Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
Rigorous as you might want to make your point, it still remains an issue of if it does not mean what it says, then why is it in the contract?

Which is my point exactly. If it is worthless dribble that means nothing, then why is it there?

If on the other hand it is there for a reason, then UPS indeed can use it if they choose. It has been agreed to, signed off on by the appropriate legal negotiating parties, and has been OKed as a legal binding contract by the NLRB.

And this was all done without the subterfuge and blackmail you seem to want to inject into the conversation.

As for the interest rates charged by GMAC, I have first hand knowledge of at least 23%. Had a friend that did not look too closely at the documents he signed a month after he got the car. But by the time he came to me, it was too late.

d
 

bluehdmc

Well-Known Member
Pobre Carlos,
Did the union "piss" away 16,000 jobs or did Consolidated Freights management do an end run around the union? Sure they may be profitable but an end run is still and end run, not exactly on the up and up.
As far as the disparity of the distribution of wealth and the greatest contribution of it, what about the Wall Street theives and their multi-million dollar bonuses while their companies are asking for bailouts. What about presenting their proposed bonuses to the stockholders? I bet the shareholders would approve them just as quickly as they'd approve a union contract. Remember also many pension plans are shareholders,
Part of the problem is our me, me, me society.
I'm not advocating a welfare state, just not paying astronomical salaries to 1 or 2 people at the top and keeping the worker down. That's the sort of thing that got unions started in the first place, along with work place rules, seniority, SAFETY ISSUES, among others.
I've seen what non union employers do, fire people to hire new employees at a lesser wage. Why do you think there are laws against age discrimination? Because some congressman thought it was a good idea? Or maybe it was because companies would "let people go" who were approaching retirement age and may have collected a pension. This way they could hire someone younger, usually without health issues that an older employee has, for a lesser wage. That's why there are laws about vesting in pensions, age discrimination, etc. A lot of benefits were also either a resuld of unions, or an effort by employers to keep unions out.
I guess in a cold society, run by the "bottom line" businessman, we should get rid of all these drains on the companies resources. Hire "undocumented aliens", pay them as little as we can, fire them when they get sick, or old, or injured, (particularly because we can ignore safety issues, since they are too scared to complain). This way the management can put as much as they can in their pockets.
I did not mention the co-pilot as a women to bring gender into the issue, just pointing out that you were referring to him.
I don't believe organized labor is intent on "destroying" american business. In a sense your killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs.
Remember the 1st time Chrysler was bailed out, the unions went and made concessions, and then Chryslers management gave bonuses out to themselves and tried to cut the unions out. Although they had originally agreed not to give out bonuses before giving back to the unions. ( I don't recall all the details) Unions should trust management when dishonesty, distortion and lies are their normal negotiating tactics? And you refer to unions as "thugs"?
And foriegn governments have been known to "subsidize" their industries, weren't japanese manufactures accused of "dumping"? (selling items in the US below cost to undermine competition).
How is "organized labor a burden on our society"? Organized labor is what built this country, the roads, the steel, the automobiles, the railroads, shipyards, etc. Yes many of these industries are gone, or shells of their former selves, but that cannot be blamed entirely on unions. Management, or mismanagement as it were is a great cause. Often looking for that bottom line, or to keep the stock price high. A previous poster mentioned GM selling GMAC, who'd they sell 51% to? Cerberus, the owners of Chrysler, (their competitor?) who then last fall wouldn't approve financing for people unless they had a 700 or better credit score, this help accelerate GM's downfall, Chrysler was already on the ropes.
Maybe car dealers are all hurting now but this policy of taking from the mechanics has been this way for 15+ years.
 

slantnosechevy

Well-Known Member
Rigorous as you might want to make your point, it still remains an issue of if it does not mean what it says, then why is it in the contract?

Which is my point exactly. If it is worthless dribble that means nothing, then why is it there?

If on the other hand it is there for a reason, then UPS indeed can use it if they choose. It has been agreed to, signed off on by the appropriate legal negotiating parties, and has been OKed as a legal binding contract by the NLRB.

And this was all done without the subterfuge and blackmail you seem to want to inject into the conversation.

As for the interest rates charged by GMAC, I have first hand knowledge of at least 23%. Had a friend that did not look too closely at the documents he signed a month after he got the car. But by the time he came to me, it was too late.

d

I was on the last 2 contract negotiations. The reason it's there is because PASS/EDD was still a work in progress at the conclusion of negotiations in 2002. The language was left there in case the company couldn't properly institute the new system before that contract expired which would result in preloaders being required to use the old chart system and thus require more skill and a higher rate of pay. Naturally, UPS couldn't give a date as to when every ctr. would be on it but said it would happen in the first two years of the 7 year agreement. It was left in there in '09 basically as a "just in case" the company would have to scrap the system because of problems. Ask anyone it's still a work in progress. The language is there, but as someone earlier posted the company will never initiate it. Even if jobs have to be combined " due to the changing nature of the Employer's business which have not been necessary up to this time", they will be covered under the step up guarantee.
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
Slant

The excuse of the pass-edd is not valid. As a preloader, it is a trained position, which by the contract, demands a better rate of pay than $8.50 per the contract.

