This saves money?

[JustTired]

Here's my six keys to a successful delivery business
The list is not conclusive. Feel free to add your own.
1. When making decisions, put the customer first, not the stockholder.

2. Technology has no vision. It can't see a customers' needs. The 'vision' must come from those that control the technology.

3. The 'numbers', 'standards' and 'goals' are a necessary part of business. What isn't necessary is the belief that they are the answer to all problems. They should actually be used to point out problems. Determining whether the problem is the measure or the actual work performed is key to any meaningful use of such measures.

4. Listen to your employees. When there is a majority consensus that a problem exists, it should be taken seriously. To ignore it only creates more problems which tend to multiply by factors.

5. Accept that your employees have a personal life outside of work. An employee who is content with their personal life will be more content with their work life. And a more content employee could translate into more content customers.

6. Never forget the old axiom: "Service....it's all we have to give."

[tarbar66]

Originally Posted by JustTired

Here's my six keys to a successful delivery business
The list is not conclusive. Feel free to add your own.
1. When making decisions, put the customer first, not the stockholder.

2. Technology has no vision. It can't see a customers' needs. The 'vision' must come from those that control the technology.

3. The 'numbers', 'standards' and 'goals' are a necessary part of business. What isn't necessary is the belief that they are the answer to all problems. They should actually be used to point out problems. Determining whether the problem is the measure or the actual work performed is key to any meaningful use of such measures.

4. Listen to your employees. When there is a majority consensus that a problem exists, it should be taken seriously. To ignore it only creates more problems which tend to multiply by factors.

5. Accept that your employees have a personal life outside of work. An employee who is content with their personal life will be more content with their work life. And a more content employee could translate into more content customers.

6. Never forget the old axiom: "Service....it's all we have to give."

You should be on the BOD!

Wait a minute, you have common sense, I better get of the computer now!

[teresarice]

Yes its all lies about the numbers . We do the same thing in are small center. Put down training meetings , safty meetings etc. to make the numbers look good. So If we are taught to lie about all these things by management and its ok . Why then do we get fired for doing the exact same thing in diad ? (post about terminated for dr per customer ) whats good for the goose should be good for the gander ?

[teresarice]

And one more thing the bottom will fall out someday.

[PobreCarlos]

Don't think anyone disputes that "service" is the number one priority. However, in case there are those who haven't noticed, "service" COSTS! Or, more to the point, as a business, you can't continue to provide a service unless you make money at it.

This is where "listening to the employees", and "employees have a personal life", etc. comes into play. It's all fine and dandy to listen to your employees IF they're willing to absorb the cost of doing so. And, equally, it's fine and dandy to talk of giving the employees a personal life if they put the business in a position to allow it to do so.

How's about it? Are the employees as a whole willing to take a cut in compensation in order to allow for service improvements? Or a similar cut in compensation in order to make if possible for them to have a better personal life? Funny...but I've yet to see the union negotiate on such a basis. It's never, to my knowledge, put "service" or "family life" above getting all it could financially out of the company.

Lastly, I'd like to play for a moment with the comment of...

"And a more content employee could translate into more content customers."

...in that, minus outside influences, I've no doubt that the company could fairly easily find employees that were "content" with the work environment and what the company had to offer at a more competitive price. By that I mean that every time a union member talks about "service", "family life", and "customer satisfaction", they need to look in the mirror, take a deep breath, and admit to themselves that THEY were a prime factor in making conditions as they are.

No such thing as a free lunch. And, I'm sorry to say, putting someone on the B.O.D. who thinks that there is, isn't going to accomplish much of anything but help to bring the company - which offers a livelihood directly to close to half a million people, and indirectly perhaps millions! - down.

[evilleace]

I know that if a paycut was taken by union employees that UPS would still cut routes and work drivers 10-12 hrs a day

[PobreCarlos]

evilleace;

Curious, could you tell me how you *KNOW* that, as opposed to speculating that it COULD be the case? I mean actual KNOWLEDGE is a very specific matter, isn't it?

Seems to me that, for an individual to HAVE such "knowledge", he would have to have to some experience to base it on. You have much experience with union UPS employees taking pay cuts, do you?

That said, bear in mind that direct compensation isn't the only service "cost"; just the rigmarole of dealing with an organization like the Teamsters (increased hassle of management, retention of "employees" that the company finds useless, or worse, contract negotiations, increased financing costs due to the perceived burden of being "unionized", etc., etc) have a tremendous impact on costs....and thus on what level of service can be provided!

