getting paid for supervisors working?

[brownIEman]

Originally Posted by upsguy72

It and honest day pay for and honest days work. NOT slave labor. Just becasue there isn't enought sorters, loaders, or unloaders. Doesn't mean workers can't talk, have a drink, or go to the bathroom.

are you suggesting I should build "gab" time into my staffing plan? Really?

[upsguy72]

Originally Posted by brownIEman

are you suggesting I should build "gab" time into my staffing plan? Really?

No you should be able to talk and continue doing your job. But maybe you should becasue management might want to talk to the SLAVES working.

If there was something called common sense I'd say use it. But that does exist with UPS.

[brownIEman]

Originally Posted by upsguy72

No you should be able to talk and continue doing your job. But maybe you should becasue management might want to talk to the SLAVES working.

If there was something called common sense I'd say use it. But that does exist with UPS.

Nice Freudian slip with the typing. Yes, commons sense DOES exist.

See, you just have to go to the dramatic moralistic language. Yes, I want time to talk to my slaves. Good lord man. My people are not slaves, they are human beings, and I do not treat anyone as a slave. But guess what? When they talk, more often than not, they stop working. If they are talking and working at the same time, I have no reason to be even remotely concerned.

But when I observe an employee chatting next to an open box holding a tape gun in his hand, not taping anything, not loading any packages, but just talking, for 8 solid minutes, that is a cause for concern. This sorta thing happens all the time. But you want to find every way you can to explain it away with dramatic rhetoric like "we are not slaves!", or whatever other argument you can come up with to stay morally superior to management.

From my experience, from a stealing hours standpoint, hourlies steal a lot more total hours from us than we still from them. Not because I believe management are by and large somehow morally superior to hourlies. Simple mathematics, there are simply many times more hourlies than management.

[grgrcr88]

Originally Posted by City Driver

i dont know what planet you all live on but if i filed a grievance for a supervisor working for 1 minute, id be called into the office and disciplined for all sorts of things they will drag out

file grievance = put you on the radar

and the union does nothing for us.......our stewards are a joke

Your stewards are a direct representation of the strength of YOUR union. You don't like something do something about it, you think a steward is supposed to stand up for you when you are too chicken sh** to stand up for yourself. I am so tired of hearing how crappy the stewards and the Union is from People who are to scared to do anything for themselves. If you are violated or you see the contract violated it is not only your right it is your duty as a Union member to file on the violation!

How many meetings you go to at your local union hall? You have no idea what your Union or your steward do, all you see is what you want to see.

Stop complaining about this stuff, grow some balls and stand up for yourself and the rest of the membership!!!

[City Driver]

Originally Posted by grgrcr88

Your stewards are a direct representation of the strength of YOUR union. You don't like something do something about it, you think a steward is supposed to stand up for you when you are too chicken sh** to stand up for yourself. I am so tired of hearing how crappy the stewards and the Union is from People who are to scared to do anything for themselves. If you are violated or you see the contract violated it is not only your right it is your duty as a Union member to file on the violation!

How many meetings you go to at your local union hall? You have no idea what your Union or your steward do, all you see is what you want to see.

Stop complaining about this stuff, grow some balls and stand up for yourself and the rest of the membership!!!

i love when you all pull out the "grow some balls" just to try to get to people

im not going to be the big union crybaby you all want me to be, if i see the contract violated and it doesnt really affect me then i dont care.....we got so many damn lazy guys cuz of the union that the supervisors try to work to make up for them

grow some balls and do your job and you wont have to worry about filing grievances

[altstewie]

Originally Posted by brownIEman

are you suggesting I should build "gab" time into my staffing plan? Really?

so are you saying you dont have gab time with other people in management? or take that extra long lunch break or whatever the things youre gripping about hourlies doing..youre stealing time just as well when you do the above things...

its like the same stuff with its a grounds for termination for dishonesty for hourlies but with management they lie everyday and get paid to do it..

this is why we enforce supervisors working because its always a double standard with management

[altstewie]