So please, another reason.

Now that you brought it up, pass-edd is exactly why the top wage made at ups by drivers is going to be a thing of the past as soon as it is nation wide. For exactly the reason that you think that a preloader working off the charts should only make $8.50.

So what will the drivers rate be come 2020? 13.50 an hour topped out? After all, being a UPS driver is no longer a skilled job. You can hire anyone off the street, and after two days training they are ready to be released upon the public.

And what part will the union play in this little venture?

d
 

Coldworld

60 months and counting
As for your contention that "DHL's US Domestic didn't have a union", just where did you come up with THAT particular bit of "wisdom" (or, more aptly, "misinformation") from? As for your "how has not being union helped them"....well, once again, perhaps I should bring up that, over thirty years ago now, a Teamster honcho informed me that FedEx would be organized by the Teamsters "in a matter of months". At that time, the company was a small FRACTION of the size it is today. Think being non-union hasn't helped it? Seen the relative financials and/or stock prices lately?


We wouldnt need to debating fedex status if OUR company would have taken them a little more serious 40 years ago. Maybe we should be wondering how the hell fedex has grown as much as they have over the years, especially with the company trying all they can to slow it down....regardless of their debt or not, they are hanging in there..they arent going anywhere. Whats ups going to do if this bill doesnt pass in congress, sit by and let them pass us up while mgt is out following drivers around and micromanaging folks about using an old style delivery notice??

BTW, Im not sure about others who have been reading your posts, but maybe you can keep them down a bit in content...I seem to get through one paragraph and for some reason cannot continue through the following 10. For what its worth welcome, Im sure youll have lots of lively debates with some of the other member on here.
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
coldworld;

Believe me, UPS *ALWAYS* took FDX seriously....even forty years ago. THAT'S never been the problem; an intransigent union was (and is)

That said, I'm not sure what UPS *COULD* have done about FDX, other than what it has already done (although I'll admit it could have reacted faster when FDX began raiding UPS management personnel, a lesson the company seemed to have to learn again when RPS hit the scene). Boot the union? What?

The fact is, UPS is limited by law as to just what it can do by itself. It can't [obviously, at least] push for FDX's "organization". When the Teamsters honcho made the statement to me, FedEx was still such a small company that - minus anti-trust legislation, etc - UPS could have swallowed it whole via purchase or whatever. But that legislation was in place. Minus a level playing field (i.e. - UPS union, FDX not), just what was the company to do?

UPS couldn't level that playing field; only the Teamsters could do that. But the Teamsters chose not to even make an effort worthy of the name. And, truth be told, the Teamsters *STILL* aren't willing to make an effort worth the name. That being said, what options are left in terms of UPS seeking a level?

At the time I heard the union chief make his organizational claim, UPS was just getting involved in international operations (actually, it was in the 2nd phase of the German opening)....a very expensive gamble which many thought a mistake. Today it's recognized, however, that given the obtuseness of the Teamsters, and the "bye" they gave FDX, that's probably the primary (if not sole) growth area available to the company.

Speaking of how seriously the company took FDX even 40 years ago, I'm sure that the older B.C. denizens can recall the "Know Your Competition" lectures that were making the rounds back even then. And I can't begin to tell you about the number of roadblocks I'm aware of that the union put up against the company's efforts to be competitive (reaction against air drivers, air in general, etc). The result of those efforts? 150,000 (or more) could-have-been, should-have-been Teamster jobs cast aside.

Sorry about the length of my posts, but I tend to be thorough and want to be responsible with the information I convey. I find that impossible to do with short, superficial blurbs.
 
trplnkl;

Per your questions....

What law? The National Labor Relations Act, the Taft-Hartley Act ,and various court opinions regarding unilateral implementation.

An example of coercion? OK, a quickie....how about Oak Harbor Freight being required to continue "bargaining" by the NLRB with the Teamsters when they had already brought on replacements? Or Northern Michigan Hospital with the Teamsters nurses by the same body? Give me time, I think I could list THOUSANDS of examples...to the point that I'm actually surprised that you would question the issue. BTW, haven't you noticed one of the key features of the proposed (and inaptly named) EFCA that organized labor wants, namely forced arbitration? Think that's not coercion? [smile]

Which brings us to your comment regarding why the company HAS to deal with the Teamsters, especially your mention of the Federal government. In light of that, your question about "coercion" is rather ludicrous, isn't it? You, yourself, bring up the coercive power! As for your claim that the company has to deal with the Teamsters because the employees of the company have voted the Teamsters to be their representatives...pray tell, is that the way things work in YOUR neighborhood? I.e. - if a bunch of window-washing street thugs join together and choose a "representative", are you bound to negotiate and reach an agreement with them each time they approach you at a traffic light? Get real!

