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: 625600" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>browniehound;</p><p> </p><p>I think that, from an investors perspective, the model of FedEx - which provides far less compensation to its blue collar work force - has been the more successful model of late. As for DHL, one can't help but note that it's FAR from going out of business and STILL rivals UPS in size. Of course, you realize that DHL in many instances was saddled with UPS-comparable Teamster wages as well, don't you? Or that many consider that burden one of the reasons - and perhaps the primary one - the company decided to tone-down U.S. operations? Or don't you think the union activities in Wilmington, for example, had anything to do with the situation?</p><p> </p><p>Not saying you don't earn your union wage. But earning it ISN'T a function of how much effort you put into it, but rather what it's actual economic VALUE is....or, more to the point, what economic value can be derived from it in comparison with what is put into it. By that standard, it's quite possible that a UPS worker could be working twice as "hard" as a FedEx worker to accomplish the same amount of work in half the time, yet because he is being paid 2.5 times as much, he's still the less-effective option.</p><p> </p><p>Which again brings us back to the point I was trying to make about union UPS'ers making their OWN bed; i.e - they DEMANDED the current level of compensation and there's literally no way that it can't be cost-effective UNLESS the very strictest standards are applied. And even then it lags; again, one can't help but note that UPS isn't primarily "Teamster" today by a long-shot; there's a reason for that.</p><p> </p><p>As for employees "bailing" who aren't paid at those compensation levels and whatever...well, again, "been there, done that". I'm well aware that employees can and have (and are being!...remember, this a world-wide organization!) be recruited, trained, and put into service at lower levels of compensation than UPS domestic drivers currently receive, and function more cost-effectively to boot. As for general compensation, however, one can't help but note that the relative real compensation of domestic p/t'ers is (at the union's behest, mind you! i.e. - "let's rob Peter to pay Paul") probably overall substantially lower than it was 20 or even 30 years ago....yet I think quite a few of them shouldn't be considered "lazy" or all that "non-productive".</p><p> </p><p>Again, not saying you DON'T earn your union wage. But, if you had a look at the cost structure (or, more to the point, if YOU had to pay it!), my guess is that you would agree that it's a pretty hazy area. And if you're out to claim that UPS couldn't obtain and retain employees at lower pay scales that were just as cost-effective as those working at union wages today, then I can tell you from direct experience that you would be suffering from an illusion. There are lines of people who would be ready, willing, and able to fill the high-compensation jobs are UPS today for far, FAR less in terms of compensation...and, if truth be told, they'd probably be far easier to manage on the basis of their gratitude as well. Just the way it is. </p><p> </p><p>As for what I think "works"...well, I know this. Over the last few decades, the Teamsters union has pissed-away well more than a million jobs in its core industry. That's over half of it's once-upon-time membership, and 70% or so of its core membership. Teamster-organized firm after Teamster-organized firm has bitten the dust under my observation...and it seems that from each and every one of them, there were Teamsters employees saying essentially that they worked hard and earned their money. Yet the companies that hired them went bankrupt one after the other....while NON-union firms prospered. Why was that? Just bad management? If so, why is it that primarily just NON-union firms are left today? Is is possible that "bad management" is a code word for hiring Teamsters?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 625600, member: 16651"] browniehound; I think that, from an investors perspective, the model of FedEx - which provides far less compensation to its blue collar work force - has been the more successful model of late. As for DHL, one can't help but note that it's FAR from going out of business and STILL rivals UPS in size. Of course, you realize that DHL in many instances was saddled with UPS-comparable Teamster wages as well, don't you? Or that many consider that burden one of the reasons - and perhaps the primary one - the company decided to tone-down U.S. operations? Or don't you think the union activities in Wilmington, for example, had anything to do with the situation? Not saying you don't earn your union wage. But earning it ISN'T a function of how much effort you put into it, but rather what it's actual economic VALUE is....or, more to the point, what economic value can be derived from it in comparison with what is put into it. By that standard, it's quite possible that a UPS worker could be working twice as "hard" as a FedEx worker to accomplish the same amount of work in half the time, yet because he is being paid 2.5 times as much, he's still the less-effective option. Which again brings us back to the point I was trying to make about union UPS'ers making their OWN bed; i.e - they DEMANDED the current level of compensation and there's literally no way that it can't be cost-effective UNLESS the very strictest standards are applied. And even then it lags; again, one can't help but note that UPS isn't primarily "Teamster" today by a long-shot; there's a reason for that. As for employees "bailing" who aren't paid at those compensation levels and whatever...well, again, "been there, done that". I'm well aware that employees can and have (and are being!...remember, this a world-wide organization!) be recruited, trained, and put into service at lower levels of compensation than UPS domestic drivers currently receive, and function more cost-effectively to boot. As for general compensation, however, one can't help but note that the relative real compensation of domestic p/t'ers is (at the union's behest, mind you! i.e. - "let's rob Peter to pay Paul") probably overall substantially lower than it was 20 or even 30 years ago....yet I think quite a few of them shouldn't be considered "lazy" or all that "non-productive". Again, not saying you DON'T earn your union wage. But, if you had a look at the cost structure (or, more to the point, if YOU had to pay it!), my guess is that you would agree that it's a pretty hazy area. And if you're out to claim that UPS couldn't obtain and retain employees at lower pay scales that were just as cost-effective as those working at union wages today, then I can tell you from direct experience that you would be suffering from an illusion. There are lines of people who would be ready, willing, and able to fill the high-compensation jobs are UPS today for far, FAR less in terms of compensation...and, if truth be told, they'd probably be far easier to manage on the basis of their gratitude as well. Just the way it is. As for what I think "works"...well, I know this. Over the last few decades, the Teamsters union has pissed-away well more than a million jobs in its core industry. That's over half of it's once-upon-time membership, and 70% or so of its core membership. Teamster-organized firm after Teamster-organized firm has bitten the dust under my observation...and it seems that from each and every one of them, there were Teamsters employees saying essentially that they worked hard and earned their money. Yet the companies that hired them went bankrupt one after the other....while NON-union firms prospered. Why was that? Just bad management? If so, why is it that primarily just NON-union firms are left today? Is is possible that "bad management" is a code word for hiring Teamsters? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
This saves money?
Top