Originally Posted by City Driver

i love when you all pull out the "grow some balls" just to try to get to people

im not going to be the big union crybaby you all want me to be, if i see the contract violated and it doesnt really affect me then i dont care.....we got so many damn lazy guys cuz of the union that the supervisors try to work to make up for them

grow some balls and do your job and you wont have to worry about filing grievances

I did do my job. My first 3 years at ups i was one of the top preloaders in the building with a 4 car pull in front of the belt pulling anywhere from 700-1100 a day. I was the show off kid making these older guys look bad. I was an antiunion guy as well, I didn't understand what it did for me as it took 30 dollars a month from me. Guess what happened to me? I messed up my back pretty bad, What did management do for me..

They decided it was from outside of work since I was an athlete. A runner. I took them to court had a back specialist, my family doctor, and 2 physical therapist against their one company paid for doctor and I won.

People dont grow some balls, they work safe and at a pace where the above doesnt happen to them.

[City Driver]

the same people who whine and cry about supervisors working the most are the same ones who also whine and cry about working so many hours

you cant have it both ways

i believe the union does alot of good things for us but this is the negative side of it, it creates way to many crybabies who hang on every word of the contract

ive seen dockworkers file grievances when a supervisor helped them pull a skid out, the dockworker was on the forklift and the sup was walking holding the load up, 10 seconds of work total

its stupid

[PobreCarlos]

upsguy72;

Who said I wanted to be in the union? As for those things you say the union brought me....sorry, but I don't see it. Nor can I see where unions - or the Teamsters in particular - overall brought this country and/or its economy anything but a hard time. Subsidized parasites? Sure. Helped the country as a whole? Nope, no way. If it did, then - again - why wouldn't employers simply be rushing all over themselves to hire union labor? See that happening, do you? I suspect that the answer is "no"...and what you see, instead, is the millions of jobs that unions have chased from our shores. Or, like the Teamsters, have pissed-away to more efficient, cost-effective domestic labor alternatives.

But let's take your question of "If you don't like the union then why are you in it?" in a general sense; i.e. - why ARE people in the union if they don't like it?

In a word, it what I mentioned in my previous post...coercion. That is, in non-RTW states, they essentially are FORCED to be part of the union at UPS. They really don't have any option. As can be seen by the example of what's happening in RTW states, if they HAD that option, great numbers of employees would NOT be members of the union. There's a reason why the unions are pushing the "Employee Free Choice Act"...and it most certainly is NOT because they want employees to actually have "free choice", but rather because they realize that the only way they can "organize" today in most situations is by FORCING workers to join. God help them if they actually want to vote by secret ballot (and PLEASE spare me this crap that "they would be able to have a secret ballot if they wanted one" UNLESS you show how this "wanting one" is expressed by having a secret ballot as well, OK?)

Anyway, I realize that your jumping to conclusions is probably no worse than that of tens of thousands of other Teamsters who suffer from the same disease, but still it might be useful if you checked your propaganda-born assumptions at the door when considering asking similar questions.

[PobreCarlos]

altstewie;

Got a kick out of your statement....

"I did do my job"

....specifically, your use of the PAST tense, leaving the present tense alone.

I wonder, however, if as an employee you understand what your "job" is/was? I ask because your questioning of managements' gab time and whatever. By that I mean that I wonder if you realize that the "job" of an EMPLOYEE is to FUNCTION as an EMPLOYEE; i.e - submit to the will of his EMPLOYER in return for wages earned. In terms of HIS job, it's immaterial what management does on theirs; their job is to please THEIR employer (ultimately the shareholders), and not you.

You see, in the end, it isn't the numbers you're doing that makes the difference; rather, it's how satisfactory you are AS AN EMPLOYEE to the employer. That being "satisfactory", as determined by the EMPLOYER, IS "the job". You have ONE customer; your employer. If you don't please him, you're not doing "your job"....period!

May not like to hear that, it may sound "kiss-assy", or whatever, but there it is. In truth, if your employer finds you unsatisfactory as an employee, then (1) you're NOT "doing your job", and (2) you're functioning as an economic parasite on those who are.

