FT sup retaliates against gf of person who wrote grievance.

[brownIEman]

Well well. A likely response from a character with IE in the name. There is a reason the contract is the way it is "fair days work for fair days pay". People work at different speeds and someone is going to be at the bottom. I like the way you refer to it as the employee being the one to violate the contract. Ive been around this "game" for a long time and there are very very few at UPS who dont give a fair days work. The ones that are truly stealing time are shown the door and sticks at panel. Sorry if its not fast enough for you or your computer generated concept of how fast the robots should perform. Keep your hands off the boxes and hire a few more people. Or keep working and keep lining my pocket

There are more than a few people that do not give a fair days work in the operation I am in. It is not a huge number percentage wise, but it is way larger than it should be. As for violating the contract, if you are not giving a fair days work, you are violating the contract. It happens all the time in this company, even you admit that, you just seem to think the number is way lower than I do. So, if you admit that employees violate the contract, why do you have an issue with me pointing it out?

 

[unionslug]

There are more than a few people that do not give a fair days work in the operation I am in. It is not a huge number percentage wise, but it is way larger than it should be. As for violating the contract, if you are not giving a fair days work, you are violating the contract. It happens all the time in this company, even you admit that, you just seem to think the number is way lower than I do. So, if you admit that employees violate the contract, why do you have an issue with me pointing it out?

No problem with it being pointed out. Its just very subjective to your opinion because more are not making a magic number. I simply have a feeling by not meeting some quota they are deemed not giving a fair days work. Thats simply not true. If it is then fire them. Should have no problem getting rid of them right?

 

[brownIEman]

No problem with it being pointed out. Its just very subjective to your opinion because more are not making a magic number. I simply have a feeling by not meeting some quota they are deemed not giving a fair days work. Thats simply not true. If it is then fire them. Should have no problem getting rid of them right?

You are making a couple of false assumptions. I am not talking about meeting any sort of quota.

I am talking about a pre-loader hiding in the back of his package car texting his girl friend when there is plenty of work on his or his neighbor's slide. A sorter who walks right past a fellow sorter who is backed up by a strong team to run outside for a smoke or to the bathroom EVERY time there is a shift on his door. I am talking about an unloader sent to the preload who ambles at a pace my grandmother would not consider brisk even though she has been dead for 10 years. But boy, look at the pace he uses on the way out on a Friday, and you would think it was a different person entirely.

Should have no problem getting rid of them you say? Of course it is a problem getting rid of them. First off, that is NEVER my first choice. I take no sense of accomplishment in firing anyone, even a slug. I would rather change the behavior. And that is a challenge, and often takes a long time, and is often hampered by the very discipline process that is supposed to facilitate it due to the effect on attitude and moral that process can have. Secondly, the process is quite complex and labor intensive, and even in the most obvious cases adds hours of work onto my day, for several days. It is supposed to be difficult to fire someone. If as you say, you think it is "no problem" to get rid of hourly employees, I would ask why the heck are you paying union dues? If I was a union employee and I thought it was easy to get rid of a union employee, even a guilty one, I would ask for all of my dues back. The system makes it difficult to get rid of the hourlies who should be gotten rid of so that it is nearly impossible to get rid of the employees who should NOT be gotten rid of. That is the whole point.

 

[unionslug]

You are making a couple of false assumptions. I am not talking about meeting any sort of quota.

I am talking about a pre-loader hiding in the back of his package car texting his girl friend when there is plenty of work on his or his neighbor's slide. A sorter who walks right past a fellow sorter who is backed up by a strong team to run outside for a smoke or to the bathroom EVERY time there is a shift on his door. I am talking about an unloader sent to the preload who ambles at a pace my grandmother would not consider brisk even though she has been dead for 10 years. But boy, look at the pace he uses on the way out on a Friday, and you would think it was a different person entirely.

Should have no problem getting rid of them you say? Of course it is a problem getting rid of them. First off, that is NEVER my first choice. I take no sense of accomplishment in firing anyone, even a slug. I would rather change the behavior. And that is a challenge, and often takes a long time, and is often hampered by the very discipline process that is supposed to facilitate it due to the effect on attitude and moral that process can have. Secondly, the process is quite complex and labor intensive, and even in the most obvious cases adds hours of work onto my day, for several days. It is supposed to be difficult to fire someone. If as you say, you think it is "no problem" to get rid of hourly employees, I would ask why the heck are you paying union dues? If I was a union employee and I thought it was easy to get rid of a union employee, even a guilty one, I would ask for all of my dues back. The system makes it difficult to get rid of the hourlies who should be gotten rid of so that it is nearly impossible to get rid of the employees who should NOT be gotten rid of. That is the whole point.

Not exactly my point but I see yours. My point that if an employee is not giving a fair days work and is stealing time, then yes it is easy to fire them since it should be cut and dry. But its not because its not violating fair days work in most cases. You pay part timers 8.50 an hour and then expect robotic work with unrealistic expectations. I wasnt aware that workers were allowed to take breaks except at certain times so dont know how that works.

 

[deleted9]

Unwritten? That means nothing... It can be used in my state, all day, every day...If I have to use something recorded it won't be between the union and UPS.. It will be my lawyer and UPS.. It has been used many times around my parts and is still being used today.

Nice try!!!