Which brings us to your claim about the '97 strike. I bring that up because I've heard the same ol', same ol' misrepresentation (i.e. about how "UPS came back to the table") so many times from so many Teamsters, that it's part 'n' parcel of my claim that far, far too many of them keep their heads buried in the sand. In any case, I suggest you read up on "Sprague v. CSPF" ("http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm") to find out just how far out of whack your thinking as to what actually happened is. While your at it, reconcile what you found out with the current status of Central States, and the Teamsters in general.

To wit, UPS did NOT come back to the table until the union "blinked". Granted, not many union members like to hear that, even fewer like to believe it...but there are whole Hell of a lot of 'em (particularly future CS pensioners!) who wish the "blinking" had come about a lot earlier.

Further beyond that, it seems to me that you just engaged in hyperbole, and were just spinning your wheels in recognition of not having anything in the way of meaningful rebuttal (ie. - "what agreements were forced", when you already YOURSELF pointed out the means of coercion!, etc.)

As for your contention that "DHL's US Domestic didn't have a union", just where did you come up with THAT particular bit of "wisdom" (or, more aptly, "misinformation") from? As for your "how has not being union helped them"....well, once again, perhaps I should bring up that, over thirty years ago now, a Teamster honcho informed me that FedEx would be organized by the Teamsters "in a matter of months". At that time, the company was a small FRACTION of the size it is today. Think being non-union hasn't helped it? Seen the relative financials and/or stock prices lately?

As for "drinking too much cool-aid" (always wonder where that bit of wisdom hails from...i.e. - "cool-Aid"? What's that really associated with?), again, I can't help but note that more than HALF of UPS's employees are NOT Teamsters. Nor can I help but note that, while many UPS employees ARE Teamsters, the non-Teamster company FedEx is consistently voted by employees as being the better company to work for. Makes one wonder why, doesn't it?

In closing, sorry if my asking for reasonable, factually-based responses threatens you. No doubt if I was trying to defend an organization that has accomplished so little while demanding so much over so long a period of time as the Teamsters, I'd feel a little threatened as well.

Tell ya what, since you are so good at coming up with ridiculous "window washing thug" scenarios and "examples of "coercion" that have nothing to do with UPS/Teamster, let's try another approach. Instead of you just talking crap about the people that make the money that is used to pay your paycheck, give us a quick look at how you think these things should be done. Please keep it simply, I'm just a dumb truck driver. But this time, please keep your scenarios and examples relating to UPS and the Teamster members, OK? I grow really tired of trying to decipher your rambling and run on sentences. Keep it real.
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
bluehdmc;

Think for a minute....if the union DIDN'T piss away those jobs, then what MOTIVATED Consolidated to make an "end run" around the union? That's the point! Companies are aware that they can't be profitable with the Teamsters, and they make an "end run". (BTW, in terms of the "end run" and all the other alleged nefarious stuff that Teamsters love to dream-up - CFWY buying CNWY's fuel, all the CFWY managers having jobs at CNWY, etc. - minus absolutely NO documentation to the contrary, I'm convinced it just didn't happen)

As for the "Wall Street theives [sic]", perhaps you haven't noticed, but their bonuses ARE placed before the shareholders for approval. As a side example, one might notice that such compensation for UPS higher-ups just came up for shareholder approval as well. Bear in mind that those bonuses, as much as you may dislike them (and I'll admit that I find them distasteful as well,) are awarded COMPETIVELY, and are designed to retain personnel which that "market" sees as crucial to being maintained. After all, who pays these "astronomical salaries"? And *WHY* are they paying them? I'd submit that it's because market forces have determined their worth. If and when the market determines that they're NOT worth that amount, then they'll drop. In that sense, they're not the rotten fruit of a legal mandate, such as company/union negotiations are; a company is not COMPELLED to negotiate with those you determine to be "thieves".

As for your comment of...

"I've seen what non union employers do, fire people to hire new employees at a lesser wage."

....and I have to ask "so what"? Are employers supposed to pay equal amounts for UN-equal labor? Are you willing to do so? As for "age discrimination laws", as I understand it, they were designed to protect on the basis of "age" alone; not productivity. If an older person is not able to produce as much as a younger person because of lesser abilities, should it be required that he be paid the same? Personally, I don't see it. That, to me, is what would lead to "age discrimination"; i.e. - if an employer is forced to pay more than what a person's labor is worth, then it's inevitable that he (1) will find an excuse not to hire that person to begin with, or (2) find a way to get rid of him as soon as possible. Either way is NOT a function of the persons age, but rather to his cost/benefit ratio.

As for what you see "non union employers doing" in terms of firing, etc.....let me ask you; which segment of the general working population has had more job security over the last 30 years? Those that belong to unions, or those that don't? Take a look at the Teamsters union that's involved with UPS....it's lost over HALF of it's membership during that time. And, terms of the jobs that existed 30 years or so ago, it's lost well MORE than half of it's members jobs...and even more than that in the unions core transportation industry. And this during a time in which the transportation industry was BOOMING.

Fact is, statistically, about the worst thing you could do over the last 30 years in terms of job security was join the Teamsters. Forget non-union employers "firing"; they're mere pikers in comparison to the Teamsters union, which pisses it's member jobs away to the tune of hundreds of thousands and millions.