[Dustyroads]

I guess things are handled differently in different parts of the county. But, where I work, managers and supervisors can't handle packages. And, they know this quite well. Usually, most members of management we have here play by those rules. Sometimes, usually a new part time sup, will think he can be a hero by loading or moving a bunch of packages, and those individuals get corrected, by the filing of a grievance. However, the pay for the grievance can only be given to the highest seniority person who was available to do the work. If a person is already on the clock and being paid, and they witness a supervisor working, they can file a grievance, however, they will have no standing here, as they are already on the clock and working. The grievance money goes to the highest seniority worker who was available to do the work and was not offered the work. Obviously, things are done differently elsewhere, but that's the way we do it out here in the middle of the country.

[grgrcr88]

Originally Posted by City Driver

the same people who whine and cry about supervisors working the most are the same ones who also whine and cry about working so many hours

you cant have it both ways

i believe the union does alot of good things for us but this is the negative side of it, it creates way to many crybabies who hang on every word of the contract

ive seen dockworkers file grievances when a supervisor helped them pull a skid out, the dockworker was on the forklift and the sup was walking holding the load up, 10 seconds of work total

its stupid

You should go to work at a non-union company if you hate the union so much, you would be wishing for the very same union you now despise!!

[cachsux]

Originally Posted by City Driver

i love when you all pull out the "grow some balls" just to try to get to people

im not going to be the big union crybaby you all want me to be, if i see the contract violated and it doesnt really affect me then i dont care.....we got so many damn lazy guys cuz of the union that the supervisors try to work to make up for them

grow some balls and do your job and you wont have to worry about filing grievances

So YOU have a weak local,you let mgmt do what they want as long as it doesnt affect you,you have stewards with no balls,workers with no balls, and because of that you knock us because we won`t do the same.

Be a sheep City. Make me wonder where the urine streams from your management team might be landing,on your heads or your backs?

[altstewie]

Originally Posted by PobreCarlos

altstewie;

Got a kick out of your statement....

"I did do my job"

....specifically, your use of the PAST tense, leaving the present tense alone.

I wonder, however, if as an employee you understand what your "job" is/was? I ask because your questioning of managements' gab time and whatever. By that I mean that I wonder if you realize that the "job" of an EMPLOYEE is to FUNCTION as an EMPLOYEE; i.e - submit to the will of his EMPLOYER in return for wages earned. In terms of HIS job, it's immaterial what management does on theirs; their job is to please THEIR employer (ultimately the shareholders), and not you.

You see, in the end, it isn't the numbers you're doing that makes the difference; rather, it's how satisfactory you are AS AN EMPLOYEE to the employer. That being "satisfactory", as determined by the EMPLOYER, IS "the job". You have ONE customer; your employer. If you don't please him, you're not doing "your job"....period!

May not like to hear that, it may sound "kiss-assy", or whatever, but there it is. In truth, if your employer finds you unsatisfactory as an employee, then (1) you're NOT "doing your job", and (2) you're functioning as an economic parasite on those who are.

I was trying to make a point about working hard and getting fair treatment in return. Yeah i will definitely go say, I dont work as hard as i did before. But its not out of spite for the company but because my back cant handle it. I need to work at a slower pace or else i get really bad back muscle strains. When i bend down, it really takes concentration to always bend down with the knees. Im not at snail pace, Im still average in the building but not where i was speed wise. And i only have a few misloads a year im pretty near perfect in that aspect. So dont go telling me Im not doing my job and Im not submitting myself to the employer, Im just not as fast as i used to be, I still follow the methods they say and always work as directed. I get told good job pretty much every night so I must not be an economic parasite.

Anyways after talking with the union steward last night, and your comments on here, my questions have been answered about who gets paid and such so no need to comment anymore. The debate over supervisors working is one that will always be had between management and union employees and employees who dont care about supervisors working.

[brownIEman]

Originally Posted by altstewie

so are you saying you dont have gab time with other people in management? or take that extra long lunch break or whatever the things youre gripping about hourlies doing..youre stealing time just as well when you do the above things...

its like the same stuff with its a grounds for termination for dishonesty for hourlies but with management they lie everyday and get paid to do it..

this is why we enforce supervisors working because its always a double standard with management

altstewie, like so many others I have talked to on this board, and at work, you don't get it.