Anyway, all I'm saying is that, minus Teamster involvement/member demands, it would be a lot easier for management to provide MORE service at a CHEAPER price and with a GREATER profit than currently. Not saying that's the way - given employee demands - that it SHOULD be. But I think it EXTREMELY naive to believe that management is the biggest problem in terms of providing service; rather, management tends to be the juggler keeping up in the air both the service and the cost/income factors that make that service possible. Meanwhile, all too often, the organized employees as a body are trying to interrupt that juggling process.

Example? Well, what's the biggest service interruption at UPS that you can remember? Think hard. And think who caused it. And if you say it was the entity that "forced" the other entity to cause by not giving into their demands, then I suggest you get back to that mirror I postulated in a previous post.

[UPSBOT]

This is where "listening to the employees", and "employees have a personal life", etc. comes into play. It's all fine and dandy to listen to your employees IF they're willing to absorb the cost of doing so. And, equally, it's fine and dandy to talk of giving the employees a personal life if they put the business in a position to allow it to do so.

How's about it? Are the employees as a whole willing to take a cut in compensation in order to allow for service improvements? Or a similar cut in compensation in order to make if possible for them to have a better personal life? Funny...but I've yet to see the union negotiate on such a basis. It's never, to my knowledge, put "service" or "family life" above getting all it could financially out of the company.

Lastly, I'd like to play for a moment with the comment of...

"And a more content employee could translate into more content customers."

...in that, minus outside influences, I've no doubt that the company could fairly easily find employees that were "content" with the work environment and what the company had to offer at a more competitive price. By that I mean that every time a union member talks about "service", "family life", and "customer satisfaction", they need to look in the mirror, take a deep breath, and admit to themselves that THEY were a prime factor in making conditions as they are.

No such thing as a free lunch. And, I'm sorry to say, putting someone on the B.O.D. who thinks that there is, isn't going to accomplish much of anything but help to bring the company - which offers a livelihood directly to close to half a million people, and indirectly perhaps millions! - down.[/QUOTE]


I'm willing to give up any hours after 5:00

[evilleace]

Okay pobre how could UPS provide better service if the Union members took a paycut. Would UPS add more routes to take stops off of drivers, would they have an earlier start time. What would they do to increase service because the things I said would also cost money and you and I both know/assume/speculate/think/consider what ever you want to say, all UPS and corporate care about is profit.

[PobreCarlos]

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)

[evilleace]

Ok how about this all management take a $5 dollar an hr paycut, or do away with half of the pt sups that would save a lot of money as most of them don't do a whole lot anyway. Or at least cut their guarantee down to 20 hrs instead of 27.5. The union employees earn every dollar they make can you say that about management.

[dragon]

The union employees earn every dollar they make can you say that about management.

Not by a long shot!!

[PobreCarlos]

evilleace;

First of all, management isn't paid on a per hour basis. And, on the basis of hours worked (or, more to the point, in terms of responsibility), they're probably already woefully underpaid in relation to the management of firms similar in size and scope. Second, you seem to forget that management - and past management - are the primary owners of the company; it quite literally is *THEIR* company. It's for them that the company exists, and it's on the basis of continued profitability TO THEM that it continues to exist. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) it doesn't exist for the employees who, to put it bluntly, are there only to serve the owners/managers. From that position, could you, for example, starve your children so that you could pay the guy that mowed your grass more than he was competitively worth? Or, if you're already paying the guy who cuts your grass more than the market rate, could you justify his complaints that you ought to take the food out of your childrens' mouths so you could pay him to provide a better "service" when you know, in your heart, that he's already overpaid in comparison with other similarly situated grass cutters? Personally, I doubt it.

Which brings us to a third point; management is COMPETIVELY compensated. There are no labor laws which protect them when they're inefficient of cost-ineffective, nor are they (by law) allowed to bargain collectively. What they make, they've competitively EARNED on the basis of their individual market value. Can union members generally say that? Think, for example, that UPS couldn't go on the open market and hire competent drivers cheaper than what the union wage demands? (personally, I've "been there, done that", and KNOW the answer to that one)

Which brings us back to your last claim; i.e. - "The union employees earn every dollar they make". Not trying to belittle UPS's union employees here, because I'm quite willing to concede that the VAST majority of them work hard and efficiently. But do you SERIOUSLY believe that UPS couldn't go out and hire NON-union labor and train it to do the job just as effectively at a fair MARKET wage? REALLY?!? Or that ALL "union employees" earn every dollar they make? By that do you mean to tell me that they're aren't sandbaggers out there? That there AREN'T those union "employees" that company feels it could do better WITHOUT? If so, why is the prospect of termination the topic of so many threads on this board? And do you really think that the company would want to get rid of employees who are EARNING their keep as EMPLOYEES (and remember what an employee is; someone who serves the will of his EMPLOYER, not his own!)

