Ups and full-time

[Shady Tree at UPS]

I really dont understand how it is beneifical for the widespread use of part-timers at UPS. How do they save money by paying 4 people to do the same job (4 shifts-sunrise,day,twilight,and midnight) versus paying two? They would only have to pay benefits for two instead of four being paying into pension,health,dental,vision,disability,life insurance and overtime after five hours which at my hub its a minimum of 5 1/2 hours a day. Here is my theories of how it may be benifical to UPS.

-60% of employees i have seen come to my hub in the last seven years truely want to put in the time and wait for friend/t or higher p/t wages.

-RESULT= THEY END UP QUITING AND GOING AND GETTING A friend/T JOB ELSEWHERE TO PAY THE BILLS AND QUIT LIVING IN POVERTY.

-COMPANY BENEFIT= CHEAP LABOR FOR A FEW YEARS AND NO PENSION PAYOUT. BUT WHERE DOES THIS PENSION MONEY ACTUALLY GO?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-30% are there for schooling benefits or a p/t job while in high school.
-RESULT= STUDENTS WITH DEGREES OR CERTIFICATION MOVE ON TO BETTER PAYING JOBS AND THE USE OF THERE MIND INSTEAD OF BODY.

- COMPANY BENEFIT= SAME AS ABOVE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-10% turn to the dark side p/t supervision.

-RESULT=THEY GET A DEGREE AND MOVE UP THE LADDER OF MGMT. OR THEY STAY A P/T SUP FOREVER OR BURNOUT AND MOVE ON TO MGMT IN FAST FOOD OR OTHER WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING.

-COMPANY BENEFIT=HONESTLY DONT KNOW VEIWERS FEEL FREE TO ADD OPINOINS TO THIS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO HAVE DISCUSSION OR ADD COMENTS TO POST THANKS AND HAVE A WONDERFUL BROWN DAY

 

[Mike Hawk]

There are countless reasons, one of the big ones is part timers generally can't support themselves on just UPS pay alone while a FT could. If everyone was hired FT many would stick around for retirement, the longer they stay the more raises and vacation they get. Part timers usually move on to FT somewhere else to support themselves so they can be replaced by someone with no vacation and at the minimum starting wage. This churn keeps costs down.

Another big one is hours, a FT needs a lunch and an 8 hour guarantee, while a PT only needs a 10 minute break within his 3.5 hour guarantee. The two PT can do the FT's job with more flexibility, and without a half hour lunch midway through.

 

[Shady Tree at UPS]

Understood but is it so far fetched that we could fight for severe penalties for no offer of friend/t after lets say 6 yrs like a $4.00 an hr. increase if no friend/t wrk is offered and increase in benefits to friend/t there must be something we can do to force their hand...right? When there is so much work at a lot of our centers why is this not possible i and i think all of us would understand if ups was crashing but their not. Why must and how do we and the teamsters allow us to be beggers. Also i dont so much agree with being offered friend/t right off the bat but a clause for no later than 5 or 10 yrs should be fair. It is rediculus a good friend of mine with 15 yrs or service just won a inside/inside combo....15 yrs how is this suffcient but in all fairness he was offered friend/t drive at 7 1/2 or 8 yrs.

 

[IDoLessWorkThanMost]

Common sense; alot of it's the union. The initiation dues are important. That's alot of money right there. The more new-hires, the more initiation collection.
Plus, 2 part-timers (here in NE) is 98/month dues for seniority. One full-timer is 66/month. That is 32 dollars more for having 2 part-timers for 8 hours than one.

UPS likes turnover now that the jobs are becoming more and more throw-away. PAS changed alot of things, now anyone can come in and preload. No more skill involved. For $8.50 / $9.50 an hour, too. Now that's cheap labor for such an important job.

I could keep going, but most of it again is common sense.