Yes, there is a double standard on this time issue. But not in the way you think. It is not hypocrisy. There are, in fact, two separate standards for the way time is treated for hourlies and management. When you are on the clock, UPS is expected to pay you for each and every hundredth of an hour that you are on the clock. If UPS fails to do so, there are penalties. Likewise, when you are on the clock, you are expected to be working for UPS each and every hundredth of an hour you are being paid for (apart from the agreed upon paid breaks) Now, if you need to use the facilities or get a drink, that is no big deal. So there is accepted amounts of time when you are being paid, it is not a break, and you are not working in UPS' best interest. The problem comes in when this open to interpretation gray area starts to get abused. And it gets abused a ton, at least in my experience.

Now, I have been known to take a long lunch, and to chat with other supervisors, sometimes not about work, while at work. Here is the key difference - I am not on the clock. There is no clock. How can I be stealing time when I am not on the clock? I am expected to work in the best interest of UPS, I am a part owner and partner in the business and I am assigned by the people I report to things that I am responsible for getting accomplished. If I can get them done while chatting, and really only working a good solid 5 hours in a day, then my bosses really have no reason to be concerned about the other 5 hours. If however, I cannot get it all done without working 24 hours in a day, then my bosses have no qualms about me working the 24 hours every day, they will just tell me I need to work on my time management skills. Either way, I get paid the same. And if my boss ever decides I am not pulling my weight, am not working hard enough, if I am as you say, "stealing time", he does not need to go through a bunch of hoops, call in a steward, or any of that mess. He can just call up HR and say this dude is fired, gone history, off the payroll please.

So altsewie, I am sorry to be the one to point this out to you, but it is YOU who have the double standard. You feel the management should be treated just like you are when it comes to working every minute while "on the clock" but should absolutely not be treated like you are when it comes to them grabbing a package and moving it into a car or feeder.

In reality, they should be treated differently than you are in both situations, because they have a different role in the organization and under the contract.

[PobreCarlos]

altstewie;

Ddidn't mean to pick on your personally, or to imply that you weren't working. Actually, what I was trying to get at had more to do with your last point; i.e. - your comment of...

"The debate over supervisors working is one that will always be had between management and union employees and employees who dont care about supervisors working."

...in that, if things go on the same way, I think that there will NOT always be that debate, if only because there won't be any "management" (or, more to the point, employers) around to deal with union employees anymore.

Surely it hasn't been lost on you that MOST Teamster members over the last few decades have lost their jobs, primarily because they WERE Teamsters (i.e. - refused to be competitive). In the Teamsters core transportation industry of a few short decades back, the likelikhood of members having lost their jobs is far worse. What is left of NMF, for example? 20%? 10%? My point is that's what happens to an organization that gets too nit-picky; i.e. - it wins "the battle"...but loses the war.

I would suggest that the organized labor movement is where it's at today just because of the attitudes expressed here; i.e. - those represented by filing for each minute "lost", etc. If it's done on the basis of "it's union work", then I think you'll find rather quickly (as so many hundreds of thousands of union members have already found out) that it's not "union work" at all, but rather work provided by those who have taken the risk and made the investment behind it.

In the end, there's nothing "fair" about the labor environment today; it's heavily (and I mean VERY heavily!) weighted toward "the employee's" perspective. And, while on the surface that may sound good, the fact is that the lack of TRUE fairness is driving jobs to points where the labor environment actually *IS* more "fair" (ask UPSguy72, for example, just what's happening with aircraft maintainance in today's ienvironment). Being sticklers for detail, having "balls", etc. may SOUND all good and well under such circumstances...but it would be my contention that it's just such contrariness that has brought the so-called "union movement" to the deplorable condition that it's at today.

Employers don't want problems, period. If they've got 'em, then they're working to get rid of 'em. And all too often that's going to mean getting rid of the jobs as well.