Not trying to be hyperbolic here; simply pointing out the facts. My main concern today it that companies are so fed-up with unions like the Teamsters, the Autoworkers, the Steelworkers, etc, that they're simply not going to put up with it anymore; that they'll do an "end run", as you called it. In fact, that's EXACTLY what many are already doing. UPS, heavily involved internationally, is less than 50% Teamster today. We've seen what's happened with domestic-owned auto production, and where steel production has migrated to. Do you think legislation is going to stop such "end runs"? Sorry, but that's like a barb wire fence being set-up to stop a tidal flow....just doesn't do the job.

Meanwhile, job after job is being placed out of reach by efforts of those who seem to think that having a job is a "right", and wages/wealth should be distributed on the basis of an arbitrary "fairness" standard as opposed to market demands. At what time are those people going to see just what they're doing? How many jobs have to be pissed away before people see the light?

Escapes me....

On to direct responses to some of your comments;

"Yes", the Japanese have been ACCUSED of many things, including subsidization. But, in terms of such subsidies, why do you think that the Japanese began building auto plants over here? Remember U.S. "content" laws? Think that OUR protectionism (read "subsidy") wasn't just as great as Japan's?

"Yes", I remember that many pension plans are shareholders. I'm also aware that many pension plans operated by labor do NOT primarily have the interests of those covered by them in mind. If that were the case, for example, the Teamsters - in order to benefit their UPS members - would have left them withdraw from CSPF years before they did. And what do you think of the Teamsters having holdings in FDX (which they signify by posing vote issues at nearly every yearly meeting). Think they want FDX to prosper so the value of those holdings PROSPER? REALLY?!?

In response to your ...

"I don't believe organized labor is intent on "destroying" American business. In a sense your killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs."

...then, pray tell, just what do you think they ARE intent on doing? You see, after I've seen organized labor essentially destroy the steel industry, the domestically owned auto industry and (numerically, at least) virtually every one of it's employers in the transportation industry, I can tell you that, from my perspective, it sure as Hell LOOKS like they're intent on such destruction! Maybe they AREN'T aware that they're killing the goose that lays the golden egg (although certain statements made by union spokesmen indicate that they are), but the facts remain what they are.

As for your claim that "organized labor built this country", I suggest you climb down from the rarefied atmosphere of your ivory tower and look at history. All "organized labor" did was "organize labor" in seeking remuneration of one type or another....period. And even that it did at a rather late stage of the game. It didn't "build" the country! Entrepreneurs did that. Did they hire labor? Sure! They also purchased machines, rented property, bought leases, etc., and exercised capital in numerous other fashions. And that capital was created by THEIR labor; not that of unions. What "organized labor" *DID* do, however, is virtually destroy the industries that employed it's members. There's a reason that less than 8% of the workers in the private sector today belong to unions, and it's *NOT* because unions helped their employer to prosper! So, while you maintain "that cannot be blamed entirely on unions", it sure as the Devil looks like it can be blamed PRIMARILY on unions.

Chrysler management "agreed" to not take bonuses back then? The union made substantial concessions? Funny, I don't remember it that way. What I recall is a union that demanded a seat on the board, and then their begging management to save their asses in the form of the jobs the company offered. Nor do I recall any "bonus agreement", although I've no doubt that somewhere in union circles it was floating around that "I heard..." that they reached such an agreement or whatever. As a young man, I actually bought a few shares of the "new Chrysler" at the time, and I think I would have paid attention if such a "bonus agreement" was announced, if only because failure to allow retention bonuses is usually a sign that the company is going down the tubes....and managers jumping ship would most assuredly have interested me.

Again, GM sold GMAC BECAUSE IT HAD TO!!!! You can go back with 20/20 hindsight and say that they would have been better off if they hadn't...but that doesn't account for the fact that they had no choice. Might as well say that the company could have been better off it's management bought lottery tickets in the company's name and won big 102 weeks in a row. I.e. - moot point.

Lastly, yes, I *DID * refer to at least SOME union members as "thugs". Here's some reasons why, particularly in reference to the Teamsters, which I'm most familiar with.

(1) The Teamsters themselves have been designated a criminal organization, and have essentially admitted as much by virtue of the "consent decree" under which they are operating.

(2) Someone might correct me here, but I believe EVERY excecutive president of the union except the current one (on which, figuratively at least, the jury is still out) over the last half century has either been indicted or convicted of a felony.

(3) The union has a hero fixation (memorial scholarships, etc) for a convicted felon (one of the past presidents mentioned above) with recognized mob connections.

(4) Documented instance after documented instance in which the Teamsters, on behalf of their union, have committed acts of violence. (currently reading a book titled "Devil's Pact", which I recommend to anyone who contends that the union is primarily sweetness and light!)

(5) As a teenager, I was attacked by a Teamster thug - who was upset because I was unloading a few concrete blocks off of a flatbed truck at a small, private, non-union construction site without a card - myself. ("yes", he did jail time for the incident).

(6) Once being a member of the Teamsters, and listening to other members brag about their thuggery myself

Are all Teamsters "thugs"? Of course not. But far too high a proportion are. And there's no doubt that's the reputation they - and many unions in general - have in the minds of the public at large.

