Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Is this standard procedure at fedex express ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ricochet1a" data-source="post: 876928" data-attributes="member: 22880"><p>In regards to FedEx2000's post...</p><p></p><p>A well balanced and bias free assessment, kudos!</p><p></p><p>Issues...</p><p></p><p>1) A few months before I left, there was much fuss raised about how "goal" was going to be an ACTUAL statistical mean expectation - there was a hand out to all the Couriers explaining how the goal was going to be a true statistical average, with the average being 100%. Some particular days would result in the Courier being above the calculated goal, some days would result in the Courier being below the calculated goal. The goal was the TRUE statistical average of expected performance. In theory, the goal on a week time scale should've been very close to actual performance, and over a longer time scale, the Courier should've nailed the expected goal within a percentage point. </p><p></p><p>From what is going on now, that all seems to have been thrown out the window and the goal now is not a statistical average, but rather a MINIMUM expectation that is to be met not on a weekly basis, but rather a DAILY basis. The absurdity of this is obvious. I know there wasn't a readjustment of the goal numbers from a year ago to now, so a situation exists where Couriers are being forced to cut corners whenever they are delayed for some reason, just to make sure they hit that minimum number - which in the past was an average number. </p><p></p><p>I'm glad you have made a point of this publically. </p><p></p><p>2) You seem to confirm something that I've heard in non-public conversation.</p><p></p><p>Senior managers AREN'T able to replace vacant Full-time positions without jumping through a variety of hoops, so they resort to replacing the FT position with a Part-time employee, quoting "or they don't want to put in the extra work and take the easy way out by just asking for a PTer". </p><p></p><p>The suggestion in non-public discussion is that the administrative morass to replace a vacant full-time position with a full-time hire is deliberate - is in large part due to the desire to gradually shift the proportion of Couriers from being weighted towards full-time positions to that of being part-time positions.</p><p></p><p>I'm not asking you to confirm if this is the <u>intention</u> of Express, but rather is this the <u>net effect</u> of the administrative burden that is placed on senior managers to indeed fill vacant full-time positions with full-time employees? If the overall net effect is indeed a shift in the proportion of Couriers away from full time to part-time, the reader can decide if this is deliberate. </p><p></p><p>3) Forced breaks....</p><p></p><p>Are you willing to state that the now seemingly common practice of management telling employees to take unpaid breaks when they are waiting for freight is a violation of either the letter or intent of previous Express policy (PEOPLE) in regards to the use of the paid code 43 (delay). </p><p></p><p>If an employee is forced to take a break under this policy, are they free to leave the building and attend to whatever business they please?</p><p></p><p>If the employee isn't free to leave the building, they are NOT on a break, since they do not have discretion as to what they'll do or where they may go (as if they were on an hour long "lunch break"). This is where the code 43 comes in - the employee is on "standby" for incoming freight, isn't engaged in doing any other activity but is NOT free to leave the work area and is still on the clock. Forcing an employee to go off the clock but then stating the employee has to remain in the work area is a clear violation of practically every (if not all) state's labor law. </p><p></p><p>I had many instances when management wanted me to take a break - I told them fine, I'd code in a break, leave the building and be back around a certain time. They stated, no, you have to remain in your work area. Presto, code 43, you're paying me. Never once had them try to alter my time card to put in an unpaid break in there - they knew I photocopied my time cards to prevent "corrections" from occurring which shorted me paid time. </p><p></p><p>4) You appear to point out the difficulty Express is having in readjusting its manning levels to match volume. Some stations have employees barely making minimums, other are playing the games with employees that have been written about here. </p><p></p><p>Are you stating the Express is so poorly organized, that they don't either trust, or have confidence in their district managers to assess the staffing levels at their stations and make appropriate assessments in regards to presence of either excess or deficient staffings and gradually make adjustments as needed? Stated another way, do district managers run their districts, or does Memphis micromanage the districts? </p><p></p><p>This would include making determinations of stations being overstaffed (for the volume they are handling) and either making reductions in force (as was done in 2009 in many locations), or offering some incentives for employees to transfer to stations with chronic understaffing?</p><p></p><p>What is going on is that Express is using a sledgehammer to try to adjust mismatches in staffing/work levels - and the results are having consequences which are showing up in forums such as this, as well has causing massive morale problems in the stations. </p><p></p><p>5) You stated you won't "sell your soul", to Express. You seem to have drawn a psychological line in the sand when it comes to Express. You more or less state you see things as "the glass is half full" - what would Express have to do, to make you decide that they have crossed that psychological line in the sand? </p><p></p><p>You already stated you are picking up work that in the past, you wouldn't otherwise be doing (filling in for missing wage employees or filling in to keep from going over budgeted hours). Do you honestly expect this to change - especially since there are strong indications that this is indeed the "new normal"?</p><p></p><p>You are now receiving (on an actuarial basis) about one-third of what you did in the past with regards to a pension. Your health insurance is being constantly diminished to the point where it is resembling what used to be referred to as "supplemental insurance". If you or a member of you family has a catastrophic medical event ($50,000+ in medical bills), you will spend months fighting (either Anthem or CIGNA) to have them indeed pay up to the amounts stated in your employee handbook. </p><p></p><p>I have first hand knowledge regarding this. Both Anthem and CIGNA are making absurd claims when high dollar amount events come in - that certain procedures weren't "pre-approved" or a particular provider isn't "in-network" when the physical facility is listed as being "in-network". It's not like you are in a positon when a patient to determine if a provider is "in network", after you've had you're chest cut open or are in traction. This can't be blamed on the health plan administrators, since Express is self paid when it comes to claims, the administrators are merely following the directives that Express stipulated in their contract. </p><p></p><p>What do you see as moving in a postive direction?</p><p></p><p>You have 11 years with Express, you have seen how the company has undergone a radical transformation from the company which was Federal Express (changed right before you started), to the company which is being molded right now. </p><p></p><p>What gives you hope that things will move in a positive direction for either yourself (as a salaried employee) or for the wage employees?