2010.
pretzel_man
Well-Known Member
From a VERY reliable source, they are really just targeting those over 55. They only expected about 5% to 10% of those less than 55 to take this offer.
Most people believe that not allowing bumping is the unfair part. I don't know if its because of the huge issue of managing it, legal issues, or both.
In either case, most people over 55 that I know are planning on taking the offer.
P-Man
As Paul Harvey always said “And now the rest of the story”. The details of the SRP have surfaced. As it has always been, the true partners are grade 18 and above. The center manager level is only included as a safety catch in case a grade 18 can not be placed. The way this seems to be unfolding 99+ percent of 54+ managers will take the SRP, thus leaving plenty of room to place the grade 18 and above.
As I have stated in prior posts the full time sup 54+ should have been included!
As I have stated in prior posts the full time sup 54+ should have been included!
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Surprised they think 5% will take it. Does not seem to be a good offer at all.
And as I have stated ... the EBO/SRP is about positions being eliminated and as far as I have heard, there are no supervisor positions being eliminated.
This about eliminating excess positions in an economical manner not about a gift to employees.
And as I have stated ... the EBO/SRP is about positions being eliminated and as far as I have heard, there are no supervisor positions being eliminated.
This about eliminating excess positions in an economical manner not about a gift to employees.[/QUOTE]
That sounds like a corporate talking point, just kidding.
The 55 & 54+ group are planning to retire, why give them the added gift of the SRP. 90% of this group will retire with or without it. But the fact is they will get it. My point is it was offered to all levels of management in an age group that is and will retire in 2010, except the full time supervisor. This age group is not about excess positions, it is something else. Leaving out the sup is an error on the part of corporate that will present problems.
This about eliminating excess positions in an economical manner not about a gift to employees.[/QUOTE]
That sounds like a corporate talking point, just kidding.
The 55 & 54+ group are planning to retire, why give them the added gift of the SRP. 90% of this group will retire with or without it. But the fact is they will get it. My point is it was offered to all levels of management in an age group that is and will retire in 2010, except the full time supervisor. This age group is not about excess positions, it is something else. Leaving out the sup is an error on the part of corporate that will present problems.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
I believe offering this to a group of employees who are of age 54+ and older whose positions would then have to be filled would actually more likely lead to problems than not offering them the buyout.
Your assumption that the 54+ will retire is not being born out by the trends over the last couple of years. These people are not quitting/retiring.
Last I heard, UPS is still trying to hire on-car supervisors ... therefore, I have to agree with Jingles on this one.
Curious ... what kind of problems?
Last edited:
Down in the trenches
I believe corp is out of touch with what is going on down in trenches. They are busy figuring out a way to take care of the grade 18's. I'm a 55 year old with 27 years in. I am not aware of hiring going on for any on car supervisors. Quite the opposite. I would have left with a EBO. My leaving may have opened up a position for a P/T supervisor or perhaps saved the job of a admin. as a result of downsizing. As was said before,partnership is only for 2 units and up.
I believe corp is out of touch with what is going on down in trenches. They are busy figuring out a way to take care of the grade 18's. I'm a 55 year old with 27 years in. I am not aware of hiring going on for any on car supervisors. Quite the opposite. I would have left with a EBO. My leaving may have opened up a position for a P/T supervisor or perhaps saved the job of a admin. as a result of downsizing. As was said before,partnership is only for 2 units and up.
OK, is this EBO going to do anything besides alot of internet chat. Does anybody remember the last one, which I believe was only a year ago. Just what percentage of those eligible took it and where are they now? Company loyality only goes so far, if those redundant individuals feel they are not going to get their fair share of the piece of the pie are they willing to go quietly? This can be a can of worms if not nasty if not done correctly. 
Re: Down in the trenches
It already is a can of worms. Just go talk to any supervisor 54+ and ask them how they feel about the SPR. I know of several who have called HR to voice their dissatisfaction, I plan to call on Monday. Do not let this go, make your thoughts known.