That's it. Again, sorry for the length...but you raised some issues that I felt should be addressed.
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
dannyboy;

Why is it there? For show. I've no doubt that the there are a lot of things that are in the contract "for show"; i.e. - predominately so the union honchos can go back to the members and say "See what we have here!"

'Course, if it DOES have the meaning you seem to think it does, then I think the company should go ahead and implement it immediately....paying each "good" P/T a higher wage, and keeping each P/T that in finds having unacceptable performance at the minimum. Might also offer those who are willing to sign a petition to stop union representation a higher-than-minimum wage as well.

Sound like a plan? [smile]

As for your GMAC comment, a couple of things I like to note:

(1) Your comment of "I have first hand knowledge of at least 23%." is not quite what I'd call universally applicable documentation, but....

(2) ....even it was, "at least 23%" is not quite the same as your prior claim of "Sometimes with rates as high as 25% or more" now, is it?
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
trplnkl;

Re: your comment of....

"Instead of you just talking crap about the people that make the money that is used to pay your paycheck"

....all I can is that "now THERE'S another Teamsters who's not inclined to jump to conclusions, isn't there!" [smile]

And in light of your comment that you're...

"...grow[ing] really tired of trying to decipher your rambling and run on sentences. Keep it real"

...perhaps then you'll understand why I find it somewhat difficult to respond to "these things" when you fail to specify just what "these things" are.

With that in mind, perhaps you might come to realize that what you seem to think is "rambling", other people might term as "conveying information"...something which you might think of giving a try now and then. And, in terms of your command to "keep it real", if you're unable to even define in context what "real" is, then I'm afraid I'm unable to accommodate you in that direction as well. Sorry.

Lastly, if you're "real tired", and can't keep up, then just take a break. No one that I know of is demanding that you participate.

P.S. - Ever thought that perhaps you ought to show a little more respect for those who WRITE your paycheck? I.e. - those who pay your wages with THEIR money? Sorry, guy...but any time you think you're being taken advantage of in terms of making the "money that is used to pay [my] paycheck", then feel free to hit the road. By that I mean that I sure as Hell am not going to demand that you hang around to "make the money" for my alleged [a significant definition] "paycheck". And, after all, I'm sure you can find a comparable job in a New York minute. Or, better yet, start your OWN company which pays the wages comparable to what you're making. Not a problem....right?
 
Last edited:
Our preloaders don't have to think anymore. I am guessing that, in part, they are told not to think anymore. Go faster, wrap up earlier, less payroll. It's really to bad. They just throw the stops on the shelf without regard to where they end up.

When I was preloading I took a lot of pride in making sure my drivers had as good a load as I could possibly give them. I took awhile to learn how to do that but I did learn. Now UPS makes sure that they never learn the finer techniques. And to what cost? I know EDD is supposed to be ALL, but it isn't and those that are setting up EDD aren't either.[/QUOTE]

Sounds to me that you have pride in your job. Just remember you are comparing your work ethic to that of another, they are not always on the same standard. The part about go faster, less payroll is nothing new, it was the same way 35 yrs ago and if I owned a company I would probably do the same. There were many preloaders who had to use load charts, memorize and think when they loaded. The thinking part doesn't always happen so maybe I now see why we have this new technology. Anyway, at one time 3 of us drivers in the same loop were getting killed by our preloader. There came a point where we decided we couldn't take this anymore. We went up on the belt and told him we would give him 1 week to get his s..t together. If not we would put a "contract" out on him. The next week he quit, his replacement had the pride you mentioned and after the initial training period all was well. Guess we added to the turnover ratio.
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
Dear Probe

Let me address some of your points where you have a serious lack of understanding.

P.S. - In answer to your final question, "Yes", I did spend several years behind the wheel of a UPS vehicle. However, I hope you can discern from my comments that my experience with the company goes a bit beyond such a limited exposure frame.

When a poster uses quotations around a word, it alters that yes. So while you tried to indicate that you did spend several years behind the wheel of a UPS vehicle, it does not at all mean that you ever worked hourly. For all we know, you had a UPS supplied Lexus that you drove to work, which theoretically allows you to say "yes".

Clever, but then you wonder why the hourly dont believe a word that comes out of managements mouth.

I'll concede somewhat that it isn't ALL the UAW's fault in the Big Three's downfall...but don't you find it rather coincidental that it's ONLY the UAW-organized end-unit manufacturers in this country that are on the ropes? And don't you find it somewhat curious as well that, in those plants/areas where the UAW does NOT dominate - namely overseas - the Big Three are still doing rather well?

Yup, back to the "everything that is wrong with business today is the fault of the big bad, corrupt thugs that are union members" mentality that you seem infested with. Your lack of knowledge in this matter is overwhelming.

