I want to live in I.E. world

[UnconTROLLed]

What I am coming to find out, right or wrong, is that it is simply impossbile for i.e. to make a fair time study. By making impossible expectations via the methods, this ensures that no employee is every "good enough" and that i.e. has has a purpose.

If every driver (or close to it) were "good enough", sporh/time allowances, etc, then at least a portion of i.e. would have nothing to do, and therefore not have jobs, when their job is to calculate and formulate improvements to methods, looping, and in general improve such things.

 

[tieguy]

Yes....I do think it is relevant. The time standards they are using now are a joke....they are unatainable. Just a little bio info before I go on. 23 yrs. with UPS....never a warning letter....scratch driver...near perfect attendence....anyway...I always thought the standards were a "guide", but now we have spineless sups. that will not stand up to IE and tell them that they are wrong....instead the sh.t is rolling downhill and landing on some of my friends. That....is relevant to me.

but yet you run scratch?

And no the question was not relevant since you already knew the answer.

 

[tieguy]

......so how do they know you are any good? If they know nothing about delivering pkgs......how are they in any position to rate you....or is that too much logic for an IE guy ?

They were rating industrial engineering groups not drivers.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

I assumed correct job setup in my comments, but your observation simply adds to my point: an actual that is CONSISTENTLY over or under points out a problem that must be addressed. If setup is a problem, demonstrated by consistently showing as off performance, where then is the ACTION to be taken by the IE function, and the operations managers, to FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM?????

Anyone using statistical process control (which is really what we are trying to do with our time studies) knows that you need to FIX THE PROCESS if you don't like what the process is giving you. So why aren't the IE's and the preload sups and whoever the hell else is in charge of the preload fixing the loading problem????

I was in package for over 11 years. I had one loader on the various routes I covered who loaded the truck stop for stop. One. And what became of him? He quit because of the tremendous pressure they put on him to load faster.

 

[TheKid]

but yet you run scratch?

And no the question was not relevant since you already knew the answer.

I am one of the lucky ones with a route that "works up"......there is a route in my center that I used to cover....I used to do 85..90 stops in about 9 hrs. and I was a hero........they are now telling that driver that 120 stops is barely an 8 hr. day......no major changes in the area....no malls built...no big pickups moved in or out.........very hard to explain. But I am sure Pretz could.........

 

[TheKid]

They were rating industrial engineering groups not drivers.

....but if the standards are way off..........how good of a job did they do?

 

[dannyboy]

Kid

You've not been reading. There are no problems with the standards, they are pretty much right on.

Where the problem lies is the actual real world application of those standards.

As has been posted, the standards for you are only as good as the preloader loaded your truck. They are only as good as that last minute split that dumped 35 stops on top of your first 5 bulk stops out the back.

After all, moving those out of the truck to the dock several times before you have an area to load them to does waste time.

I was lucky in that my loader has been with UPS since the early 80's. Maybe 5 misloads a year. And those are misloaded on the right truck, just wrong area. And usually done when management gets in his way and gripes at him.

All these things affect the delivery day. They know it. To sweep it under the rug and change the allowances fixes the allowances, but still allows the time wasting cause to continue, but now without any indication there is a problem.

So I understand not glossing the problem over by allowing that behavior to become the norm and give allowances for it.

What I dont understand, and has not been addressed, is management's reaction to drivers that have a consistent problem breaking even on the standards, even when a sup rides with them to do audits on methods.

Why are they beating us over the head with production, when 1, they are the root cause of part of the problem, 2, they have chosen not to adjust the time allowances to reflect that problem, 3 and they have also decided not to tackle the root cause of the problem either.

Its just easier to beat the driver over the head.

d

 

[pretzel_man]

I assumed correct job setup in my comments, but your observation simply adds to my point: an actual that is CONSISTENTLY over or under points out a problem that must be addressed. If setup is a problem, demonstrated by consistently showing as off performance, where then is the ACTION to be taken by the IE function, and the operations managers, to FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM?????

Anyone using statistical process control (which is really what we are trying to do with our time studies) knows that you need to FIX THE PROCESS if you don't like what the process is giving you. So why aren't the IE's and the preload sups and whoever the hell else is in charge of the preload fixing the loading problem????

