Is UPS just a poor negotiator?

[MC4YOU2]

It seems that "cost savings" are being cited as the reason behind the newest production push, and is the source of the spate of 3 day lock-in rides that has originated from there. "Stops per car" is being pushed increasingly higher despite tipping over the knife edge of safety and sanity. There are those who suggest, I feel mistakenly, that UPS would back off this push if the wages and or benefits were lower. So I ask you all, if this is the case, why did UPS agree in the first place if they were unwilling to gracefully accept the wages and work performances in place at the time of the agreement? Are they simply poor negotiators? Is the company trying for a second bite of the apple? I believe this is precisely what is going on. Sore losers plain and simple. Mind games meant to intimidate and harass, and somehow avenge what they perceive to be an unfair bargain. Bullying tactics meant to breed fear and dread into the ranks.

So, if UPS believes that whipping the troops to pieces now only planning to pull out the barbecue apron and Gatorade coolers in the spring of 2013 will ensure that a stripped down version of the last contract will be a shoo-in to pass here is the poll question;

Would you vote for ANY contract that for any pay and benefit level, did not FULLY and FINALLY address the dishonest tactics used to harass drivers into skipping personal time to attain false standards and forced overtime?

 

[klein]

Just do the extra stops per hr. Who cares if there are more accidents ?
Who cares if you don't have the time of day to answer a customers question ?
Who cares if you don't have time to get a single sales lead ?
Who cares if you ring customers door bells past 9pm during xmas rush ?
Who cares about more missed packages ?

Work as directed, seems they have it all figured out !!!

Btw, UPS bosses, can you atleast put you 1-800 number on the UPS shipment labels, so every driver can just pinpoint customers to call it, and perhaps have a little sign on it, not to ask drivers questions, as they do on city buses (Don't disturb Bus Driver while driving - could read : don't disturb UPS employer during deliveries) ?

And who cares if customers are on hold for several minutes, and only get a person with broken English knowledge from India or the Phillipines when they call ?

We love Logistics !

 

[UnconTROLLed]

UPS preys on the weak and unknowing. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter what part of operations you are in. When that runs out, the negative attention management holds must go somewhere...

Remember, 20 extra stops per car are also 20 more that the preloader must load! And the extra pickups are more extra pickups for the local sort to unload...and so on...

My advice upon clear cut intimidation , harrassment; shrug, smile and continue working. do not address "production", it does not exist.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I don't think anyone could have foreseen the economic collapse when they were negotiating the current contract back in 2007-08.

BrownIEman has already hinted that UPS will try to take away health benefits for new PT hires as part of the 2013 contract. I personally think that they will also propose a two-tiered pay scale with a lower starting rate and longer progression schedule for new FT drivers. Health benefits will also be a major issue as will more clearly defined language on the use of technology for discipline purposes and the introduction of production standards.

2013 will make 1997 look like a walk in the park.

 

[The Blackadder]

I don't think anyone could have foreseen the economic collapse when they were negotiating the current contract back in 2007-08.

BrownIEman has already hinted that UPS will try to take away health benefits for new PT hires as part of the 2013 contract. I personally think that they will also propose a two-tiered pay scale with a lower starting rate and longer progression schedule for new FT drivers. Health benefits will also be a major issue as will more clearly defined language on the use of technology for discipline purposes and the introduction of production standards.

2013 will make 1997 look like a walk in the park.

upstate, I have a feeling UPS wants a strike that this is one reason they are pushing us like this.

I think UPS wants to break the union to a point, cut the benifits and a lower pay rate for new drivers. This would make getting rid of older workers making more money a high priority for UPS.

I really think UPS would be fine with a much smaller company if they can break the Union, cut pay and benifits. They are proving right now they dont care about safety, they dont care about the workers, all they care about is money.

 

[PT Stewie]

UPS sees US economy gathering steam in second half - Reuters

United Parcel Service sees the U.S. economy outlook "a little muddier" than expected early this year, but growth should "chug along" at a slightly faster pace in the second half of the year.

