Ken H

[BrownBrokeDown]

I started wondering after seeing a lot of comments on this website, and multiple personal conversations where Ken H was blamed for the contract. A lot of people seem to regard the 97 contract as one of the best in the last 50 years, and this one the worst. Carey seems to get most of the props for the 97, but it seems like the blame for this one is Hall or Hall and Hoffa, with primary blame going to Hall. With Ken H. being the common denominator between the two, I was wondering what people's opinions were on this.


1st time doing a poll, hope I do this right.

 

[InsideUPS]

I started wondering after seeing a lot of comments on this website, and multiple personal conversations where Ken H was blamed for the contract. A lot of people seem to regard the 97 contract as one of the best in the last 50 years, and this one the worst. Carey seems to get most of the props for the 97, but it seems like the blame for this one is Hall or Hall and Hoffa, with primary blame going to Hall. With Ken H. being the common denominator between the two, I was wondering what people's opinions were on this.


1st time doing a poll, hope I do this right.

The Carey/Hall team of 1997 and the Hoffa/Hall team of 2013 is significantly different for several reasons. Carey was a charismatic intelligent leader that had the ability to unify the rank and file, while Hoffa is simply a figurehead that lives in the shadow of his father. hall has experience and ability but is working with a less than ideal Union president. The weak leak in my opinion is therefore Hoffa.....not Hall.

While comparing the "two teams" above, it is only fair to point out that UPS is a very different company now when compared to 1997. We are a publicly traded company that is no longer guided by the business principles of Jim Casey. Management and hourly alike are now treated as liabilities rather than assets and partners of the company. The IBT continues to struggle with membership , right to work states continue to increase, pension funds continue to face difficult financial times, etc.. Plain and simple, the Carey/Hall slate of 97 had a few more bargaining chips on their side of the table than does the Hoffa/Hall slate of 2013. Regardless, Carey was simply a better leader IMHO...

 

[InsideUPS]

I started wondering after seeing a lot of comments on this website, and multiple personal conversations where Ken H was blamed for the contract. A lot of people seem to regard the 97 contract as one of the best in the last 50 years, and this one the worst. Carey seems to get most of the props for the 97, but it seems like the blame for this one is Hall or Hall and Hoffa, with primary blame going to Hall. With Ken H. being the common denominator between the two, I was wondering what people's opinions were on this.


1st time doing a poll, hope I do this right.

• He did the best he could with what UPS came to the table with.
• He did what he was told to by the Pres. in both 97 and 2013.
• He did an about face and went from hardliner to sellout.
• X - He did the best he could given the leader he has been politically forced to work with...

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

You know, that is actually what I have been thinking. But man, he is crucified, while Hoffa almost seems like an afterthought in most conversations. Curious to see what the majority says...

 

[Bagels]

I'm curious as to how you feel this contract is inferior, for FT employees, than the one in 1997. At the conclusion of this contract, package car drivers will be among the top 5% individual earners in total compensation within the USA. That's absolutely staggering, and an incredible achievement from the Teamsters, especially given the near-monopoly that UPS enjoyed in 1997 vs. the strong competition today. Benefits are still no-cost, and the TEAMCARE option will cost FTers less out-of-pocket that the traditional insurance they had at the time. Although many on here will say 'it's not about the money,' it is. It's pretty clear from reading BC that many of the FTers on here expected a more significant pay increase.

Doesn't earning $94,000/year with no-cost benefits as a delivery driver seem reasonable & fair? Especially given the cost it comes with -- significant increases in PT/temporary/casual employees performing FT work, an increase in the progression, etc. In five years, the Teamsters will once again concede an even larger increase in PT/temporary/casual employees to perform FT work, as well as a lengthened progression. There's only so much money to go around, and it's a pyramid scheme to ensure the FT drivers get the elephant's share.

The contract's very mediocre for PTers, but we (PTers) can blame ourselves for not voting. If we did, we'd likely get a larger bite of the apple. But this isn't the worst contract for FT or PT. That'd have to be the last contract, which was overwhelmingly approved despite lesser wage increases split over six months, benefits pulled from PTers until after 12/18 months, concessions in health care (transition to PPO from traditional) and the pullout of Central States. The latter may not have been such a bad idea, but given how badly UPS wanted, and that the contract was negotiated during robust times, I'm surprised at how poor it turned out to be.

Maybe the biggest change from 1997 was the minimal support FTers showed PTers. Today, the FTers would happily sign a contract that gave them an extra $1 an hour at the expense of eliminating PT benefits, then justify it by saying '...well, PT was never meant to be a career.' If you ask Scott Davis, FT package car driving wasn't, either.

