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
This saves money?
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="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 624738" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>evilleace;</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Yes, those things WOULD cost money! But say the drivers took a $5/hr pay cut along with a $3/hr benefit cut (and if the CSPF drivers had done that 20 years ago, and gotten themselves in a properly managed pension, they would STILL have been ahead!)</p><p> </p><p>Now multiply that just by the number of drivers in the (domestic) company; not sure what that number is, but for the sake of argument, let's say about 80,000. Take that times 45 hours/week x 52 weeks per year, and what do you come up with? </p><p> </p><p>I'll tell ya' what you come up with....a Helluva' great financial "window" to provide better service, at less cost, and at more profit. </p><p> </p><p>Would the employees go along with that? Well, based on past experience, that's one bit of speculation that comes real close to "knowledge"; think we both assume correctly that, unless the crap really hit the fan, and management and the union combined to put the company in the crapper, like YRCW, or CFWY, etc., it just isn't going to happen.</p><p> </p><p>SHOULD even the employees go along with that? Can't say; it's THEIR decision. But, so far, the decision THEY have made has imposed a cost to which company management has responded the best way they know how to provide and/or maintain service.</p><p> </p><p>All I'm saying is that to maintain that the company should "pay more attention to service" with out recognizing that the PRIME component of providing/maintaining that service is the cost issue, which is PRIMARILY in the hands of the union members is simply silly! The Teamsters think better service could/should be provided, then they should make that their priority. (they might start by organizing the competition which, in case you hadn't noticed, provides approximately equal - and in many cases better - service because of substantially less costs, in spite of lagging decades in experience. But far be it from the Teamsters to give more than lip-service to actually doing any MEANINGFUL organizing)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 624738, member: 16651"] evilleace; Yes, those things WOULD cost money! But say the drivers took a $5/hr pay cut along with a $3/hr benefit cut (and if the CSPF drivers had done that 20 years ago, and gotten themselves in a properly managed pension, they would STILL have been ahead!) Now multiply that just by the number of drivers in the (domestic) company; not sure what that number is, but for the sake of argument, let's say about 80,000. Take that times 45 hours/week x 52 weeks per year, and what do you come up with? I'll tell ya' what you come up with....a Helluva' great financial "window" to provide better service, at less cost, and at more profit. Would the employees go along with that? Well, based on past experience, that's one bit of speculation that comes real close to "knowledge"; think we both assume correctly that, unless the crap really hit the fan, and management and the union combined to put the company in the crapper, like YRCW, or CFWY, etc., it just isn't going to happen. SHOULD even the employees go along with that? Can't say; it's THEIR decision. But, so far, the decision THEY have made has imposed a cost to which company management has responded the best way they know how to provide and/or maintain service. All I'm saying is that to maintain that the company should "pay more attention to service" with out recognizing that the PRIME component of providing/maintaining that service is the cost issue, which is PRIMARILY in the hands of the union members is simply silly! The Teamsters think better service could/should be provided, then they should make that their priority. (they might start by organizing the competition which, in case you hadn't noticed, provides approximately equal - and in many cases better - service because of substantially less costs, in spite of lagging decades in experience. But far be it from the Teamsters to give more than lip-service to actually doing any MEANINGFUL organizing) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
This saves money?
Top