Integrity issues?

[tieguy]

We are forced every morning to review and sign for these so-called service failures. Part of the new deal. Soon to be at a center near you.

Some genius center manager in GA's idea. It's still creeping up the Atlantic coast from my understanding.

Is your mug not on the wall yet with your performance rating?

How many service failures did you sign for this week and how many of those did you feel were not your fault?

 

[Integrity]

sounds like you're looking for a script so you can then highlight when we deviate from the script. Much like you tend to manipulate the policy book to your advantage here.

As I have previously stated the process often requires much discussion and oversight.

the discussion may involve IE managers , OE managers, local operations managers and division managers, IE divison managers, OE divison managers , OPs managers and in some cases district and region and even corporate level managers.

The oversight is provided by the same at all levels including corporate. The same detailed reports that so many here complain about also highlight what exception codes are used when.
The oversight is also provided by the customers. Along with the individuals that now track their packages you have some pretty knowledgable tracking experts at your larger shippers that would question the bogus use of the weather exception.

Back to my point that I have made several times here on this thread this issue has way too much visibility to it to think we could have some random center manager creating bogus weather exceptions without consequences.

Using those codes to hide mistakes at the building level as is alluded to by the OP would set off large red flares that would get the Center team questioned and fired.

tieguy,

That is not true. I am not looking for a script, just an example.

I was hoping you would be so kind to take me through a practical example as to how the EC code is used, authorized and reported.

How would a center manager authorize the following statement the day after a significant snowstorm in his operating area?

"Everyone come in at 9.5 and code any missed stops as EC due to yesterday's snowstorm."

Sincerely,
I

Tie is absolutely right....

SEAS measures the service of every single package. The service measurement is based on a "no excuses" or "end to end" measurement. This means that if the customer didn't get a package due to "Not in", "No such address", etc. the reports still show a service failure.

There are very few codes that will hide the failure. Emergency Condition is one of them. The use of it is very closely monitored.

Rather than all the posts here speculating as to why it was used and accusing most UPS management of being liars, wouldn't it make more sense to ask the supervisor or manager why they used it?

pretzel_man,

Maybe if tieguy remains unwilling to share, you will be so kind to answer the above question. I think it would really add to this discussion thread.

Sincerely,
I

 

[soberups]

We are forced every morning to review and sign for these so-called service failures. Part of the new deal. Soon to be at a center near you.

Some genius center manager in GA's idea. It's still creeping up the Atlantic coast from my understanding.

Is your mug not on the wall yet with your performance rating?

You cannot be forced to sign anything.

If you choose to sign it, you should feel free to write your version of what occured on the document.

 

[pretzel_man]

tieguy,

That is not true. I am not looking for a script, just an example.

I was hoping you would be so kind to take me through a practical example as to how the EC code is used, authorized and reported.

How would a center manager authorize the following statement the day after a significant snowstorm in his operating area?

"Everyone come in at 9.5 and code any missed stops as EC due to yesterday's snowstorm."

Sincerely,
I


pretzel_man,

Maybe if tieguy remains unwilling to share, you will be so kind to answer the above question. I think it would really add to this discussion thread.

Sincerely,
I

I will give you history so that there will be context. This is how I understand things. I believe it to be correct.....

UPS service used to be measured by doing sampling. Some number of packages were checked to see if they were delivered on the date and time promised. In addition, other measures were in place; missorts, left in building, missed on road, etc. Obviously, those measures were easy to manipulate.

Then a program called SEAS (Service Exception and Analysis System) was built. It took a long time to finish, but it measured service for each and every package, every day. Missorts, visibility reports, service reports were all system generated and greatly reduced any manipulation.

As people here would have guessed, the actual service was much different than our previous reports showed. The system pointed to problems, and operations started fixing them.

Another thing happened though.... The service we measured internally was different than the service from the customers point of view. Bad Address, Weather, Not in, etc. did NOT count against our service measurement. There were too many excuses internally that allowed us to look good but didn't get the package to the customer.

So, Cal Darden said he wanted a "no excuses" service measurement. SEAS was changed to say that it didn't matter why the package wasn't delivered... If it wasn't delivered on the promised date and time, it was a missed service. This "no excuses" measurement went into QPR's, etc.

