BURMDPsupe
Well-Known Member
I just hope we are not paying Scott for his "acting" in some of the UPS/NASCAR commercials! Stiff as a board (member).
M-
M-
Scott makes more than Mike
- Thread starter brownsugar
- Start date
No offense to CYCB, but I hate that excuse. The door is right there. No-one's holding a gun to his head, he can leave like anyone else.
I GOT ONE MORE
Well-Known Member
No offense taken, but you've missed the point.
14 grand a day is pretty good.
I wouldn't leave either.
In fact, I'd probably be very content.
How much are you making today?
Not quite that...
But if he's capable of making more, and UPS pays him below average as you suggest....why does he stay?
Can you post some videos? The last nascar ad I saw was when Dale raced the truck and retired.
705red
Browncafe Steward
And how many packages did he load/unload/sort/deliver/pickup? Customers he visited daily?
I have to deliver a lot of packages and log a lot of hours to see $14,000.
We can also trim the poor performers out there. You know the guys who are 1.5 hours over-allowed on route or more? The same routes that when the cover guys go out there and do it (and not the runners and gunners) get it done between scratch and 30 mins over? Why don't we consider cutting them? Aren't the teamsters and UPS an asymbiotic relationship? They both 'need' each other to make money, don't they? So it's in the best interests of the company and the teamsters to cut out the dead weight.
You want to cut a ton of management out that seems to be doing nothing but wasting money...what about the drivers that aren't productive out there?
Catatonic
Nine Lives
705red
Browncafe Steward
Everyone knows that cover drivers get cut some slack on the route. I can tell you that the regular driver SERVICES his customers and in doing so everyday of his job keeps us this business!
The company is not cutting dead weight, their cutting useful employees! I have been on my guys to take their lunch everyday! This is no time to cut corners. 9.5s are up and drivers going home are up which means routes going out are down.
Cant make money like that!
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
Guys;
Something that might be noted here is that, of the estimated $5.2 million, "stock and option awards the company valued at $4,001,706 ON THE DAYS THEY WERE GRANTED" made for the bulk of the compensation. No direct knowledge here, but my guess is that those stock/options awards aren't worth nearly what they were anticipated to be when "awarded" and - if not already exercised - are currently "under water"...and worth nothing. For example, he might well have received an option of $50/share late in 2008...which would be anticipated if exercized today to generate a whole lot of money in price differential. However, given today's reality, Scott would actually LOSE money if he moved in that direction now; i.e. - the hourly - or anyone on the open market, for that matter - has a much better "option" at purchasing shares at today's closing price than Scott may have had in 2008. IN truth, his actual salary might be a lot closer to the $1.1 million or so of his direct compensation than to the $5.2 million reported.
Not exactly poorhouse wages, I'll grant you....but a far cry from what the perception seems to be.
Something that might be noted here is that, of the estimated $5.2 million, "stock and option awards the company valued at $4,001,706 ON THE DAYS THEY WERE GRANTED" made for the bulk of the compensation. No direct knowledge here, but my guess is that those stock/options awards aren't worth nearly what they were anticipated to be when "awarded" and - if not already exercised - are currently "under water"...and worth nothing. For example, he might well have received an option of $50/share late in 2008...which would be anticipated if exercized today to generate a whole lot of money in price differential. However, given today's reality, Scott would actually LOSE money if he moved in that direction now; i.e. - the hourly - or anyone on the open market, for that matter - has a much better "option" at purchasing shares at today's closing price than Scott may have had in 2008. IN truth, his actual salary might be a lot closer to the $1.1 million or so of his direct compensation than to the $5.2 million reported.
Not exactly poorhouse wages, I'll grant you....but a far cry from what the perception seems to be.
When I was a cover guy I serviced each and every customer like they were my own because THEY WERE. I work for UPS and I represent UPS. I need to look good and act professional because as a driver I am an ambassador of the company. I'm sure you've heard the stories where the customers prefer the cover guy to the regular. We had a few like that too.
Servicing the customer means providing GOOD SERVICE; it does not mean slacking off and talking about last night's big game, extra innings, or crazy triple overtime bracket buster. Yeah you can have that discussion as you sheet, unload, or load packages. Have a good personality and be friendly and that old adage they had back in the 50's of service with a smile. Nothing wrong with that. The ones I am talking about --- the slouches out there --- need to be addressed.
As far as lunches. Always take your lunch. I only took a short lunch once and that was when a new hire was underwater on a route. I asked permission to take a short lunch because the center needed someone to bail him out (absorb 2 hours of work) and I helped out. I'm a firm believer of taking your lunch, but don't take 90 mins for lunch like some guys do (break area 20 mins early, drive to lunch meet point, hang out for 5 mins until lunch starts, take lunch for 60, and sometimes hang out a few extra mins before taking another 10 mins to drive back to area). I've seen plenty of that too.