Fuel prices are a wild card but have yet to reach levels that drain demand for UPS's higher-cost express products, Chief Executive Scott Davis said Wednesday at a Sanford C. Bernstein& Co Strategic Decisions Conference that was webcast.

Ole Scott says we will be ok. I do not believe he has taken a cut. Work as hard as safety and acccuracy will allow(chug along) . When challanged by the production droids just smile and say I am doing my very best and they will go away eventually.
With regard to the next contract there is no reason whatsoever for any give backs.

 

[Re-Raise]

I love the wording of the poll question. ha ha.

Do you support the UPS policy of stealing candy from children and the clubbing of baby seals?

 

[themidnightoil]

safety only matters at UP$ when you get hurt because it cost them money. in our center we have already had more accidents and injuries this year then all of last year!! HEY UPS.... this is a direct result of over dispatching and putting your drivers is a position to have to work unsafe to get the job done. your GREED is causing the accidents and injuries.

we had a pcm the other morning that all pickups were to be in the center by 19:00. we start at 9:05 and 9:10. "here is you 10+ hour dispatch, be safe". now we have guys running scared skipping their lunch and running all day. can't wait for telematics to help put a stop to this.

 

[washington57]

I don't think anyone could have foreseen the economic collapse when they were negotiating the current contract back in 2007-08.

BrownIEman has already hinted that UPS will try to take away health benefits for new PT hires as part of the 2013 contract. I personally think that they will also propose a two-tiered pay scale with a lower starting rate and longer progression schedule for new FT drivers. Health benefits will also be a major issue as will more clearly defined language on the use of technology for discipline purposes and the introduction of production standards.

2013 will make 1997 look like a walk in the park.

Actually Noam Chomsky predicted this as early as 1993.

Also I don't understand why people are concerned. As long as UPS makes a profit there is zero reason to give a single concession. Scott Davis can pay himself less if UPS is so hard up for cash. He makes 100x more than the FT drivers.

You are only shilling for the ultra rich republicans if you believe that he somehow deserves his salary. It is immoral and they have no right to ask for a single concession. We work very hard and it is a shame that we aren't afforded a larger slice of the pie.

 

[Catatonic]

It seems some people are not aware of how 401k and pension funding is provided.

A company (say UPS) must be able to make capital investments to just maintain their infrastructure (UPS has a lot of it) and they must be able to pay dividends in order for shareholders (mostly 401k and pension investment holders) to continue to hold their stock. UPS is not paying dividends high enough now to justify continued ownership by this large institutional holders of the stock based on its potential growth. Last time I checked UPS was paying about 2.8 percent dividends per year and they need to be paying 4% of higher. Dividends are paid out of profits.

Most of my investments are already in companies that pay a minimum of 4% yield on dividends, have not reduced their dividends in the last thirty years and have a beta of .85 or lower.

When I retire, all my stock investments will have these qualification or I will sell them. UPS is at the cusp of some very hard decisions over the next few years in order to retain their viability as a desirable stock investment. Being in the S&P provides some protection but UPS is yet to reach the profitability it was at in 2006 and may never again.
Luckily the higher level Union people understand this (or have advisors that do) ... 2013 should be interesting.

I don't have any insight but UPS long term strategy could be to reduce the % of its overall workforce in Union hourly and higher paid management employees.
The obvious place to do that is in the UPS Ground operations with the less profitable packages (residential, rural and single package stops).

Just my observations from the sidelines.

 

[anonymous6]

Management should LEAD and set a good example for the rest of us and honor the contract.

We all know they don't.

So what should they expect from the troops?

study history.

 

[moreluck]

O.T. This poll is a great example of how political polls can be skewed depending on how the questions or answers are phrased.....continue as you were

 

[j13501]

So I ask you all, if this is the case, why did UPS agree in the first place if they were unwilling to gracefully accept the wages and work performances in place at the time of the agreement? Are they simply poor negotiators?