Over time, the measurement of some codes changed in SEAS. I'm not 100% sure, but I think EC used to count against service measurement. Now I believe EC does not count against service. This came about because of things like Katrina. There was no way to deliver the packages, but they still counted against measured service.

There is an Operations Excellence group in Atlanta that monitors the use of these codes.

As Tie said, if a supervisor just decided to use EC to help their reports, this group in Atlanta will notice. They look at SEAS every day. They send out communications on how they want certain events coded so that the measurements are proper.

I am not aware of any manual that states exactly how to use each code. They handle it on a case by case basis. At least that is how I understand it.

If you need more, I can give you the phone number of the manager in charge of the function.

I can tell you that the system measured service is at an all time high. This can be verified by looking at SEAS and its impressive to see how the measurement works.

In the specific case of this thread, it seems to me that EC was improperly used. But I do not know, and neither do others here. Maybe the OE group approved it for a good reason. Maybe the supervisor just made a mistake. Maybe he / she intended to manipulate reports.

Weith 35,000 management people some will make mistakes, some will be dishonest. I do know that its insincere to point out the bad apple and then assume that all management are that way.

 

[Integrity]

I will give you history so that there will be context. This is how I understand things. I believe it to be correct.....

UPS service used to be measured by doing sampling. Some number of packages were checked to see if they were delivered on the date and time promised. In addition, other measures were in place; missorts, left in building, missed on road, etc. Obviously, those measures were easy to manipulate.

Then a program called SEAS (Service Exception and Analysis System) was built. It took a long time to finish, but it measured service for each and every package, every day. Missorts, visibility reports, service reports were all system generated and greatly reduced any manipulation.

As people here would have guessed, the actual service was much different than our previous reports showed. The system pointed to problems, and operations started fixing them.

Another thing happened though.... The service we measured internally was different than the service from the customers point of view. Bad Address, Weather, Not in, etc. did NOT count against our service measurement. There were too many excuses internally that allowed us to look good but didn't get the package to the customer.

So, Cal Darden said he wanted a "no excuses" service measurement. SEAS was changed to say that it didn't matter why the package wasn't delivered... If it wasn't delivered on the promised date and time, it was a missed service. This "no excuses" measurement went into QPR's, etc.

Over time, the measurement of some codes changed in SEAS. I'm not 100% sure, but I think EC used to count against service measurement. Now I believe EC does not count against service. This came about because of things like Katrina. There was no way to deliver the packages, but they still counted against measured service.

There is an Operations Excellence group in Atlanta that monitors the use of these codes.

As Tie said, if a supervisor just decided to use EC to help their reports, this group in Atlanta will notice. They look at SEAS every day. They send out communications on how they want certain events coded so that the measurements are proper.

I am not aware of any manual that states exactly how to use each code. They handle it on a case by case basis. At least that is how I understand it.

If you need more, I can give you the phone number of the manager in charge of the function.

I can tell you that the system measured service is at an all time high. This can be verified by looking at SEAS and its impressive to see how the measurement works.

In the specific case of this thread, it seems to me that EC was improperly used. But I do not know, and neither do others here. Maybe the OE group approved it for a good reason. Maybe the supervisor just made a mistake. Maybe he / she intended to manipulate reports.

Weith 35,000 management people some will make mistakes, some will be dishonest. I do know that its insincere to point out the bad apple and then assume that all management are that way.

pretzel_man,

Thank you for your very comprehensive answer. It is very helpful, informative, and appreciated.

Weith 35,000 management people some will make mistakes, some will be dishonest. I do know that its insincere to point out the bad apple and then assume that all management are that way.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Individuals should be held responsible for what they do. Each UPS employee should be held responsible and accountable for their own actions.

This goes for the least seniority hourly as well as for the CEO.

Sincerely,
I

 

[hubrat]

You cannot be forced to sign anything.

If you choose to sign it, you should feel free to write your version of what occured on the document.

They can use progressive discipline for not signing.
Oh, know that I write all over it.
Busy work for the sups (like they need more to do), micromanaging b.s. harassment for us.

If I am the service provider and follow all of the proper procedure in making a delivery attempt, and there is no way to complete the delivery, I have not failed or made any type of error. The customer failed to be home. The shipper failed to include the correct address. The customer failed to provide a location out of site/weather...

When I do screw up, I admit it, learn from it, correct it. The false accusations and harassment need to stop.