The reason they cant sell the popular cars that do so well overseas here in the USA are gooberment restrictions on first trade, then safety issues. Like front bumpers. There are several car makers that would love to sell their cars here, but they cant pass the safety testing because they dont have a front bumper. Last fall, I cant tell you how many fords I saw in Germany and Bavaria, all cars that would sell like hotcakes over here, but because if Gooberment meddling, never going to happen. So please, dont turn a blind eye to the truth when you post with your venomous hate for the union.

Believe me, UPS *ALWAYS* took FDX seriously....even forty years ago. THAT'S never been the problem; an intransigent union was (and is)

That said, I'm not sure what UPS *COULD* have done about FDX, other than what it has already done (although I'll admit it could have reacted faster when FDX began raiding UPS management personnel, a lesson the company seemed to have to learn again when RPS hit the scene). Boot the union? What?

UPS never took FDX or RPS seriously. And when FDX bought RPS, UPS pee'd their pants in glee as they figured that FDX had made a serious blunder.

Hadnt worked out that way, has it?

They raided UPS management? What about the drivers and other UPSers with hundreds of years of experience at their jobs. Leaving the union jobs they had to go work for a non union company......how can that all be the unions fault?

It wasnt.

Try a hostile work environment that was UPS at that time. Constant crap, all the time without letup. A refusal by UPS to understand that those that perform well should be rewarded well. That includes the sales forces. But instead, we lose a lot of motivated talent to the other companies, including Coke and FDX.

"What is in the contract is the minimum. UPS can pay more than that."

Actually, I don't believe it can.....at least not unilaterally. If it did, I think it would be in hot water with the NLRB for bypass bargaining (or whatever the term is that I'm racking my brain for, but can't remember).

Really? Let me see. Did the union negotiate with UPS to allow them to give out bonuses to part timers that stayed more than 60 days? Didnt think so. And this bonus was only in some centers, not state, region or national.

Now you may call it "negotiating"...as when rioters holding a gun to a local grocery store owner's head may call it "negotiating". And you have a right to call it what you will. However, employers - much like that grocery store owner I just mentioned - might be inclined to think of it as something else...and act accordingly. In the shopkeepers case, it's likely he'll move out of the neighborhood (as has actually occurred in too many cases)...while the employer will move his jobs elsewhere, or simply go out of business.

Nah, we call negotiating the fine art of a bunch of long winded liars and thieves that produce a contract that is full of words that dont mean anything, (you did not happen to sit on the panel putting the contract together did you?) Or at least they claim it doesnt mean what it says.

Funny you claim only the union side holds the gun to the store owners head.

I see it happening all the time here where management threatens the hourly about claiming rights agreed to under the contract.

Take 9.5's.

I want to get home and spend some time with my family. You insist that I need to work 10, 11 or more hours every day. Not unusual to have 55 hours on the week. So I try to ask for your consideration, but that goes nowhere. Then I threaten to file to claim my rights that YOU agreed to in the contract.

But no, you choose to threaten me with harassment rides, production audits just for starters. Who is putting the gun to who's head? You agreed to it, so give the driver the consideration that you promised.

But oh wait, what you promised.....you werent serious about that, and the contract really does not mean what it said........

As for "drinking too much cool-aid" (always wonder where that bit of wisdom hails from...i.e. - "cool-Aid"? What's that really associated with?), again, I can't help but note that more than HALF of UPS's employees are NOT Teamsters. Nor can I help but note that, while many UPS employees ARE Teamsters, the non-Teamster company FedEx is consistently voted by employees as being the better company to work for. Makes one wonder why, doesn't it?

You know, your right. The fact that UPS has a union and FDX does not is proof positive that the unions make life hell for everyone, and it hated by them.

I mean there is not way in hell it could be the management style we have at UPS that would have made so many UPSers leave to go to FDX where they can look forward to doing the same job for less money, but loving it more?????

Yep, Consolidated's owners knew that it couldn't be as profitable as a non-union company, and thus THEY ventured-out into a non-Teamsters one. And, wonder of wonders...IT is able to make a profit!
Huh? I see this type of blunder by people that just love to hear themselves talk.

Are all Teamsters "thugs"? Of course not. But far too high a proportion are. And there's no doubt that's the reputation they - and many unions in general - have in the minds of the public at large.
Yup. You posted it, so it has to be true. Care to cite your sources for that little comment?

(1) Your comment of "I have first hand knowledge of at least 23%." is not quite what I'd call universally applicable documentation, but....

(2) ....even it was, "at least 23%" is not quite the same as your prior claim of "Sometimes with rates as high as 25% or more" now, is it?

Let me clarify this to where even you can understand it.

I have first hand knowledge by seeing the actual documents of it being 23%. I have second and third hand knowledge of it being higher, but have not seen the actual documents, only word of mouth of the people that didnt think to check the paperwork. People that would have no reason to lie.

Lastly

P.S. - Ever thought that perhaps you ought to show a little more respect for those who WRITE your paycheck? I.e. - those who pay your wages with THEIR money? Sorry, guy...but any time you think you're being taken advantage of in terms of making the "money that is used to pay [my] paycheck", then feel free to hit the road. By that I mean that I sure as Hell am not going to demand that you hang around to "make the money" for my alleged [a significant definition] "paycheck". And, after all, I'm sure you can find a comparable job in a New York minute. Or, better yet, start your OWN company which pays the wages comparable to what you're making. Not a problem....right?