You ask a fair question, and deserve an thoughtful answer. The truth is that when UPS negotiates a contract, they know that increased wages (and benefits) will need to be offset with additional revenue and reduced costs. They plan the contract on an overall domestic U.S. level- meaning that they know that they can raise rates each year, which will cover some of the additional costs of the contract, but that the wage increases will also have to be offset with additional production. The contract is negotiated by the company with a plan to improve driver wages/benefits but also improve company profitability.

If delivery volume is rising faster than delivery stops, two good things happen for the company. First, the package density increases, meaning you have 2 packages at some stops now, rather than just 1. Since we get paid by the package, this improves our revenue, without adding much cost. This is an increase in "production" without you doing any additional stops per day. Second, the additional volume means that we may add some additional drivers that are in wage progression. Additional new drivers delivering at a lower wage rate, brings down the average driver wage, thus balancing the cost assumptions made by the company during negotiations.
The problem occurs when you have economic problems like we have for the last few years. If delivery volume is flat, or just rising at the same rate as delivery stops, then rising costs don't balance with the flat revenue. There are less multiple package stops, and more single package stops. Without that necessary package desity that comes from more packages per stop, the company still needs to get the same packages delivered per day, hopefully in the same time. This means additional stops per car.

I realize that this explanation may not satisfy you when you're the one with the additional stops per car everyday. UPS drivers work very hard every day and deserve the wages that they earn. But the company will risk reduced profitability if it just "gracefully accepts the wages and work performances in place at the time of the agreement". It needs to adjust to changing conditions so that it stays a profitable and strong company capable of paying increasing wages into the future.

 

[Dragon]

You ask a fair question, and deserve an thoughtful answer. The truth is that when UPS negotiates a contract, they know that increased wages (and benefits) will need to be offset with additional revenue and reduced costs. They plan the contract on an overall domestic U.S. level- meaning that they know that they can raise rates each year, which will cover some of the additional costs of the contract, but that the wage increases will also have to be offset with additional production. The contract is negotiated by the company with a plan to improve driver wages/benefits but also improve company profitability.

If delivery volume is rising faster than delivery stops, two good things happen for the company. First, the package density increases, meaning you have 2 packages at some stops now, rather than just 1. Since we get paid by the package, this improves our revenue, without adding much cost. This is an increase in "production" without you doing any additional stops per day. Second, the additional volume means that we may add some additional drivers that are in wage progression. Additional new drivers delivering at a lower wage rate, brings down the average driver wage, thus balancing the cost assumptions made by the company during negotiations.
The problem occurs when you have economic problems like we have for the last few years. If delivery volume is flat, or just rising at the same rate as delivery stops, then rising costs don't balance with the flat revenue. There are less multiple package stops, and more single package stops. Without that necessary package desity that comes from more packages per stop, the company still needs to get the same packages delivered per day, hopefully in the same time. This means additional stops per car.

I realize that this explanation may not satisfy you when you're the one with the additional stops per car everyday. UPS drivers work very hard every day and deserve the wages that they earn. But the company will risk reduced profitability if it just "gracefully accepts the wages and work performances in place at the time of the agreement". It needs to adjust to changing conditions so that it stays a profitable and strong company capable of paying increasing wages into the future.

Well said my friend.

 

[MobileBA]

Imagine if only 10% of the drivers increased their production standards to not be overly supervised. That my friend is money in the bank. I've always believed UPS has thrown money at the bargaining table to avoid talking about other issues, I think these other issues are what they really fear. Thinking outside the box; that fear is treating the employees like people. Maybe, that is why they spend so much time and money to promote the corporate imagine in the public sector.

 

[Griff]

Imagine if only 10% of the drivers increased their production standards to not be overly supervised. That my friend is money in the bank. I've always believed UPS has thrown money at the bargaining table to avoid talking about other issues, I think these other issues are what they really fear. Thinking outside the box; that fear is treating the employees like people. Maybe, that is why they spend so much time and money to promote the corporate imagine in the public sector.

Imagine if 10% of the drivers stopped giving free labor to the company to the tune of $45+/hr. That my friend is a lot of money.