Like I said, coming soon to a center near you.

How many service failures did you sign for this week and how many of those did you feel were not your fault?

Zero.

 

[over9five]

With 35,000 management people some will make mistakes, some will be dishonest. I do know that its insincere to point out the bad apple and then assume that all management are that way.

+1

 

[pretzel_man]

They can use progressive discipline for not signing.
Oh, know that I write all over it.
Busy work for the sups (like they need more to do), micromanaging b.s. harassment for us.

If I am the service provider and follow all of the proper procedure in making a delivery attempt, and there is no way to complete the delivery, I have not failed or made any type of error. The customer failed to be home. The shipper failed to include the correct address. The customer failed to provide a location out of site/weather...

When I do screw up, I admit it, learn from it, correct it. The false accusations and harassment need to stop.

Like I said, coming soon to a center near you.



Zero.

Are you telling me that you are disciplined because a customer was not at home or that the shipper gave you a bad address?

These and other things count against the center. Its new to me if a driver is disciplined for this. I have never heard that one before.

Is that really happening???

 

[Bubblehead]

They can use progressive discipline for not signing.
Oh, know that I write all over it.
Busy work for the sups (like they need more to do), micromanaging b.s. harassment for us.

If I am the service provider and follow all of the proper procedure in making a delivery attempt, and there is no way to complete the delivery, I have not failed or made any type of error. The customer failed to be home. The shipper failed to include the correct address. The customer failed to provide a location out of site/weather...

When I do screw up, I admit it, learn from it, correct it. The false accusations and harassment need to stop.

Like I said, coming soon to a center near you.



Zero.

They absolutely CANNOT use progressive discipline for not signing anything unless it's mandated by the DOT or OSHA.
They can say and do things that aren't true, ethical, etc. if they go unchallenged.
Hence the existence of this thread.
Between this one and the EAM thread, a long list has developed forcing PMan to work overtime this weekend.

P.S. I can guarantee you that mess isn't coming to my center.

 

[tieguy]

They can use progressive discipline for not signing.
Oh, know that I write all over it.
Busy work for the sups (like they need more to do), micromanaging b.s. harassment for us.

If I am the service provider and follow all of the proper procedure in making a delivery attempt, and there is no way to complete the delivery, I have not failed or made any type of error. The customer failed to be home. The shipper failed to include the correct address. The customer failed to provide a location out of site/weather...

When I do screw up, I admit it, learn from it, correct it. The false accusations and harassment need to stop.

Like I said, coming soon to a center near you.



Zero.

if zero is the answer then why are you complaining?

 

[soberups]

They can use progressive discipline for not signing.
Oh, know that I write all over it.
Busy work for the sups (like they need more to do), micromanaging b.s. harassment for us.

If I am the service provider and follow all of the proper procedure in making a delivery attempt, and there is no way to complete the delivery, I have not failed or made any type of error. The customer failed to be home. The shipper failed to include the correct address. The customer failed to provide a location out of site/weather...

When I do screw up, I admit it, learn from it, correct it. The false accusations and harassment need to stop.

Like I said, coming soon to a center near you.



Zero.

You must be in a Right To Work state with weak union representation if they have you believing that you can be disciplined for not signing something, or that you have no choice but to bend over and take such harassment.

Half the drivers in my building have our local union's Business Agent on speed dial. If the company even tried pulling crap like that here our BA would be up in the DM's office ripping him a new within an hour.

I have always gotten a kick out of seeing what happens when the company transfers upper-level management out to here from RTW places like Georgia or Mississippi. They talk funny, they cant handle the weather, and they really cant handle working in a strong pro-union enviornment where the employees know their rights and aren't afraid to stand up for them. They are used to just walking all over their people and intimidating them and treating them like cattle. They look like a deer in the headlights the first time a BA or a shop steward gets up in their face and confronts them, and it finally dawns on them that the contract is something they will actually have to start following now.

 

[Anonymous 10]

They absolutely CANNOT use progressive discipline for not signing anything unless it's mandated by the DOT or OSHA.
They can say and do things that aren't true, ethical, etc. if they go unchallenged.
Hence the existence of this thread.
Between this one and the EAM thread, a long list has developed forcing PMan to work overtime this weekend.

P.S. I can guarantee you that mess isn't coming to my center.