 

[brownIEman]

Not exactly my point but I see yours. My point that if an employee is not giving a fair days work and is stealing time, then yes it is easy to fire them since it should be cut and dry. But its not because its not violating fair days work in most cases. You pay part timers 8.50 an hour and then expect robotic work with unrealistic expectations. I wasnt aware that workers were allowed to take breaks except at certain times so dont know how that works.

It is, in my experience, never cut and dry. The employee and the stewards will try to obvuscate, evade, redirect and stall as much as possible. As they should, at least for the stewards, they are serving as the equivelant of a defense attorney. And the amount they can do this, even in a seeming cut and dry case is considerable given the system.

I am not expecting robots. I am expecting them to be working while I am paying them. And just FYI, I have combos making $30/hr who are some of the worst offenders when it comes to giving me a fair effort, so I am not at all swayed by poor me low wage arguments. Take pride in what you do or find something else to do, don't take a job and then do it half-assed just because you feel you are not paid enough.

Break times are set. So... would you have an issue with me not letting someone go the the restroom when it is not break? Or would you like many who have posted here say that is a health issue and I should not be questioning people about it? Should I hire enough part time sups to watch every hourly every minute of the day, or would that be over supervision leading to grievances? Can I not at any point say these people are adults and should know better than to sneak extra breaks and lengthen the breaks they do get by hiding out when no one is looking? And are these extra rest periods stealing time, or as some have said on this board, just attendance infractions for not being back from break on time?

A supervisor working is cut and dry, with definition and consequences clearly defined. So you get to feel like the rghteous crusader and decry the bad guys. You want the failure to give a fair days work to be the same so you can say "hey it is cut and dry so if you cannot easily prove it, it must not be true, you must just be expecting too much from people or wrongfully persecuting them." The reality is simply not that way.

 

[unionslug]

It is, in my experience, never cut and dry. The employee and the stewards will try to obvuscate, evade, redirect and stall as much as possible. As they should, at least for the stewards, they are serving as the equivelant of a defense attorney. And the amount they can do this, even in a seeming cut and dry case is considerable given the system.

I am not expecting robots. I am expecting them to be working while I am paying them. And just FYI, I have combos making $30/hr who are some of the worst offenders when it comes to giving me a fair effort, so I am not at all swayed by poor me low wage arguments. Take pride in what you do or find something else to do, don't take a job and then do it half-assed just because you feel you are not paid enough.

Break times are set. So... would you have an issue with me not letting someone go the the restroom when it is not break? Or would you like many who have posted here say that is a health issue and I should not be questioning people about it? Should I hire enough part time sups to watch every hourly every minute of the day, or would that be over supervision leading to grievances? Can I not at any point say these people are adults and should know better than to sneak extra breaks and lengthen the breaks they do get by hiding out when no one is looking? And are these extra rest periods stealing time, or as some have said on this board, just attendance infractions for not being back from break on time?

A supervisor working is cut and dry, with definition and consequences clearly defined. So you get to feel like the rghteous crusader and decry the bad guys. You want the failure to give a fair days work to be the same so you can say "hey it is cut and dry so if you cannot easily prove it, it must not be true, you must just be expecting too much from people or wrongfully persecuting them." The reality is simply not that way.

Your reality isnt the same as what happens higher up. Certain standards are set by IE and those numbers are set in stone. Humans dont work that way. Id say if a worker is taking too many breaks, then address it and discipline. Going to the bathroom is not a break time. If its abused, address it. If I am a worker and the magic number says that I am supposed to handle 1000 pieces per hour yet I only handle 900 am I not giving a fair days work? Maybe I am just slow. Is that ok with you? If I am at my station going too slow yet not leaving my area or goofing off, am I going to be in trouble? I go at a safe pace that hopefully will get me to retirement time. If a worker is stealing time, it may take some time but is very hard to defend if it is real

 

[brownIEman]

Your reality isnt the same as what happens higher up. Certain standards are set by IE and those numbers are set in stone. Humans dont work that way. Id say if a worker is taking too many breaks, then address it and discipline. If I am a worker and the magic number says that I am supposed to handle 1000 pieces per hour yet I only handle 900 am I not giving a fair days work? Maybe I am just slow. Is that ok with you? If I am at my station going too slow yet not leaving my area or goofing off, am I going to be in trouble? I go at a safe pace that hopefully will get me to retirement time. If a worker is stealing time, it may take some time but is very hard to defend if it is real

You keep going back to these numbers from higher up. I get them, I get my a@@ chewed on a regular basis for my operation not meeting them. I don't care. I am a UPS management person and a partner in the business, I have a very thick skin. I do not, under any circumstances use them as a measuring stick for discipline.

If you are going too slow will you be in trouble? Of course. But then, what is the definition of too slow? If you are going at a steady pace, that could be described as the fastest pace you can personally set that will A) Keep you safe, B) allow you to work accurately and not miss handle packages, and C) allow you to maintain the pace for the entire shift, then no, you are not going too slow.
If on days you have plans and need to leave early and I agree to let you go as soon as your area is wrapped you have a quick pace and handle your say 1000 pph and do it safely, but on every other day your pace is slower and you only do the 900 then I know you are capable of an effort that you refuse to routinely give. But how do I address it? If your methods are the same, just your pace is slower, and I talk to you about it, and you just say "I am doing the best I am capable of". Is the union going to accept my disciplining you? Or will they fight it tooth and nail?

Going to the bathroom is not a break time. If its abused, address it.

And um, just exactly how would you suggest I address it? What way could I address it that would get a union steward to assist me in changing the behavior?