 

[Big Babooba]

There are countless reasons, one of the big ones is part timers generally can't support themselves on just UPS pay alone while a FT could. If everyone was hired FT many would stick around for retirement, the longer they stay the more raises and vacation they get. Part timers usually move on to FT somewhere else to support themselves so they can be replaced by someone with no vacation and at the minimum starting wage. This churn keeps costs down.

Another big one is hours, a FT needs a lunch and an 8 hour guarantee, while a PT only needs a 10 minute break within his 3.5 hour guarantee. The two PT can do the FT's job with more flexibility, and without a half hour lunch midway through.

You're exactly right. When the part timers made almost as much as a full timer, people stayed on for years. When the pay rates were cut, the turn over rate increased significantly. Also part time shifts enable UPS to have more flexibility in their operations.

 

[drewed]

. Also part time shifts enable UPS to have more flexibility in their operations.

Prime example i have 6 ft and 7 pt employees, tomorrow i start a new sort i can change the pt starting time to whatever i want....for ft id have to go through the seniority to get to my fters to change the time.

shady, you have a lot to learn about UPS , dont over analyze because it wont make any sense... UPS always has a methodical reason for doing, it not normally clear its just something you have to learn to accept or get off the boat

 

[IDoLessWorkThanMost]

Prime example i have 6 ft and 7 pt employees, tomorrow i start a new sort i can change the pt starting time to whatever i want....for ft id have to go through the seniority to get to my fters to change the time.

shady, you have a lot to learn about UPS , dont over analyze because it wont make any sense... UPS always has a methodical reason for doing, it not normally clear its just something you have to learn to accept or get off the boat

I disagree with the bottom part, but usually you're 100% right!

The problem is he sees UPS with the union goggles and simply won't cooperate into a normal way of thinking - brainwashed almost. You can see it in some of his posts, actually!

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but he is simply too far gone to help.

 

[New Englander]

Listen....UPS and The Teamsters enjoy high turnover for Part-timers. Low wages, initiation fees, money paid into the pension fund that will most likely never be paid out to those high turnovers etc.....

They are also in a much better position to limit overtime with 4 part-timers vs 2 full-timers.

It's not a real hard topic to understand.

 

[BleedBrown33]

Regardless of youre opinions of shady being over the top in many ways...actually just about all. He is one of the few that see the major ways we need to reform our contract talks. To youre comments of he is brainwashed or that he needs to get on board or go home. That is the problem the majority accepts defeat and constant concessions. Instead of standing by this radical line of thought and actually leaving everything out on the field to get the best possible deal. We just simply dont and except the lowball offer ups throws at us and then once we have all voted the contract "yes" then we come to furoms or the water cooler at work and complain we could have got more money or better pension payouts. Is it just me and the few like shady that realize our value to the company and that we could get more. Instead of the majority that accepts the scraps we get every 5 to 6 yrs?

 

[BigBrownSanta]

Regardless of youre opinions of shady being over the top in many ways...actually just about all. He is one of the few that see the major ways we need to reform our contract talks. To youre comments of he is brainwashed or that he needs to get on board or go home. That is the problem the majority accepts defeat and constant concessions. Instead of standing by this radical line of thought and actually leaving everything out on the field to get the best possible deal. We just simply dont and except the lowball offer ups throws at us and then once we have all voted the contract "yes" then we come to furoms or the water cooler at work and complain we could have got more money or better pension payouts. Is it just me and the few like shady that realize our value to the company and that we could get more. Instead of the majority that accepts the scraps we get every 5 to 6 yrs?

I agree, but I think the first thing that needs to be done is to get the length of the contracts down to 1 or maybe 2 years. We should't have to endure 6 years of a bad contract to have a chance to get issues resolved.

The next contract should be for a 1 year term, and if issues and language get resolved then we can work toward a longer term contract. If there are no resolutions to the problems, then the next year we try it again until it gets resolved.