Mine either

 

[pretzel_man]

They absolutely CANNOT use progressive discipline for not signing anything unless it's mandated by the DOT or OSHA.
They can say and do things that aren't true, ethical, etc. if they go unchallenged.
Hence the existence of this thread.
Between this one and the EAM thread, a long list has developed forcing PMan to work overtime this weekend.

P.S. I can guarantee you that mess isn't coming to my center.

I read your ridiculous post in the EAM thread. You believe that because UPS systems allow people to make mistakes, UPS must have intended that. I started replying to it multiple times.

I didn't because I figured it best to leave your silly assertion alone. Now that YOU brought me into this, I will answer.

If the DIAD only used the stop complete time to send to DIALS, then in the case of a bulk stop you could have a delivery show as late, even if the driver got there on time. The same would be true if an attempt was made at an apartment and then indirected to the mail room.

Of course this can be abused. In the case of the EAM thread, the accusation was that a supervisor directed a driver to do so. You and others took that single situation and accused all UPS management of being dishonest.

You mentioned other situations as if there were simple solutions. You use this as evidence that UPS wants people to be dishonest. There are not simple solutions to most situations but you will ignore the reasons.

You ignored what I posted in this thread and only recognized facts that match your opinion. It doesn't matter what facts are presented, you will dismiss anything that doesn't support your biased assumptions.

You are just like the poor management that you hate and complain about.

I know poor management people that believe that all drivers are out to take advantage of UPS. They will point to the one dishonest driver to support their claim. They will use that example regardless of the vast majority of outstanding drivers.

IF a supervisor directed a driver to fudge information he / she is wrong. Just like if a driver did so. Both should be disciplined.

A very small percent of managment and hourly are dishonest.

However, I do believe that a bad management person is much worse than a bad driver. They cause hate and discontent that spreads like a cancer. I will never support a management person who is acting improperly. I will never blame anyone but them for their improper behavior.

You are not forcing me to work overtime. I have faith in UPS, faith in its managment, and certainly faith in our drivers.

 

[soberups]

IF a supervisor directed a driver to fudge information he / she is wrong. Just like if a driver did so. Both should be disciplined.

A very small percent of managment and hourly are dishonest.

However, I do believe that a bad management person is much worse than a bad driver. They cause hate and discontent that spreads like a cancer. I will never support a management person who is acting improperly. I will never blame anyone but them for their improper behavior.

You are not forcing me to work overtime. I have faith in UPS, faith in its managment, and certainly faith in our drivers.

+1

One of the nice things about working in a pro-union state with good representation is that it helps to keep the management honest on issues such as EAM's, EC's, air commits etc.

When an employee feels secure in his/her job, they are far more likely to confront the occasional "bad apple" management person who tries to intimidate them into cutting corners or fudging numbers.

There is a very high level of accountablity among the management in my area over issues such as commit times and Emergency Condition exceptions. We are always given very clear and specific instructions to be honest about these issues. As far as EC's go, in my area they need to be approved on a case-by-case basis unless we are dealing with a major event such as a snowstorm. EC exceptions are not misused here, when in doubt we are told to go ahead and sheet the package as "missed" . It has been many, many years since I have been instructed to do anything dishonest by a management person, and a big part of the reason for that is because the employees are not afraid to confront a sup who tells them to do something wrong.

 

[Bubblehead]

I read your ridiculous post in the EAM thread. You believe that because UPS systems allow people to make mistakes, UPS must have intended that. I started replying to it multiple times.

I didn't because I figured it best to leave your silly assertion alone. Now that YOU brought me into this, I will answer.

If the DIAD only used the stop complete time to send to DIALS, then in the case of a bulk stop you could have a delivery show as late, even if the driver got there on time. The same would be true if an attempt was made at an apartment and then indirected to the mail room.

Of course this can be abused. In the case of the EAM thread, the accusation was that a supervisor directed a driver to do so. You and others took that single situation and accused all UPS management of being dishonest.

You mentioned other situations as if there were simple solutions. You use this as evidence that UPS wants people to be dishonest. There are not simple solutions to most situations but you will ignore the reasons.

You ignored what I posted in this thread and only recognized facts that match your opinion. It doesn't matter what facts are presented, you will dismiss anything that doesn't support your biased assumptions.

You are just like the poor management that you hate and complain about.