Your gross arrogance shines for all to see.

Respect is something that is earned. The tone in your posts shows absolutely no respect for those employees that go out every day to earn the money that you then claim as your own money that you use then to pay us? Of course only you can be the producer of the wealth that UPS brings in to pay those unworthy thugs that stand around doing nothing.

And you wonder why you dont get respect? And you wonder why FDX is a better work environment?

You sir dont have to look very far to get the answer. Just look in the mirror.

I say we get rid of about 30% of management at UPS. You know, the ones that keep telling everyone how important they are to the welfare of this company, and that they and they alone have the answers to make this company strong enough to survive. The ones that hate all things union and try to keep the company and the union at each others throats(and as a result are the reason UPS employees hate working for UPS)

Bet if GM had done that years ago, they would not have been in this sad shape either.

That being said, the rank and file that make up the teamsters the typical guy next door. Not some Mob thug that you try and make us out to be.

But for sure, the national and some of the local heads have lost their way as to the purpose of why the Teamsters were created in the first place.

d
 

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
Sorry about the length of my posts, but I tend to be thorough and want to be responsible with the information I convey. I find that impossible to do with short, superficial blurbs.

Superficial blurbs? The reason why many have a hard time conversing with you is because you say the same thing ad naseum. It is like trying to discuss religion with a born again Christian, the discussion is over before it began. The true believer does not discuss so much as preach.

The day when unions had any hope of influencing our economy in any meaningful way are long over. Also, unionists are just too small a part of the economy to blame them for our current economic malaise. Many will then blame the government. And I agree. But let's not forget who pulls the government's strings. And if you think it is organized labor, then you haven't been paying attention.
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
One more quick tidbit that is very interesting when discussing the correlation between UPS and GM.

GM decided that they did not need a talented workforce. So they automated.

As a result, the costs were kept down, but the quality fell. But because of the automated systems, they did need less bodies, and those that remained had brainless jobs that anyone could do.

Also, the design and types of vehicles produced were not what America was looking for. So all those lookalike rubber stamp Nascar looking car of the future that very few people wanted kept being put into production.

And we all know that the UAW is the party responsible for the design dont we?

How is this relevant to UPS?

Well, lets start by rolling out later commit times just because Fedex is doing so. After all, we have always been known as the Fedex follower instead of the leader. So lets keep on mimicking Fedex and degrade our next day air, instead of holding to a higher benchmark and letting them play catchup for a change. Give the people what they want and are paying for.

I know, what an idea.

And lets dumb down the work force. That way, the only people that have to think at UPS is management. But wait, even they are not allowed to think, only IE can do that.

Sorry, its because of people like you probe that there never was a chance at there being one UPS, where everyone works as a team.

Ever read the book Nuts?

Goes through two union companies, Eastern and Southwest airlines.

Know what caused one to fail and the other to thrive? Nope, both are/were union. What caused Eastern to fail and Southwest to thrive was management style. And I see Eastern written all over yours. So you keep blaming the union employees for all the woes at UPS. You will be your own self fulfilling prophesy

d
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
dannyboy;

If, as you say, my "...lack of knowledge in this matter is overwhelming", then I guess I should bow to your obviously superior knowledge, shouldn't I?

Anyway, sorry I spoke up. You'll keep coming up with those (hopefully converging) percentage figures, won't ya'?
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
Is that all you can muster? Then obviously I did not explain it to where you could understand. But then you would need to try first.

Goes back to the respect thing.

d
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
Jimmy;

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention but, with what little attention I have been paying, I've noticed that there are one Hell of a lot of commentators who are saying that it *IS* organized labor that is "pulling the strings" today. And, BTW, those commentators include even Teamsters officials (all the way to the top) who are claiming that the current administration owes them for getting elected. Beyond that, how else does one explain an administration going against 200 years of legal precedence, and all known financial wisdom by giving the subsidiary UNION priority over secured lenders in the auto bankruptcies? And do you realize what impact that decision is going to have on FUTURE economic development? Think lenders are going to make funds available to organized firms under even the most "secure" terms when they realize that a socialist movement is likely to cut the ground right from under them?

I agree that the days when unions had the ability to influence our economy in any meaningful POSITIVE manner are probably over. But they still retain one HELL of a lot influence in their ability to destroy.

Example? Everybody talks about what brought GM down...but has everybody forgotten the American Axle strike a while back that closed down GM assembly at a critical financial time? Or the subsequent (immediately after) strike at the Malibu assembly plant which really put the company on the ropes? And are you forgetting that, at the time, numerous commentators were specifically stating that such actions were bringing about the downfall of GM?

I understand your sympathies...but the facts are that the "organized" industries in this country have been brought to their knees, while the "unorganized" ones have prospered. Why is that? Simply coincidence that just the "organized" industries have had bad management (although many, I'll grant, would agree that's the case, in that they let the unions gain control). What?