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ricochet1a, post: 876928, member: 22880"] In regards to FedEx2000's post... A well balanced and bias free assessment, kudos! Issues... 1) A few months before I left, there was much fuss raised about how "goal" was going to be an ACTUAL statistical mean expectation - there was a hand out to all the Couriers explaining how the goal was going to be a true statistical average, with the average being 100%. Some particular days would result in the Courier being above the calculated goal, some days would result in the Courier being below the calculated goal. The goal was the TRUE statistical average of expected performance. In theory, the goal on a week time scale should've been very close to actual performance, and over a longer time scale, the Courier should've nailed the expected goal within a percentage point. From what is going on now, that all seems to have been thrown out the window and the goal now is not a statistical average, but rather a MINIMUM expectation that is to be met not on a weekly basis, but rather a DAILY basis. The absurdity of this is obvious. I know there wasn't a readjustment of the goal numbers from a year ago to now, so a situation exists where Couriers are being forced to cut corners whenever they are delayed for some reason, just to make sure they hit that minimum number - which in the past was an average number. I'm glad you have made a point of this publically. 2) You seem to confirm something that I've heard in non-public conversation. Senior managers AREN'T able to replace vacant Full-time positions without jumping through a variety of hoops, so they resort to replacing the FT position with a Part-time employee, quoting "or they don't want to put in the extra work and take the easy way out by just asking for a PTer". The suggestion in non-public discussion is that the administrative morass to replace a vacant full-time position with a full-time hire is deliberate - is in large part due to the desire to gradually shift the proportion of Couriers from being weighted towards full-time positions to that of being part-time positions. I'm not asking you to confirm if this is the [U]intention[/U] of Express, but rather is this the [U]net effect[/U] of the administrative burden that is placed on senior managers to indeed fill vacant full-time positions with full-time employees? If the overall net effect is indeed a shift in the proportion of Couriers away from full time to part-time, the reader can decide if this is deliberate. 3) Forced breaks.... Are you willing to state that the now seemingly common practice of management telling employees to take unpaid breaks when they are waiting for freight is a violation of either the letter or intent of previous Express policy (PEOPLE) in regards to the use of the paid code 43 (delay). If an employee is forced to take a break under this policy, are they free to leave the building and attend to whatever business they please? If the employee isn't free to leave the building, they are NOT on a break, since they do not have discretion as to what they'll do or where they may go (as if they were on an hour long "lunch break"). This is where the code 43 comes in - the employee is on "standby" for incoming freight, isn't engaged in doing any other activity but is NOT free to leave the work area and is still on the clock. Forcing an employee to go off the clock but then stating the employee has to remain in the work area is a clear violation of practically every (if not all) state's labor law. I had many instances when management wanted me to take a break - I told them fine, I'd code in a break, leave the building and be back around a certain time. They stated, no, you have to remain in your work area. Presto, code 43, you're paying me. Never once had them try to alter my time card to put in an unpaid break in there - they knew I photocopied my time cards to prevent "corrections" from occurring which shorted me paid time. 4) You appear to point out the difficulty Express is having in readjusting its manning levels to match volume. Some stations have employees barely making minimums, other are playing the games with employees that have been written about here. Are you stating the Express is so poorly organized, that they don't either trust, or have confidence in their district managers to assess the staffing levels at their stations and make appropriate assessments in regards to presence of either excess or deficient staffings and gradually make adjustments as needed? Stated another way, do district managers run their districts, or does Memphis micromanage the districts? This would include making determinations of stations being overstaffed (for the volume they are handling) and either making reductions in force (as was done in 2009 in many locations), or offering some incentives for employees to transfer to stations with chronic understaffing? What is going on is that Express is using a sledgehammer to try to adjust mismatches in staffing/work levels - and the results are having consequences which are showing up in forums such as this, as well has causing massive morale problems in the stations. 5) You stated you won't "sell your soul", to Express. You seem to have drawn a psychological line in the sand when it comes to Express. You more or less state you see things as "the glass is half full" - what would Express have to do, to make you decide that they have crossed that psychological line in the sand? You already stated you are picking up work that in the past, you wouldn't otherwise be doing (filling in for missing wage employees or filling in to keep from going over budgeted hours). Do you honestly expect this to change - especially since there are strong indications that this is indeed the "new normal"? You are now receiving (on an actuarial basis) about one-third of what you did in the past with regards to a pension. Your health insurance is being constantly diminished to the point where it is resembling what used to be referred to as "supplemental insurance". If you or a member of you family has a catastrophic medical event ($50,000+ in medical bills), you will spend months fighting (either Anthem or CIGNA) to have them indeed pay up to the amounts stated in your employee handbook. I have first hand knowledge regarding this. Both Anthem and CIGNA are making absurd claims when high dollar amount events come in - that certain procedures weren't "pre-approved" or a particular provider isn't "in-network" when the physical facility is listed as being "in-network". It's not like you are in a positon when a patient to determine if a provider is "in network", after you've had you're chest cut open or are in traction. This can't be blamed on the health plan administrators, since Express is self paid when it comes to claims, the administrators are merely following the directives that Express stipulated in their contract. What do you see as moving in a postive direction? You have 11 years with Express, you have seen how the company has undergone a radical transformation from the company which was Federal Express (changed right before you started), to the company which is being molded right now. What gives you hope that things will move in a positive direction for either yourself (as a salaried employee) or for the wage employees? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Is this standard procedure at fedex express ?
Top