Discussion in 'UPS Discussions' started by Pickles, Oct 29, 2007.

  1. Pickles

    Pickles Member

    Why does UPS hate the 22.3 jobs so much? It seems like it saves them money because they don't have to train new people or give benefits to 2 different people and the full timers are more reliable than new part timers. Just wondering. Saw it was a proposal they had to get rid of all 22.3 jobs on a union news letter.
  2. raceanoncr

    raceanoncr Well-Known Member

    Why? Mainly because they were forced to create those jobs because of Teamster contracts. You force the company to do anything and they WILL retaliate. Somehow, they will find a way to get back. Hating these jobs and making MOST of them pretty undesirable is proof.

    These are all jobs they could handle without being f/t jobs. They could still be paying p/t wages for 2 p/t jobs. Instead, they hafta pay a more substantial f/t wage for one job.

    There's more to this answer, but, in a nutshell, that's it. Anyone else can elaborate as to why these are so beneficial for the company, let's have it.
  3. Fnix

    Fnix Active Member

    Why do people hate them and why are they undesirable?
  4. Channahon

    Channahon New Member

    I'm not sure where you got the information that UPS management hates 22.3 jobs. If the jobs are the right combination and the employee works both shifts, it can be beneficial to the management team, particularly from a staffing perspective. If an employee works the night sort and then preload, chances are the shifts are covered.

    As far as the jobs not being desireable, the jobs are the combination of 2 part time jobs. In most cases the hours for the 22.3 jobs are twilight, night or preload, AM and PM air driver.

    Nothing is easy in the business world any longer, it is what it is at UPS.The name of the game is to keep our service levels where they need to be keep our commitments to our customers.
  5. hiro

    hiro New Member

    While they are certainly a benefit with staffing, they are generally less productive higher seniority employees. Yes, this is arguable, but that's how it is here.