QUOTE=PobreCarlos;541729]trplnkl;
Sure. Willing to give several. Hour assignments. Job assignments seniority instead of by most effective and/or capable. Wage adjustments according to ability. Promotion from friend/t from p/t based on seniority. Grievance resolution expenses. Etc, etc....the list goes on and on.
I'm not sure what you mean about "hour assignment". The main purpose of the seniority over "most effective and/or capable is for protection of the long term employee. The driver that puts in 15 years of hard labor, tearing up his body and can no longer be the "most effective". That aging driver that is not as capable as the 24 year old deserves a good job as much as the younger one. Because UPS will not do a thing for the employee that they are not forced to do. We all do the same work, maybe not at the same pace but everyone is different. If it were not for the grievance process, UPS would have a revolving door that spat out drivers that have slowed down due to age, they sure won't take care of any one but the top performers of the day. The grievance resolution expense would be near to nothing, if the company would just comply with the contract they signed. That is a list that goes on and on.
For example, "705" keeps talking about an arbitrator at panel hearings. Who ultimately (i.e. - one way or the other) pays for not only his direct costs, but for the havoc which he (at least half the time, which is the nature of "arbitration") causes?
I can't tell if you think the arbitrator at the panel hearings is a good thing or not. But I am willing to bet that the union people that negotiate the NMA on behave of the employees would Think it's a good thing. And again, If UPS would follow the contract as close as they want the employees to do, there wouldn't the need for an arbitrator.
The union? Hell, the union has absolutely no resources of it's own (they're all generated by the employers), and hasn't any creative business history at all; it's never done anymore than parasite off of at best, and destroy at worst (again, more than a million Teamsters losing their jobs, and driving almost all the top 50 Teamster-organized LTL firms into bankruptcy has to say SOMETHING, doesn't it?).
I look at the Teamsters as a necessary evil, in a manner of speaking, no much different than a lawyer that looks out for their clients best interest. I don't personally know the inside stories of these 50 LTL companies that have gone bankrupt while under contract with the Teamsters. I think there is suspicion that some of them folded due to poor management and/or other reason that effected the bottom line along with a union contract. I guess there are several was one could spin this subject to say whatever you want it ti say.
Just the extra effort of doing business with the Teamsters - and the incredible amount of adjustments needed to cope with the work restrictions and business inflexibility they impose - are a heavy burden on UPS. I'd maintain - as I think most management personnel would today - that those are a much more expensive problem to deal with than actual direct compensation.
Well of course most management would rather not deal with the union, no bully wants anyone to stand up to them to prevent harassment or to keep them from doing just anything they please regardless of how it effects the worker. I mean after all, the the lines are full with people wanting to take our places. Right? How many applicants do you think would be lining up if UPS paid 10 bucks an hour?
Think UPS management hasn't thought of that when considering putting TOFC's out there....or benefiting by sub-contracting rural delivery, etc? Have they found work arounds?
I think UPS has personell on staff whose primary job is to find "workarounds"(loop holes) to avoid compling with a contract they signed, the promises they made, no intentions of keeping them.
Sure, but, meanwhile, the non-organized competition is often a step ahead....and would be even further ahead if it had more capable managment.
That's must be why UPS feels the need to spend millinos of dollars (that they wouldn't have if not for the blood, sweat and tears of hard working union employees) to make the playing field a little more level.
Look at the maze YRCW has had to go through ...<snip>...has to go through a "change of operations" procedure with the union. And, of course, by the time <snip> change would be meaningful has already passed. Again, the list could go on and on.
I don't know what YRCW is, so I can't comment on that.
Our "change of operations proceedure" is, again, to protect the working man/woman that would be left out in the cold without a coat so UPS could make an extra .0001% profit on a given route. And THAT list can go on and on.[/QUOTE]
trplnkl;
In times past<snip> retail freight shipments are WAY down.
I guess you are saying it is the Teamsters that are to blame for the recession. I must have missed that report on CNN.
My bottom line here is, I want UPS to remain profitable, which at this time it still is. But don't ask me the make concessions when the CEO is getting a 5 Million dollar bonus for a job well done. As long as UPS is making billions in profit, don't ask me to forfit a 30 cent an hour raise. The life style of the rich and famous is not for me, but I don't want to live in shack on the wrong side of the tracks either. And don't try to spoon feed me a bunch of crap and tell me it's chocolate pudding.