Lastly, let me reiterate that I fully understand where the union is coming from in demanding high compensation, etc.. But if members of the union are maintaining that their cost doesn't have anything - or even isn't the PRIMARY factor - in sustainable service levels, then they're simply out of touch with reality. It's THEIR decision that THEY made; not someone else's.

As a footnote; if you think management - or, more specifically, p/t supervisors "don't do a whole lot anyway", then why aren't you - and those like you - jumping at the chance to take those positions? And why do threads like current one about "Reasons why a driver would want to go into management" (or however it's titled) exist?

Food for thought.

[browniehound]

Originally Posted by PobreCarlos

evilleace;

Curious, could you tell me how you *KNOW* that, as opposed to speculating that it COULD be the case? I mean actual KNOWLEDGE is a very specific matter, isn't it?

Seems to me that, for an individual to HAVE such "knowledge", he would have to have to some experience to base it on. You have much experience with union UPS employees taking pay cuts, do you?

That said, bear in mind that direct compensation isn't the only service "cost"; just the rigmarole of dealing with an organization like the Teamsters (increased hassle of management, retention of "employees" that the company finds useless, or worse, contract negotiations, increased financing costs due to the perceived burden of being "unionized", etc., etc) have a tremendous impact on costs....and thus on what level of service can be provided!

Anyway, all I'm saying is that, minus Teamster involvement/member demands, it would be a lot easier for management to provide MORE service at a CHEAPER price and with a GREATER profit than currently. Not saying that's the way - given employee demands - that it SHOULD be. But I think it EXTREMELY naive to believe that management is the biggest problem in terms of providing service; rather, management tends to be the juggler keeping up in the air both the service and the cost/income factors that make that service possible. Meanwhile, all too often, the organized employees as a body are trying to interrupt that juggling process.

Example? Well, what's the biggest service interruption at UPS that you can remember? Think hard. And think who caused it. And if you say it was the entity that "forced" the other entity to cause by not giving into their demands, then I suggest you get back to that mirror I postulated in a previous post.

I agree in theory, but if you pushed your non-union employees as UPS pushes its union employees and paid them non-union wages, most people would leave UPS and UPS would lack the productive work force it now enjoys. It appears to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

[JimJimmyJames]

But once all the jobs that created the "middle class" in America are destroyed, it will be easy for any company to get labor at the right price.

I just don't know who will be buying the products and services that are required to keep our consumer economy afloat. At least at the level we have grown accustomed to.

[klein]

PobreCarlos,

do me a favour, find out the profits, or losses from USA UPS only.
I would love to see those.

Because , from what I learned on here, UPS workers in the US are earning $60+ an hr with all bennies included.
While , other countries are subsidizing the US worker.

Even Canada, at $24 max per hr (no health insurance or huge pension to be paid).

But, go to asia, africa, etc... they work a whole day for $12.00 ! TWELVE per day, not per hr !

And China , probably did the right thing, why support american or german workers ?
Lets take care of our own first.
To take it further, if China, started it's own UPS, it's no way you could compete.
They have 10fold the population, access to all of Asia (where all the cheap walmart items and electronics come from ).

And if offerd a job in the US or Canada for $20.00/hr, people would go for it, too.

So, watch out, maybe we might get a CPS (china parcel service) ?
Never know.

[PobreCarlos]

browniehound;

Perhaps you're right....although I doubt it. Note that there ARE non-union employees (see the post following yours) who's work is just as cost-effective. On the other hand, if labor COSTS are reduced, there quite well COULD a reduced labor expectation. With HIGH labor costs, however, there's an automatic demand that the very last iota be squeezed out of that labor; nothing "maybe" about it.

And that high labor cost is at the direction of the union. Perhaps the labor demands would be less if UPS labor was more market-based....but we'll never know, because it's NOT market-based, at the insistence of the union.

[Hoaxster]

Originally Posted by klein

PobreCarlos,

do me a favour, find out the profits, or losses from USA UPS only.
I would love to see those.

Because , from what I learned on here, UPS workers in the US are earning $60+ an hr with all bennies included.
While , other countries are subsidizing the US worker.

Even Canada, at $24 max per hr (no health insurance or huge pension to be paid).

But, go to asia, africa, etc... they work a whole day for $12.00 ! TWELVE per day, not per hr !