I'm open to reasonable suggestions...but those suggestions need to take into account the actual evidence. And I'll tell you right now that there's one heck of a lot of evidence that unions have worked to destroy this country's economy.

Would it have to have been that way? Nope. They didn't have to kill the hen with the golden eggs. In other countries (and I've worked in one of them), unions function more responsibly. But here [predominately] they don't.
 
trplnkl;

Re: your comment of....

"Instead of you just talking crap about the people that make the money that is used to pay your paycheck"

....all I can is that "now THERE'S another Teamsters who's not inclined to jump to conclusions, isn't there!" [smile]

The only possible conclusion that I can think of that I may be making, is the one that you are/or were UPS management. If I am wrong, please enlighten me in 50 words or less(if you think you can manage it).

And in light of your comment that you're...

"...grow[ing] really tired of trying to decipher your rambling and run on sentences. Keep it real"

...perhaps then you'll understand why I find it somewhat difficult to respond to "these things" when you fail to specify just what "these things" are.

I'm so sorry that I thought a scholar such as yourself would understand that "these things" was tied directly to the subject at hand.

With that in mind, perhaps you might come to realize that what you seem to think is "rambling", other people might term as "conveying information"...something which you might think of giving a try now and then. And, in terms of your command to "keep it real", if you're unable to even define in context what "real" is, then I'm afraid I'm unable to accommodate you in that direction as well. Sorry.

Let me splain it to you Lucy, below is an example of your ramblings that I find hard to follow.
As for your contention that "DHL's US Domestic didn't have a union", just where did you come up with THAT particular bit of "wisdom" (or, more aptly, "misinformation") from? As for your "how has not being union helped them"....well, once again, perhaps I should bring up that, over thirty years ago now, a Teamster honcho informed me that FedEx would be organized by the Teamsters "in a matter of months". At that time, the company was a small FRACTION of the size it is today. Think being non-union hasn't helped it? Seen the relative financials and/or stock prices lately?
The underlined part of your quote was on one topic, the part not underlined is another topic all together. DHL being unionized or not has nothing to do with the Teamsters efforts to organize FedEx. How is that "conveying information" ? All that type of strategy accomplishes is diverting attention to the subject at hand. Another trait of the high integrity level of UPS management.
Oh, and now you want to stay in "context" with a definition of "Real". By that I am referring to your ridiculous comparisons of the UPS rank and file employees as "Street Thugs".


Lastly, if you're "real tired", and can't keep up, then just take a break. No one that I know of is demanding that you participate.
You're correct, I am not tied to this board nor this thread.

P.S. - Ever thought that perhaps you ought to show a little more respect for those who WRITE your paycheck? I.e. - those who pay your wages with THEIR money?
HAHAHA, how funny, on two points.(1) Respect is earned not demanded.(2) If it were not for people like myself and the thosuands other working employees of UPS, going out everyday and busting our humps there would be no money for you to call "THEIR's".

Sorry, guy...but any time you think you're being taken advantage of in terms of making the "money that is used to pay [my] paycheck", then feel free to hit the road. By that I mean that I sure as Hell am not going to demand that you hang around to "make the money" for my alleged [a significant definition] "paycheck".
Yet another UPS management classic, good job. I am really proud that you decided to change it up a little bit. The old " If you don't like it, quit" has gotten pretty old.
And, after all, I'm sure you can find a comparable job in a New York minute. Or, better yet, start your OWN company which pays the wages comparable to what you're making. Not a problem....right?
One thing is for certain, I made a living before I worked at UPS, I bet I can make one after I leave.
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
trplnkl;

Re: in reference to your....

"I made a living before I worked at UPS, I bet I can make one after I leave"

....I'm willing to take you up on that bet. Be sure to notify me if/when I've "lost", won't ya'? No doubt pay-up time will be "real soon" now, right? [smile]

Per the rest, as with "danny" over there, it seems I should bow to your obviously superior knowledge [and ability to keep things in context...cackle!] as well. Rather ironic in light of your recent declaration as to what you are, isn't it?

BTW, don't knock the classics; they're "classic" because there's more than a grain of truth in them. By that I mean that, if you really don't like what I and my associates have to offer, then simply hit the road. No one's forcing you to work for me; you're doing so out of your own volition....and life's too short to keep working for those you obviously have no respect for. With that in mind, perhaps it's time you considered becoming man enough to take up you're OWN "bet".
 
trplnkl;

Re: in reference to your....

"I made a living before I worked at UPS, I bet I can make one after I leave"

....I'm willing to take you up on that bet. Be sure to notify me if/when I've "lost", won't ya'? No doubt pay-up time will be "real soon" now, right? [smile]

Per the rest, as with "danny" over there, it seems I should bow to your obviously superior knowledge [and ability to keep things in context...cackle!] as well. Rather ironic in light of your recent declaration as to what you are, isn't it?

Pay up time may not come for a while, I'll let you know. Oh and BTW, I prefer cash. Large or small bills, your choice.

Once again in your inability to keep up with a single topic, you have lost me. Were did I make a declaration as to what I am? What do you perceive I declared?

You still didn't say what you are.
 
Top