As an example, there is no good reason the 9.5 issue should have dragged on for 11 years (5 years from the prior contract and 6 years in the current contract) without a real solution.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I agree, but I think the first thing that needs to be done is to get the length of the contracts down to 1 or maybe 2 years. We should't have to endure 6 years of a bad contract to have a chance to get issues resolved.

The next contract should be for a 1 year term, and if issues and language get resolved then we can work toward a longer term contract. If there are no resolutions to the problems, then the next year we try it again until it gets resolved.

As an example, there is no good reason the 9.5 issue should have dragged on for 11 years (5 years from the prior contract and 6 years in the current contract) without a real solution.

Short term contracts such as you have suggested would create uncertainty in our customers, especially our larger shippers, and would be terribly expensive to negotiate, ratify and disseminate for approval. Look what happened during the recent "situation" in Chicago re: CDW. Long term contracts of a reasonable length create stability. I personally feel contracts of 5 to 6 years are ideal in that they create the stability I spoke of above and allow both sides to analyze the pros and cons of the contract so that changes can be proposed, negotiated and implemented which hopefully serve the needs of both sides. Contracts of 10 yrs or longer do not allow for changes which may occur during that time to be implemented. For example, if our previous contract were a 10 yr contract, new language addressing technological changes (GPS) would not be implemented until this contract expired.

 

[BigBrownSanta]

Short term contracts such as you have suggested would create uncertainty in our customers, especially our larger shippers, and would be terribly expensive to negotiate, ratify and disseminate for approval. Look what happened during the recent "situation" in Chicago re: CDW. Long term contracts of a reasonable length create stability. I personally feel contracts of 5 to 6 years are ideal in that they create the stability I spoke of above and allow both sides to analyze the pros and cons of the contract so that changes can be proposed, negotiated and implemented which hopefully serve the needs of both sides. Contracts of 10 yrs or longer do not allow for changes which may occur during that time to be implemented. For example, if our previous contract were a 10 yr contract, new language addressing technological changes (GPS) would not be implemented until this contract expired.

That's exactly the reason the contracts should be shorter in term. Maybe if it were a little more uncomfortable for the shippers then UPS would be a little more motivated to find a solution to issues.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

That's exactly the reason the contracts should be shorter in term. Maybe if it were a little more uncomfortable for the shippers then UPS would be a little more motivated to find a solution to issues.

On the flip side--their discomfort could be FedEx's ticket to come calling and then we wouldn't have to worry about a contract.

 

[New Englander]

That's exactly the reason the contracts should be shorter in term. Maybe if it were a little more uncomfortable for the shippers then UPS would be a little more motivated to find a solution to issues.

Sorry dude....that is not sound thinking on so many fronts.

 

[drewed]

Sorry dude....that is not sound thinking on so many fronts.

you know what they say, the crazy nut doesnt fall far from the crazy tree

 

[New Englander]

Absolutely.

 

[BigBrownSanta]

I guess we'll just stick with the status quo then,since doing otherwise may be uncomfortable.

Maybe we can convince the IBT to negotiate a final neverending contract that takes the current contract and just automatically renews each Aug. 1st with a 2% payraise and a weak COLA. Each year we can just delete 4 or 5 lines of the contract until the contract just says "work as directed", "be content with you have" and "don't rock the boat".

Oh well, maybe the divided union members deserve what they get.

 

[New Englander]

Don't be daft. Having a two year contract is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Do you guys want customers jumping ship? They will.

 

[smokey711]

Don't be daft. Having a two year contract is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Do you guys want customers jumping ship? They will.

No doubt about it. Customers bounce. Locals spend tons of money sending folks to negotiate. Very stupid.

 

[drewed]

No doubt about it. Customers bounce. Locals spend tons of money sending folks to negotiate. Very stupid.

Good point, since you want more money, if they have negotiate every year or two, dont you think theyd increase dues? any money you get the union would take, and UPS would be making less money with less customers so thanks guys you just put UPS and the Teamsters out of business!