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
UPS fail
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="Floridacargocat" data-source="post: 763051" data-attributes="member: 6168"><p>PT/FT sups loading is an easy way of jacking up the numbers and thus covering major inefficiencies in standards and execution.</p><p>PT/FT sups loading is unavoidable under emergency conditions when loaders do not show up (for whatever reason).</p><p>PT/FT sups loading is a sure way to get into a conflict with the union, when loading positions are not assigned/cannot be covered.</p><p>PT/FT sups are in a corner with no way out just to meet the demands of an on-time wrap up.</p><p>PT/FT sups (actually doing the work of a loader for whatever reason) are giving all the arguments for the union to grieve. The effect is that UPS management spends so much time (money) in their meetings with the union, that I question the cost-effectiveness of these management-induced activities. The more the union grieves, the more time, highly paid managers have to waste their time in these meetings. What is more cost-effective and sustainable?</p><p>PT sups are held accountable for a myriad of paperwork to be filled in plus work performance. What happens, is that paperwork ist submitted with - at least IMHO- limited to no value as it is not even worth the paper that it is written upon. Does management know? IMHO, yes; do they want to open this can? Only when it is expedient and unavoidable. The workplace is contaminated. So what is the proper course of action? Get the selection process in order!!!</p><p>Astute shareholders might ask, are we (management/union/whoever) really working that smart?</p><p>Do we have the right (and sustainable) work standards, or are the gods of IE and Accounting banking on ideal conditions of boxes of an average size of times long gone by?</p><p>We have undeniable inefficiencies in our system (causing e.g. preload to work double and more), which could be ironed out, but it requires, at least sometimes, to listen to the voice of the people (vox populi), and take the appropriate action (vox dei).</p><p>Look at the balance sheet and ask yourselves, what would have happened to UPS profits, if the fuel surcharges and price increases would not have been on the level where they are? Make a prediction.</p><p>Personally I am convinced that we could work far smarter, thus delivering what UPS is promising to its customers and still remain profitable.</p><p>One of the major opportunites in, e.g., preload is an orderly (and not chaotic) closure of work activities with sufficient and competent loaders available. Replacing the lower-cost loaders by higher-cost drivers (sorry "service providers") does not make very much sense from a cost point of view. Shuttling work after e.g., 0830 h or even 0845 h between belts, is an invitiation for misloads. My personal observation is that during the last 60 minutes of preload, the majority of misloads occur. </p><p>I am a newbie in this organisation, but have quite a little bit of production experience, and am still shocked at the inefficiencies of the entire system. One of them is the low level of professional and ethical standards (with few exceptions), especially in the lower ranks. It begins with inefficiencies at the receipt of a package for transportation (oversize, inadequate packaging, inadequate advice for the customer etc.), continueing into reload operations, can't say to much about hub operations, but when I see the boxes arrive at a final distribution station (being hurled/thrown around), it does not surprise me why we are not seen as an entity taking care of our customers and their property (oh, we just exceeded our targets for losses and damages). Have our standards gone overboard into the unrealistic? A customer entrusts a package to out organisation for delivering to a designated person. How often do we succeed and how often do we fail? Out of the failures, what is the attributable share of the organisation and how can we work smarter to reduce this failure?</p><p>There is far more, and the PT sups are just an expendable item in the set-up. Loaders as well as PT sups are supposed to be the source for future leaders (Our big "potatoes" (with a few exceptions) make reference to their lowly beginnings in the organisation)? Do we select the right loaders/PT sups? Do we have the right foundation for our future operation, or are we contaminating the future with already "pre-demotivated" personnel?</p><p>Have to stop here. I am not Cassandra, but have seen quite a little bit in my career in differents fields of activities. We can be better, we can be smarter than the competition.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Floridacargocat, post: 763051, member: 6168"] PT/FT sups loading is an easy way of jacking up the numbers and thus covering major inefficiencies in standards and execution. PT/FT sups loading is unavoidable under emergency conditions when loaders do not show up (for whatever reason). PT/FT sups loading is a sure way to get into a conflict with the union, when loading positions are not assigned/cannot be covered. PT/FT sups are in a corner with no way out just to meet the demands of an on-time wrap up. PT/FT sups (actually doing the work of a loader for whatever reason) are giving all the arguments for the union to grieve. The effect is that UPS management spends so much time (money) in their meetings with the union, that I question the cost-effectiveness of these management-induced activities. The more the union grieves, the more time, highly paid managers have to waste their time in these meetings. What is more cost-effective and sustainable? PT sups are held accountable for a myriad of paperwork to be filled in plus work performance. What happens, is that paperwork ist submitted with - at least IMHO- limited to no value as it is not even worth the paper that it is written upon. Does management know? IMHO, yes; do they want to open this can? Only when it is expedient and unavoidable. The workplace is contaminated. So what is the proper course of action? Get the selection process in order!!! Astute shareholders might ask, are we (management/union/whoever) really working that smart? Do we have the right (and sustainable) work standards, or are the gods of IE and Accounting banking on ideal conditions of boxes of an average size of times long gone by? We have undeniable inefficiencies in our system (causing e.g. preload to work double and more), which could be ironed out, but it requires, at least sometimes, to listen to the voice of the people (vox populi), and take the appropriate action (vox dei). Look at the balance sheet and ask yourselves, what would have happened to UPS profits, if the fuel surcharges and price increases would not have been on the level where they are? Make a prediction. Personally I am convinced that we could work far smarter, thus delivering what UPS is promising to its customers and still remain profitable. One of the major opportunites in, e.g., preload is an orderly (and not chaotic) closure of work activities with sufficient and competent loaders available. Replacing the lower-cost loaders by higher-cost drivers (sorry "service providers") does not make very much sense from a cost point of view. Shuttling work after e.g., 0830 h or even 0845 h between belts, is an invitiation for misloads. My personal observation is that during the last 60 minutes of preload, the majority of misloads occur. I am a newbie in this organisation, but have quite a little bit of production experience, and am still shocked at the inefficiencies of the entire system. One of them is the low level of professional and ethical standards (with few exceptions), especially in the lower ranks. It begins with inefficiencies at the receipt of a package for transportation (oversize, inadequate packaging, inadequate advice for the customer etc.), continueing into reload operations, can't say to much about hub operations, but when I see the boxes arrive at a final distribution station (being hurled/thrown around), it does not surprise me why we are not seen as an entity taking care of our customers and their property (oh, we just exceeded our targets for losses and damages). Have our standards gone overboard into the unrealistic? A customer entrusts a package to out organisation for delivering to a designated person. How often do we succeed and how often do we fail? Out of the failures, what is the attributable share of the organisation and how can we work smarter to reduce this failure? There is far more, and the PT sups are just an expendable item in the set-up. Loaders as well as PT sups are supposed to be the source for future leaders (Our big "potatoes" (with a few exceptions) make reference to their lowly beginnings in the organisation)? Do we select the right loaders/PT sups? Do we have the right foundation for our future operation, or are we contaminating the future with already "pre-demotivated" personnel? Have to stop here. I am not Cassandra, but have seen quite a little bit in my career in differents fields of activities. We can be better, we can be smarter than the competition. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
UPS fail
Top