 

[themidnightoil]

Imagine if only 10% of the drivers increased their production standards to not be overly supervised. That my friend is money in the bank. I've always believed UPS has thrown money at the bargaining table to avoid talking about other issues, I think these other issues are what they really fear. Thinking outside the box; that fear is treating the employees like people. Maybe, that is why they spend so much time and money to promote the corporate imagine in the public sector.

so you think I should do my 10.5 hour day in 9.3 just to make more 'money in the bank' for the GREEDY company and share holders? ok... I will just skip my lunch every day and or work completely unsafe to make it for them.... wait!!! that's what they want us already. just work safely with that 10.5 hour day because that will cost the company and share holders money for an accident or injury.

Greed is the root of all evil.

How about working on keeping the customers we have happy with great service and win back the ones we lost. I know times are tough with the thinning volume but this is were UPS needs to step-up and put the customers and SERVICE first. Record profits makes me think United Parcel SERVICE is not hurting, just Greedy.

 

[packageguy]

It seems that "cost savings" are being cited as the reason behind the newest production push, and is the source of the spate of 3 day lock-in rides that has originated from there. "Stops per car" is being pushed increasingly higher despite tipping over the knife edge of safety and sanity. There are those who suggest, I feel mistakenly, that UPS would back off this push if the wages and or benefits were lower. So I ask you all, if this is the case, why did UPS agree in the first place if they were unwilling to gracefully accept the wages and work performances in place at the time of the agreement? Are they simply poor negotiators? Is the company trying for a second bite of the apple? I believe this is precisely what is going on. Sore losers plain and simple. Mind games meant to intimidate and harass, and somehow avenge what they perceive to be an unfair bargain. Bullying tactics meant to breed fear and dread into the ranks.

So, if UPS believes that whipping the troops to pieces now only planning to pull out the barbecue apron and Gatorade coolers in the spring of 2013 will ensure that a stripped down version of the last contract will be a shoo-in to pass here is the poll question;

Would you vote for ANY contract that for any pay and benefit level, did not FULLY and FINALLY address the dishonest tactics used to harass drivers into skipping personal time to attain false standards and forced overtime?

Very good post,
I think this thing they are doing to us now, will not last. There are to many injurys and stress problems that those numbers had to at least doubled. that can not be good for them. There own managers and supervisors are stepping down. so thing has to give.

I vote on anything till I see what's on the table.

 

[Billy Boxtosser]

Actually Noam Chomsky predicted this as early as 1993.

Also I don't understand why people are concerned. As long as UPS makes a profit there is zero reason to give a single concession. Scott Davis can pay himself less if UPS is so hard up for cash. He makes 100x more than the FT drivers.

You are only shilling for the ultra rich republicans if you believe that he somehow deserves his salary. It is immoral and they have no right to ask for a single concession. We work very hard and it is a shame that we aren't afforded a larger slice of the pie.

WELL SAID!!! We're getting nothing but the crumbs of that pie!!

 

[MC4YOU2]

I don't have any insight but UPS long term strategy could be to reduce the % of its overall workforce in Union hourly and higher paid management employees.
The obvious place to do that is in the UPS Ground operations with the less profitable packages (residential, rural and single package stops).

Just my observations from the sidelines.

Isn't this happening where you are already? Last year was a year that sent some management home on an early out retirement offer and was the first step in a corporate reorganization. As for the hourly employees, you may not be aware that there is at this time a major effort to reduce these costs and promote efficiency through daily route cutting which thereby reduces the need for drivers, pre loaders and sorters etc. I do not disagree with any of this in general.

The issue is not just a profit based one, but rather an ethical one as well. If routes are to be cut due to low volume, and the contract is followed so far as limiting overtime, then so be it. But why treat the remaining employees as if there isn't enough of a saving in laying off their co workers? Why try and squeeze the work of 100% of the workers out of only 75% left in attendance? Why cheat and rig the 3 day rides with a systematic plan that undermines the loyalty and drive of the employees?