 

[Anonymous 10]

I'm curious as to how you feel this contract is inferior, for FT employees, than the one in 1997. At the conclusion of this contract, package car drivers will be among the top 5% individual earners in total compensation within the USA. That's absolutely staggering, and an incredible achievement from the Teamsters, especially given the near-monopoly that UPS enjoyed in 1997 vs. the strong competition today. Benefits are still no-cost, and the TEAMCARE option will cost FTers less out-of-pocket that the traditional insurance they had at the time. Although many on here will say 'it's not about the money,' it is. It's pretty clear from reading BC that many of the FTers on here expected a more significant pay increase.

Doesn't earning $94,000/year with no-cost benefits as a delivery driver seem reasonable & fair? Especially given the cost it comes with -- significant increases in PT/temporary/casual employees performing FT work, an increase in the progression, etc. In five years, the Teamsters will once again concede an even larger increase in PT/temporary/casual employees to perform FT work, as well as a lengthened progression. There's only so much money to go around, and it's a pyramid scheme to ensure the FT drivers get the elephant's share.

The contract's very mediocre for PTers, but we (PTers) can blame ourselves for not voting. If we did, we'd likely get a larger bite of the apple. But this isn't the worst contract for FT or PT. That'd have to be the last contract, which was overwhelmingly approved despite lesser wage increases split over six months, benefits pulled from PTers until after 12/18 months, concessions in health care (transition to PPO from traditional) and the pullout of Central States. The latter may not have been such a bad idea, but given how badly UPS wanted, and that the contract was negotiated during robust times, I'm surprised at how poor it turned out to be.

Maybe the biggest change from 1997 was the minimal support FTers showed PTers. Today, the FTers would happily sign a contract that gave them an extra $1 an hour at the expense of eliminating PT benefits, then justify it by saying '...well, PT was never meant to be a career.' If you ask Scott Davis, FT package car driving wasn't, either.

That's not enough

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

The reason that I made the pole wasn't because of what I actually believe. It was because of everything I was hearing had Hall as the fall guy, with either no mention of anyone else, or Hoffa as afterthought. I was curious to see if people actually thought he was at fault. I made sure to include an option for people that voted yes too.

As a pter, I voted. And it was a no. There were 3 major issues that I had with this contract considering what UPS has done in the past year.
1.)current retiree insurance rates going up. I can see future retirees paying more, but to me current retirees should be frozen at the previous rate.
2.)4 year progression. In a lot of facilities there is a substantial waiting list to drive, and now it takes even longer to make the money.
3.)pt wage increase was not enough. Either another dollar needed added or the 90 day raise needs put back in.
It all boils down to what UPS has done recently. Scott Davis 600%+ higher pay+compensation in 6 years, raise dividends, record profits, spending 6 figures to put their name on a racecar, increasing their golf sponsership, etc...but they needed to restructure healthcare, wages, progression, etc. It's got a distinct Hostess feel.

 

[3 done 3 to go]

I also really doubt Hoffa or Hall will run for general President. I think they realize now they are both done at the end of their present terms.

 

[Bagels]

I also really doubt Hoffa or Hall will run for general President. I think they realize now they are both done at the end of their present terms.

First off, the majority of UPSers voted in favor of the agreement. And secondly... you do realize there's Teamsters beyond UPS, right?

 

[BrownBrokeDown]

First off, the majority of UPSers voted in favor of the agreement. And secondly... you do realize there's Teamsters beyond UPS, right?

The majority of UPSers who voted, voted in favor of the agreement by a slim margin.

fixed for ya

 

[Bagels]

The majority of UPSers who voted, voted in favor of the agreement by a slim margin.

fixed for ya

Doesn't matter. And there's an even smaller turnout in IBT elections; you can bet that many of the "NO" votes won't bother to return their IBT ballots. UPSers have probably voted for Hoffa in smaller numbers than the rest of IBT -- he'll easily win the next election, should he decide to run.

 

[over9five]

The majority of UPSers who voted, voted in favor of the agreement by a slim margin.

fixed for ya

Exactly.
​Has anyone figured that out? What percentage of UPSers eligible to vote, voted yes?

 

[The Other Side]

Doesn't matter. And there's an even smaller turnout in IBT elections; you can bet that many of the "NO" votes won't bother to return their IBT ballots. UPSers have probably voted for Hoffa in smaller numbers than the rest of IBT -- he'll easily win the next election, should he decide to run.

Hoffa is scheduled to retire before the next election cycle. It wont matter.

Peace

TOS

 

[over9five]

Hoffa is scheduled to retire before the next election cycle. It wont matter.

Peace

TOS

He doesn't have a son, does he? Don't need a bunch of dumb Teamsters electing the name.....