This can be a can of worms if not nasty if not done correctly.
It already is a can of worms. Just go talk to any supervisor 54+ and ask them how they feel about the SPR. I know of several who have called HR to voice their dissatisfaction, I plan to call on Monday. Do not let this go, make your thoughts known.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Re: Down in the trenches
I guess it never hurts to ask.
Maybe I'll do that to since my group was not included in the buyout either ... Kelli, I'll be calling you on Monday.
Are you aware that many groups/departments were excluded from the SPR?
Groups that are not planned to be downsized were excluded which happens to include operations supervisors.
I feel your pain (since I was excluded too) but offering the SPR to people whose positions are not planned to be downsized does not make sense.
JMO from what I can see and think through.
I guess it never hurts to ask.
Maybe I'll do that to since my group was not included in the buyout either ... Kelli, I'll be calling you on Monday.
Are you aware that many groups/departments were excluded from the SPR?
Groups that are not planned to be downsized were excluded which happens to include operations supervisors.
I feel your pain (since I was excluded too) but offering the SPR to people whose positions are not planned to be downsized does not make sense.
JMO from what I can see and think through.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Re: A year ago?
I missed that one and I track EBO offers closely.
There was an SVSO offered 3 years ago to Corporate employees and I was included in that offer so it was offered to levels less than 18.
I missed that one and I track EBO offers closely.
There was an SVSO offered 3 years ago to Corporate employees and I was included in that offer so it was offered to levels less than 18.
very sad
It is very clear that the partnership is dead except for the people at the top. We are about to get rid of 700 managers and who knows how many admins. That did not have to happen. I'm in BD as a supervisor and I was excluded. I"m 55 with 27 years. Many will say that is because my group was not impacted. That is rediculous. If I had left perhaps my slot would have prevented a admin from being let go or we could upgarded a part time supervisor. I came from operations. We have always told nobody is expendable and that we need to spend time in each department so we would not get complacent. Perhaps it would have been time for a operations person to make a lateral move.
Get real,this demononstartes a pattern of a no care attitude about the supervisor ,BD or operations, who have given UPS their all. It was a gift to get a specific group of individuals out of the company to protect their partners. Two units or grade 18's. The excuse of attrition is just another way of saying supervisors will leave because they can not handle the job.The patnershp is dead.
That has clearly been demonstrated.
It is very clear that the partnership is dead except for the people at the top. We are about to get rid of 700 managers and who knows how many admins. That did not have to happen. I'm in BD as a supervisor and I was excluded. I"m 55 with 27 years. Many will say that is because my group was not impacted. That is rediculous. If I had left perhaps my slot would have prevented a admin from being let go or we could upgarded a part time supervisor. I came from operations. We have always told nobody is expendable and that we need to spend time in each department so we would not get complacent. Perhaps it would have been time for a operations person to make a lateral move.
Get real,this demononstartes a pattern of a no care attitude about the supervisor ,BD or operations, who have given UPS their all. It was a gift to get a specific group of individuals out of the company to protect their partners. Two units or grade 18's. The excuse of attrition is just another way of saying supervisors will leave because they can not handle the job.The patnershp is dead.
That has clearly been demonstrated.
pretzel_man
Well-Known Member
Re: very sad
Not sure I get your logic. The majority being shown the door will be at higher levels.
Some groups were excluded; IS at all levels, Louisville at all levels.
I guess you think BD is an easy position to replace? You believe we can take an admin and fill a BD postion.... If that is true, then what people say here about BD may be right. At least for some of you.
P-Man
Not sure I get your logic. The majority being shown the door will be at higher levels.
Some groups were excluded; IS at all levels, Louisville at all levels.
I guess you think BD is an easy position to replace? You believe we can take an admin and fill a BD postion.... If that is true, then what people say here about BD may be right. At least for some of you.
P-Man
Similar threads