And China , probably did the right thing, why support american or german workers ?
Lets take care of our own first.
To take it further, if China, started it's own UPS, it's no way you could compete.
They have 10fold the population, access to all of Asia (where all the cheap walmart items and electronics come from ).

And if offerd a job in the US or Canada for $20.00/hr, people would go for it, too.

So, watch out, maybe we might get a CPS (china parcel service) ?
Never know.

Klein,
No other UPS country has the profitability that the US has... not one even remotely close.
Canada in particular was never profitable for many years. For years and years Canada has lost money up through the 90's. Last I heard they had finally made a profit somewhere around 2003.
Next to the US, the last I heard, in profitability order, it was Germany, UK and then Canada.
The biggest reason is stop density and packages delivered per stop.
Last time I took the time to dig out the details for Small Package operations, US represented 92% of the profit and 8% for the rest of the world.
In your spare time (I assume you still have plenty) you could research the latest financial reports of UPS.

[cachsux]

Originally Posted by Hoaxster

Klein,
No other UPS country has the profitability that the US has... not one even remotely close.
Canada in particular was never been profitable for many years. For years and years Canada has lost money up through the 90's. Last I heard they had finally made a profit somewhere around 2003.
Next to the US, the last I heard, in profitability order, it was Germany, UK and then Canada.
The biggest reason is stop density and packages delivered per stop.
Last time I took the time to dig out the details for Small Package operations, US represented 92% of the profit and 8% for the rest of the world.
In your spare time (I assume you still have plenty) you could research the latest financial reports of UPS.

Hoax, you know better. He`s watching Maury so he can tell us why Canadian baby mommas are better than U.S. baby mommas.

[PobreCarlos]

JimJimmyJames;

If those jobs are destroyed (and, granted, many have been), they will have been destroyed by the American "worker" by his refusal to be competitive. The fact is that there's an intrinsic value to goods and services produced and if a certain group can no longer effectively produce those goods and services at a level commensurate with their value, then they no longer will be capable of buying those "products and services" you maintain that is needed to keep the economy afloat....unless, of course, you're talking about OTHERS who ARE willing to compete SUBSIDIZING them!

If that's the case, and you're talking a gigantic American welfare state, in which those who DO compete are asked to diminish what they EARN in order to subsidize the lives of those who are unwilling to earn their OWN way in this world (i.e. - won't compete), then I thinks there's some disillusionment there. Over the long term, people just don't like to get screwed-over like that. They expect to dispense with what THEY earned THEMSELVES....and not chuck it over to people who expect to be "middle class" simply on the basis of their existing as Americans.

There was a time when American workers were among the most competitive in the world. And, in many areas, they still are. But, in case you haven't noticed, our "organized" labor just isn't cutting it. The most ready example, of course, is the auto industry. The "organized" segment of it has tanked, and exists only on the basis of welfare. Meanwhile the "non-organized" parts of it - brought to our shores primarily because this country decided to set-up exclusionary tariffs which backfired - is prospering.

"Organized labor" seems to be engaged in a massive pissing contest with itself...bound and determined to see how many jobs, and how much of this country's economy it can piss away. While a few seem, at least temporarily, to prosper from the process, the masses are kicked to the curb. Look at the Teamsters, or the UAW, or the Steelworkers by way of verification; how many of their members jobs have these union pissed away? It's MILLIONS! And for what?

[klein]

Originally Posted by PobreCarlos

browniehound;

Perhaps you're right....although I doubt it. Note that there ARE non-union employees (see the post following yours) who's work is just as cost-effective. On the other hand, if labor COSTS are reduced, there quite well COULD a reduced labor expectation. With HIGH labor costs, however, there's an automatic demand that the very last iota be squeezed out of that labor; nothing "maybe" about it.

And that high labor cost is at the direction of the union. Perhaps the labor demands would be less if UPS labor was more market-based....but we'll never know, because it's NOT market-based, at the insistence of the union.

You lost me there. All the union will ask for is a wage increase according to inflation !
And, that is reasonable.

UPS is still making profit in the worst recession in our lifetime !
And still paying out 55cents dividends on a share. Which is about 1% "interesst" !
Try to get 1% in a savings account these days ! More like 0.1% !

It's not the company they work for, it's the shareholders they work for !

And if labor costs went down, shareholders would be first in line to profit, and workers last, if not, even putting more pressure on them. With even adding more technoligy, and faster methods, filled to the roof trucks, cut runs, etc. Since, it worked before.

[PobreCarlos]

klein;

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't UPS just report a 48% decline in quarterly year-to-year earnings? And how long can it continue to pay that "55cents dividends" on that basis?