Last edited:
helenofcalifornia
Well-Known Member
So, In the Red, you advocate firing drivers that are over allowed by 1.5 hours or more? I guess I would be on your firing list at least half the time then. I am guessing that you are thinking the Union is a waste of your time and money too, eh? Older drivers, drivers who have put in more than 20 years or so and are worn out from the job, would be canned by your standards too. I think you are a little naive when it comes to your attitude on who should be fired from UPS.
Helen,
I do not think that at all. My point is a counter-point to the notion that "the drivers are the only people necessary to run this company" or "the drivers are the only ones that make the money."
My point is that everyone works together to achieve a common goal - service the customer and grow the business. If we do not take care of the customer someone else will.
However, with the cost of doing business going up and people talk doom and gloom and how we should eliminate so many management because they are not value added... well then you have to look at it both ways and what about those drivers who are not value added and cost more money than they reel in? What about the drivers who take too long to do their jobs? What about the drivers out in bumble-friend Montana or Idaho or wherever that do 50 stops and 320 miles per day? We lose money on their stops everyday. Tighten our belts and eliminate those delivery areas.
Do that and we'll be out of business. Service the customer that is the name of the game. Remember that service is all we have to offer. But also remember that it takes more than 1 driver to service a customer. An average of 17 people are involved with the transit of 1 parcel.
I was talking with a shop steward last week about this notion. He was saying how on his route he picks up $xx,xxx of shipping charges per day on all the volume he brings back to the building. All these other guys delivering are wasting money because they don't pick up much. My point to him was they are needed because what gets picked up must be delivered, and he didn't seem to understand that and just kept insisting that he makes the money while everyone else loses it.
I do not think that at all. My point is a counter-point to the notion that "the drivers are the only people necessary to run this company" or "the drivers are the only ones that make the money."
My point is that everyone works together to achieve a common goal - service the customer and grow the business. If we do not take care of the customer someone else will.
However, with the cost of doing business going up and people talk doom and gloom and how we should eliminate so many management because they are not value added... well then you have to look at it both ways and what about those drivers who are not value added and cost more money than they reel in? What about the drivers who take too long to do their jobs? What about the drivers out in bumble-friend Montana or Idaho or wherever that do 50 stops and 320 miles per day? We lose money on their stops everyday. Tighten our belts and eliminate those delivery areas.
Do that and we'll be out of business. Service the customer that is the name of the game. Remember that service is all we have to offer. But also remember that it takes more than 1 driver to service a customer. An average of 17 people are involved with the transit of 1 parcel.
I was talking with a shop steward last week about this notion. He was saying how on his route he picks up $xx,xxx of shipping charges per day on all the volume he brings back to the building. All these other guys delivering are wasting money because they don't pick up much. My point to him was they are needed because what gets picked up must be delivered, and he didn't seem to understand that and just kept insisting that he makes the money while everyone else loses it.
dilligaf
IN VINO VERITAS
And who is going to decide who the poor preformers are? You? Mgt? Just because I'm over-allowed on a rte does not mean that I am a poor preformer. What about rtes that do not have the correct time allowances? Does that come into play in your decision to cut poor preformers? Until all angles are covered and there is a legitimate reason for cutting poor preformers you can kiss my lily-white *****.
dilligaf
IN VINO VERITAS
I did not read Seal's comment as meaning that pkg is the ONLY one that makes the money for the company. What I did read was his comparison of pkg and mgt.
I take it you are not on a rural rte so have no fear of losing your driving job, as you propose in your last post. That's mighty white of you to cut someone elses del. position. I happen to do a couple of rural rtes and I take it personally when you suggest that I should lose my job because you have some misguided sense that the company shouldn't be delivering rural areas.
Servicing the customer is the name of the game and maybe mgt and the shareholders need to go back to that philosphy. They sure don't have it right now.
trplnkl
555
pretzel_man
Well-Known Member
First, service is currently at our highest levels ever. This is across all business units and offerings. A lot to be proud of, but we need to maintain service.
Scott Davis explained that we need to keep service high AND reduce cost.
He said that if we reduce service, we will lose market share. Customers will leave.
He said that if we don't reduce cost, we lose margin. We lose operating leverage.
The need to maintain cost AND service is not new to us. Casey said that we need to take care of the shareholders because they give us our jobs.
We need to stop thinking of this as if its one or the other.
P-Man
trplnkl
555
Then I need an explanation(not necessarily from you) of how they think we can maintain service with routes being cut and consolidated. When that happens the service level is bound to drop, history proves that is true.
Similar threads