Tech:

I've posted over and over that I see this as the number one problem in the package operations. Work measurement is supposed to point out where problems exist. Its doing that.

I also believe that poor I.E.'s and operations people end up trying to fix it from the drivers side, and miss the root cause. I have posted this many times too.

So, I cannot disagree with you about process control and fixing root causes.

Your previous statement as well as others that say if the average across the country is not scratch, the problem is work measurement.

A much better discussion is how to fix the preload. That will improve the drivers' day.

P-Man

 

[pretzel_man]

....but if the standards are way off..........how good of a job did they do?

Are the standards off or is the problem in the drivers' loads?

From what I've seen its the load. I pointed out before. If the driver sorts his load, he will be over allowed. The standard is correct. Its the crappy load from the preload causing the driver to be over.

I have agreed before that...

If the driver is following the proper methods. Has a good load. Has a good dispatch. Has a good trace.

If all the above are true, and the driver is still overallowed outside 5%, more than 5% of the time, then the problem is the work measurement.

By the way, of the four items I mentioned above, only one is in control of the driver.

P-Man

 

[TheKid]

Are the standards off or is the problem in the drivers' loads?

From what I've seen its the load. I pointed out before. If the driver sorts his load, he will be over allowed. The standard is correct. Its the crappy load from the preload causing the driver to be over.

I have agreed before that...

If the driver is following the proper methods. Has a good load. Has a good dispatch. Has a good trace.

If all the above are true, and the driver is still overallowed outside 5%, more than 5% of the time, then the problem is the work measurement.

By the way, of the four items I mentioned above, only one is in control of the driver.

P-Man

Pretz....may I call you Pretz............my problem (I guess) then is not with IE...it is with mgmt. that takes these standards as gospel. UPS always seems to go to the result(driver) and tries to fix it instead of going to the cause(bad load, wrong standards, bad dispatch). Sorry...as a steward... it is frustrating having to defend drivers that have done nothing wrong.

 

[pretzel_man]

Pretz....may I call you Pretz............my problem (I guess) then is not with IE...it is with mgmt. that takes these standards as gospel. UPS always seems to go to the result(driver) and tries to fix it instead of going to the cause(bad load, wrong standards, bad dispatch). Sorry...as a steward... it is frustrating having to defend drivers that have done nothing wrong.

I am in absolute agreement with you. Management needs to do what they are paid to do, and that is fix the root cause.

Maybe you can use some of what has been posted here as ammo. If the driver has a poor load, poor trace, poor dispatch, etc he/she will be overallowed.

I always work on these items first. I work with the preload to get the right package on the right shelf and position. Lip load, properly move packages to the floor is shelves are full, snake the load if necessary, reduce missorts, fix the dispatch, trace, etc.

I assume you would agree that if all those things were taken care of, a driver has a pretty good shot at being scratch?

From my experience, these steps reduces miles and overallowed.

Pretz

 

[brownrodster]

I am in absolute agreement with you. Management needs to do what they are paid to do, and that is fix the root cause.

Pretz

The preloads only goal is to load the trucks as fast as possible and get off the clock. They are not held accountable for the drivers having a bad day. It's the driver sups and center manager that are yelled at then that SH** rolls downhill to the drivers who are beaten over the head to perform.

Nothing changes at UPS. No problems are fixed. All that matters are the numbers and whoevers name shows up beside a bad number is the person responsible for that bad number. Warning letters and supervised rides are the solution for a driver having a bad day.

 

[Just Numbers]

For the most part, yes....subject to the contract language which requires that the age and physical condition of the employee be taken into account.

Stop Spinning for an excuse...the answer is either yes or no. Nothing more!

 

[soberups]

Stop Spinning for an excuse...the answer is either yes or no. Nothing more!

My supervisor is 53 years old and his back is shot.

He will be the first to admit that he is physically incapable of maintaining the same work pace he expects from me.

I am obligated by the contract to give a fair days work for a fair days pay which means that I need to do the job to the best of my ability, which at this time by far exceeds what my supervisor is capable of demonstrating.