 

[Inthegame]

...As a pter, I voted. And it was a no. There were 3 major issues that I had with this contract considering what UPS has done in the past year.
1.)current retiree insurance rates going up. I can see future retirees paying more, but to me current retirees should be frozen at the previous rate.
2.)4 year progression. In a lot of facilities there is a substantial waiting list to drive, and now it takes even longer to make the money.
3.)pt wage increase was not enough. Either another dollar needed added or the 90 day raise needs put back in.
It all boils down to what UPS has done recently. Scott Davis 600%+ higher pay+compensation in 6 years, raise dividends, record profits, spending 6 figures to put their name on a racecar, increasing their golf sponsership, etc...but they needed to restructure healthcare, wages, progression, etc. It's got a distinct Hostess feel.

At least you are thoughtful...
1)"current" retirees include many who've left since 2007-8 when UPS demanded increases in retiree rates and hall said NO. So because Hall stopped those increases then and saved retirees thousands of dollars UPS has had to absord a continuing disproportionate share of H&W costs. And now when those costs are marginally shifted (much lower than under the now unavailable UPS plan) Hall gets dumped on. Had he allowed modest increases then, and modest increases now, members would be sending him flowers even though they would have had more total out of pocket.
2) 4 years suck. The increases in wage rates along the way mitigate the losses somewhat. After months of negotiation, 2 days before this TA was accepted UPS still had two tier $25 max on ALL future FT driving with a 72 month progression on the table. Nobody on the Nat Committee liked this but is it a strike issue? Probably not.
3)Wages are in the National. That's a done deal. Should've been higher, you're right, but there's still a long line of applicants willing to work at UPS for those starting wages.

The CEO's pay could be split among all employees and you'd get a cup of coffee with the money. It's a non-factor.

 

[Inthegame]

Hoffa is scheduled to retire before the next election cycle. It wont matter.

Peace

TOS

Once again TOS accuracy is important to aspiring PO's. There exists no "schedule" for Hoffa's retirement other than in your dreams. That said, he's in his 70's and most likely will retire. He has a son...

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Hoffa Jr is in his 70's? Really?

 

[Benben]

I'm curious as to how you feel this contract is inferior, for FT employees, than the one in 1997. At the conclusion of this contract, package car drivers will be among the top 5% individual earners in total compensation within the USA. That's absolutely staggering, and an incredible achievement from the Teamsters, especially given the near-monopoly that UPS enjoyed in 1997 vs. the strong competition today. Benefits are still no-cost, and the TEAMCARE option will cost FTers less out-of-pocket that the traditional insurance they had at the time. Although many on here will say 'it's not about the money,' it is. It's pretty clear from reading BC that many of the FTers on here expected a more significant pay increase.

Please get your facts straight. Drivers, including total compensation, are in the top 25 percentile not the top 5%. We didn't even crack the top 10%.*


*Kiplinger.com

Further, this contract gave us a less than a 2% anual raise. This is the lowest raise of anyone I spoke to in my peer group accross many different professions.

 

[thedownhillEXPRESS]

Please get your facts straight. Drivers, including total compensation, are in the top 25 percentile not the top 5%. We didn't even crack the top 10%.*


*Kiplinger.com

Further, this contract gave us a less than a 2% anual raise. This is the lowest raise of anyone I spoke to in my peer group accross many different professions.

Us Fedexers didn't get any raise.

 

[Bagels]

Please get your facts straight. Drivers, including total compensation, are in the top 25 percentile not the top 5%. We didn't even crack the top 10%.*


*Kiplinger.com

Further, this contract gave us a less than a 2% anual raise. This is the lowest raise of anyone I spoke to in my peer group accross many different professions.

Sorry, but my facts are accurate, yours are not.

As I wrote, at the conclusion of the contract, drivers will be in the 5%. $94K in annual wages alone places them in the top 7%, toss in no-cost benefits & pension contributions, it moves them into the top 5%.

Secondly, over the life of the contract, the raise is well over 2%, considering FT work an average of 45 hrs/week (according to the IBT - I'm willing to bet the number is higher for most).

Thirdly, as you start to earn more $$$, absolute percentages begin to drop. A new PTer earning the same raise as a FTer would see an 8% spike in annual compensation. There are very, very, very few professionals (the number's probably in the single digits) earning $70K/year who earn a 2% annual pay increase alongside a zero percent increase in health care contributions.

The median wage, FWIW, for a FT employee over the age of 25 in the USA is $43,000/year. That same employee contributes an average of $4300/year (10% of his pre-tax income) toward his family health insurance. And that health insurance has an average deductible of about $1,000; doctor visits cost an average of $30 and specialists $40.