Those are the owners EARNINGS...the exact equivalent of a workers EARNINGS! How would the Teamsters working for UPS like to take a 48% CUT in THEIR earnings? Got that! TAKE HOME 48% LESS THAN YOU DID LAST YEAR!!!

How about it? You go for that? Sound like a plan?

You go on to say how "shareholders would be first in line to profit, and workers"...but the simple fact is that, right now, the shareholders are getting clipped, while Teamsters have suffered virtually nothing. As I see it, not only are the UPS Teamster workers not only NOT "last in line"...but rather they're virtually the only people "in the line" PERIOD! Compared to everybody else, they're hogs at the trough, so to speak.

Lastly, I have to get into your argument about....

"All the union will ask for is a wage increase according to inflation! And, that is reasonable."

...in that it's that type of comment that irritates me no end. Having grown up, and taken my first economics class in the era of "stagflation" and then, for what passed in this country at least, as the "hyper inflation" of the Carter era, I'm not going to buy for a moment that "it's reasonable". In fact, I can't help but believe that so-called "COLA" labor contract clauses - designed to "keep up with inflation" - are the CAUSE of wage inflation! Note that I state "INFLATION" of wages; NOT higher wages earned on the basis of increased LABOR productivity (but how much of that has this country seen over the last 50 years?). Nor do count market increases of commodities and/or labor and services based on natural scarcity as "inflation".

Nope, if labor wants wage increases, then it should EARN wage increases....based on increased productivity and/or cost-effectiveness. And that should be based on LABOR'S increased productivity (i.e. - that it accounted for ITSELF), NOT that of new systems and or inventions, etc. introduced by others.

Look at history. Look at Great Britain pre-Thatcher, for example. To put it bluntly, just handing labor money that it hasn't earned does nothing but drive the capital upon which national economies are based across the borders. No capital, no jobs. And that's how countries go to crap.

Again, THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH! Someone, somewhere, has to pay for it! And until organized labor realizes that if it wants to EAT the lunch, it's going to have to PAY for the lunch, then I think it's going to suffer through some hard times....and deservedly so.

[klein]

Those are the owners Shareholders EARNINGS...the exact equivalent of a workers EARNINGS! How would the Teamsters working for UPS like to take a 48% CUT in THEIR earnings? Got that! TAKE HOME 48% LESS THAN YOU DID LAST YEAR!!!

corrected that for you.

Profits are also not earnings !
(CEO, shareholders, took same pay home - it's extra money in the bank).
Besides, what did the company do years before with 200% earnings ?
I'm sure they handed every employee a bonus, eh ?

And where do these pecentage points come from ?
1st quarter in March, earnings will be up 300% because of xmas...!

So, where do these percentages come from (last yr, 10 years ago, 20 yrs ago) ?
Thats the problem.
They don't even have a standard what 100% would be.
Or , maybe you know it ?

[JimJimmyJames]

If I am asked to directly compete against foreign workers who are not regulated under the same safety, labor, and environmental laws as I am, I cannot hope to compete.

Also, if those same workers benefit from socialized medicine and retirement that relieves their corporations from that burden.

I also cannot compete with countries who use a VAT as a weapon to encourage industry in their own countries, while discouraging imports from mine.

I also cannot compete against companies who manipulate laws regarding subcontrating to create a business model that is anything but the definition of subcontracting.

At least I cannot compete and maintain the standard of living that has made America the economic powerhouse it is.

China, Japan, etc. did not grow their economies by producing for their own people, but by undercutting us at every turn in order to grow at our expense.

Unfortunately for them it is reaching the point where we will no longer be able to do them a favor and commit economic suicide in order to buy their products. With all our good jobs going, or being cheerleaded to go, by, ahem, certain people, we simply won't be able to afford it.

Here is a link to an article that describes the coming death of the middle class and the reasons behind it, enjoy:

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/welcome_back_lenin/

[JimJimmyJames]

Hmm, I just read that the percentage of unionized workers in the private sector is 7.4%

7.4%

Can anyone answer how the unions can still be the whipping boy for Wall Street at this point?

Let's face it, the corporations have won, the oligarchy is established, and notions of labor being able to control their destiny can be swept aside once that last 7.4 bites the dust.

I guess instead of my next Harley I will have to consider a Schwinn.

I am strongly suggesting to my children to not persue employment in the private sector but get a good government job instead. In the future it is going to be better to be a part of the Inner Party, then the Outer party.

Maybe being a Prole is the best any of us can hope for.