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
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
telematic is lurking in the background
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="pretzel_man" data-source="post: 641220" data-attributes="member: 927"><p>As you say, work measurement is intended to measure the amount of work.</p><p> </p><p>Work measurement is stated to be accurate to 95%, 95% of the time. Using your analog of a scale, even at its best, it will be off 5% one way or another 95% of the time.</p><p> </p><p>Taking it a step further .... Work measurement isn't intended to measure how much work a driver has, but how much work a driver SHOULD have. Using the scale analogy, its intended to measure how much meat is on the scale, not just how much weight is on the scale. Work measurement ignores the "fat".</p><p> </p><p>For instance, if you sort your load, you will be overallowed. If you have a poorly loaded car, you will be overallowed. If you have a bad trace, you will "likely" be overallowed. If you have a bad AM or PM plan, you will be overallowed.</p><p> </p><p>My first assignment was in I.E. over 30 years ago. The discussions went on back then whether "normal" "Fat" should be included in the allowance. If they did put it in, then it would more accurately measure a driver. It would also then "condone" these ineffective activities.</p><p> </p><p>The company has chosen for all these years to not put these inefficiencies into the work measurement. The single biggest problem I see is trying to make the driver solely responsible for overallowed.</p><p> </p><p>If a driver is following methods, has a good work pace, has a good load, has a good trace and dispatch and then is still overallowed then work measurement is the problem.</p><p> </p><p>P-Man</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pretzel_man, post: 641220, member: 927"] As you say, work measurement is intended to measure the amount of work. Work measurement is stated to be accurate to 95%, 95% of the time. Using your analog of a scale, even at its best, it will be off 5% one way or another 95% of the time. Taking it a step further .... Work measurement isn't intended to measure how much work a driver has, but how much work a driver SHOULD have. Using the scale analogy, its intended to measure how much meat is on the scale, not just how much weight is on the scale. Work measurement ignores the "fat". For instance, if you sort your load, you will be overallowed. If you have a poorly loaded car, you will be overallowed. If you have a bad trace, you will "likely" be overallowed. If you have a bad AM or PM plan, you will be overallowed. My first assignment was in I.E. over 30 years ago. The discussions went on back then whether "normal" "Fat" should be included in the allowance. If they did put it in, then it would more accurately measure a driver. It would also then "condone" these ineffective activities. The company has chosen for all these years to not put these inefficiencies into the work measurement. The single biggest problem I see is trying to make the driver solely responsible for overallowed. If a driver is following methods, has a good work pace, has a good load, has a good trace and dispatch and then is still overallowed then work measurement is the problem. P-Man [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
telematic is lurking in the background
Top