Some day, that situation may well be reversed and I will be the 53 yr old with a bad back who will be physically incapable of maintaining a pace that would be easy for some 24 yr old supervisor to demonstrate.

When that happens, the provision in the contract requiring that the age and physical condition of the employee be taken into consideration will apply to my case.

Thats the beauty of the contract. It addresses these situations.

 

[Bubblehead]

Look here's the deal as simply reduced as possible.
You guys can continue to dissect this if you like, but here it is in a nut shell.
We deal with managers that would be more accurately labeled "facilitators".
All of which are powerless to make any real front line decisions.
Those who deal with part time employees are happy if these employees just show up on a semi-regular basis.
These part timers are underpaid and almost impossible to hold accountable.
In this enviroment symptoms are treated instead of problems being solved.
Those "facilitators" who deal with full timers are on the opposite end of the spectrum.
They have the duty of trying to get an ever increasing amount of blood from the proverbial turnip.
These ever increasing expectations are derived in IE land.
IE land is very much as described by the creator of this thread.
This vicious cycle plays out in ever spinning circle in which lower level management is now as dissatisfied as the hourly ranks.
At the end of the day it nothing more than a shame.
This company used to be so much more.

 

[LifeUPSer]

My center manager is bright enough not to use 100 drivers when he only needs 30. More importantly, my center manager knows better than anyone in IE how many drivers he needs, any day, every day. He doesn't need some guy who never delivered a package in his life telling him how to run his day to day operations. Sorry, tie guy, that you don't have that kind of confidence in center managers you know.

Dusty, I have been with UPS for almost 20 years and have been in the IE group for the last 3.5 years. I have seen many managers try to run more drivers than they need on many occasions. There are many Managers out there that can run the business very well and there are others that don't deserve to be in there.

As far as the time studies for the drivers go that is one thing that I don't do. I however do the time studies for the inside. With more than 12 years of preload experience I know the different from reality and fantasyland. I do my best to make sure when I measure a preload I don't tell them that I am coming in and I don't tell any of the hubs that feed them so I see a NORMAL day. If the day that I am in there they have a higher than number sick calls then i won't do it because I want to observe them on a normal day.

My 2 cents

 

[soberups]

The other option which UPS chose (and I was on this side of that debate) to not account for the time. The down side of this is that overallowed is no longer a measurement of just the driver. Its the driver AND the job setup handed over from the preload....
P-Man

In other words...

IE places expectations upon the driver that cannot be met due to "the job setup handed over from the preload"...

Then that same IE department turns around and denies the preload operation the resources it needs to do the job properly in the first place!

The facilities that IE provides are obsolete and overcrowded. The vehicles that IE provides are obsolete and undersized. The staffing levels that IE allows are inadequate. So instead of following the correct methods, every day in operations is instead spent fighting the equipment, fighting the overcrowding, and fighting the impossible conditions and expectations that IE has imposed upon us.

We cant succeed when we are fighting simply to survive.

 

[TechGrrl]

The facilities that IE provides are obsolete and overcrowded. The vehicles that IE provides are obsolete and undersized. The staffing levels that IE allows are inadequate. So instead of following the correct methods, every day in operations is instead spent fighting the equipment, fighting the overcrowding, and fighting the impossible conditions and expectations that IE has imposed upon us.

We can't succeed when we are fighting simply to survive.

And all those conditions invalidate the work measurement, since the work measurement assumes proper job setup, as Pretzel Man points out.

So why doesn't the IE department admit they are full of baloney? They are committing professional malpractice under these circumstances.

 

[soberups]

...So why doesn't the IE department admit they are full of baloney? They are committing professional malpractice under these circumstances.

There is no job security in permanently solving problems.

The security comes from perpetuating them.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

There is no job security in permanently solving problems.

The security comes from perpetuating them.

The problem is, to resolve the issues such as poor preloading, too much work/too many stops, staffing would have to be adaquate in many areas and this would cost too much money. This prospect, to the company, is murder-suicide of the shareholder.

The absolute very least to get the 110% maximum possible is what it is and that is not going to change. Infact you could argue it will be 120% next year.