I know poor management people that believe that all drivers are out to take advantage of UPS. They will point to the one dishonest driver to support their claim. They will use that example regardless of the vast majority of outstanding drivers.

IF a supervisor directed a driver to fudge information he / she is wrong. Just like if a driver did so. Both should be disciplined.

A very small percent of managment and hourly are dishonest.

However, I do believe that a bad management person is much worse than a bad driver. They cause hate and discontent that spreads like a cancer. I will never support a management person who is acting improperly. I will never blame anyone but them for their improper behavior.

You are not forcing me to work overtime. I have faith in UPS, faith in its managment, and certainly faith in our drivers.

You have no idea what environment I work in.
It actually changes from year to year as they play musical chairs with management personnel.
You also didn't come away with the bulk of what that I was saying in that post.
My angle wasn't as much about dishonesty as it was UPS's inability to implement solutions to problems rather than treat symptoms.
The final sentence was a summation, UPS treats symptoms rather than fix problems.
There are some good suggestions in there and they would be easily implemented , you might want to reread it.
Are you contending that it's easier to train thousands and thousands of drivers to jump through hoops rather than make simple software changes in the DIAD?
It was somebody else's assertion that it's an avenue for dishonesty.
My post was a bit of a tangent which is not at all uncommon in these threads.
My poke/joke at you was the same as always, I think your only purpose here is to promote the company line.
It's your prerogative, as it's mine to counter.
What's that term again?
Shill???
I'll admit, you're good at it.

 

[Bubblehead]

I kew it wouldn't take long to come with a very real for instance of the lack of integrity being perpetrated by this company using emergency conditions.
Today an early am driver was instructed to take out 4 more stops than she was confident she could service in time.
The supervisor instructed her to sheet any that were late as EC because they were short on drivers.
There was NO weather to validate it!!!
When the reports become more important than the commitment to the paying customer, a customer who payed a premium price on top of it, that's a lack of integrity.
Why didn't this supervisor deliver them himself?
To avoid being gigged on another report.
Again, a lack of integrity!!!
I'm not dismissing the possibility that this supervisor was "working as directed" as well.
I'm tired of people peeing on my shoes and telling me it's raining.

PMan,
This absolutely happened this week in my hub.
I won't dismiss it as a rouge supe or an isolated incidence.
This type of lack of integrity is commonplace here.
I can prove it, but "they" don't want to know.
I think they already do.

 

[Catatonic]

My poke/joke at you was the same as always, I think your only purpose here is to promote the company line.
It's your prerogative, as it's mine to counter.
What's that term again?
Shill???
I'll admit, you're good at it.

I am unwilling to share that designation at this time.

 

[cachsux]

My angle wasn't as much about dishonesty as it was UPS's inability to implement solutions to problems rather than treat symptoms.
The final sentence was a summation, UPS treats symptoms rather than fix problems.

There is one bit I feel different with you about your statement. You`re giving UPS too much credit. To treat a symptom one has to recognize the problem or it`s potential. UPS waits until the problem is full blown and the trys to steer around it or have us change to compensate.

Instead of getting a flu shot it waits until things are blowing out both ends and then hands us a bucket and tells us to clean up the mess.

 

[pretzel_man]

PMan,
This absolutely happened this week in my hub.
I won't dismiss it as a rouge supe or an isolated incidence.
This type of lack of integrity is commonplace here.
I can prove it, but "they" don't want to know.
I think they already do.

Bubble:

I don't doubt that bad things happen. I have to take your word that it happens in your center. I am not denying that.

When you broadbrush it to all of UPS, all managment, or assume that this is the way UPS wants it is when I object.

I certainly do not know the specific situation you mention. If EC was improperly used, I would hope they are disciplined. I would like it if the customer called to complain. This is often how these situations are found.

BTW, here is the definition of a shill:

" shill or plant is a person who helps another person or organization to sell goods or services without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with the seller. The shill pretends to have no association with the seller/group and gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic independent customer. The person or group that hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members (who are unaware of the set-up) to purchase the said goods or services"

I do not pretend to not be part of UPS management. I am not hired by UPS to post here. Its a little egotistical to think UPS would pay someone to do so.

If you still think I'm a shill, so be it.

 

[Bubblehead]

OK, fair enough, I'll change it to spokesman instead of shill.
Apparently Hoax isn't ready to relinquish that title anyway.