Again, not trying to pick on you personally, nor do I mean to belittle you as an employee. The fact is that by far most UPS employees are extremely hard (and capable) workers...and I'm well aware of that fact.

[altstewie]

Originally Posted by PobreCarlos

altstewie;

Ddidn't mean to pick on your personally, or to imply that you weren't working. Actually, what I was trying to get at had more to do with your last point; i.e. - your comment of...

"The debate over supervisors working is one that will always be had between management and union employees and employees who dont care about supervisors working."

...in that, if things go on the same way, I think that there will NOT always be that debate, if only because there won't be any "management" (or, more to the point, employers) around to deal with union employees anymore.

Surely it hasn't been lost on you that MOST Teamster members over the last few decades have lost their jobs, primarily because they WERE Teamsters (i.e. - refused to be competitive). In the Teamsters core transportation industry of a few short decades back, the likelikhood of members having lost their jobs is far worse. What is left of NMF, for example? 20%? 10%? My point is that's what happens to an organization that gets too nit-picky; i.e. - it wins "the battle"...but loses the war.

I would suggest that the organized labor movement is where it's at today just because of the attitudes expressed here; i.e. - those represented by filing for each minute "lost", etc. If it's done on the basis of "it's union work", then I think you'll find rather quickly (as so many hundreds of thousands of union members have already found out) that it's not "union work" at all, but rather work provided by those who have taken the risk and made the investment behind it.

In the end, there's nothing "fair" about the labor environment today; it's heavily (and I mean VERY heavily!) weighted toward "the employee's" perspective. And, while on the surface that may sound good, the fact is that the lack of TRUE fairness is driving jobs to points where the labor environment actually *IS* more "fair" (ask UPSguy72, for example, just what's happening with aircraft maintainance in today's ienvironment). Being sticklers for detail, having "balls", etc. may SOUND all good and well under such circumstances...but it would be my contention that it's just such contrariness that has brought the so-called "union movement" to the deplorable condition that it's at today.

Employers don't want problems, period. If they've got 'em, then they're working to get rid of 'em. And all too often that's going to mean getting rid of the jobs as well.

Again, not trying to pick on you personally, nor do I mean to belittle you as an employee. The fact is that by far most UPS employees are extremely hard (and capable) workers...and I'm well aware of that fact.

I understand what youre saying. Were on different sides of the spectrum on this one too. Im not sure you can entirely blame teamsters for losing power but more on the corporate greed of America. They can ship jobs overseas and make more money and get more shareholders when they tell people, look our profits are going up because we cut our operating cost. UPS can't ship our jobs overseas, but I've always wondered this though, when technology is there, we will be eliminated someday by robotic workers. There wont be anyone stopping this either. What it comes down to is money and its always down to money. As ive stated before I wasnt a union guy when i started this job. Having that viewpoint before and now having the one i have now. Ive had a chance to look at both sides in a way and i understand now why theyre unions but also why management is the way it is. It comes down to money and power and were always gonna have problems on both sides because there are employees who take advantage of the job and are dishonest and do that job the way theyre suppose to but then there is management who is unethical, unmoral, corrupt. Its gonna take both sides for us to come together. But its never gonna happend because then someone is going to lose money and power and no one wants to lose that.

[Dark_Team_135]

Originally Posted by brownIEman

altstewie, like so many others I have talked to on this board, and at work, you don't get it.

Now, I have been known to take a long lunch, and to chat with other supervisors, sometimes not about work, while at work. Here is the key difference - I am not on the clock. There is no clock. How can I be stealing time when I am not on the clock?

Well Mr. IE...what about the part-time supervisors that this poster is likely referring to? Aren't they basically paid hourly now? I know if they work over a certain amount of hours they get "overtime" so I am betting they are. So when they are "stealing time" by you definition, it is the same as when we do it, right?


Either way, I get paid the same. And if my boss ever decides I am not pulling my weight, am not working hard enough, if I am as you say, "stealing time", he does not need to go through a bunch of hoops, call in a steward, or any of that mess. He can just call up HR and say this dude is fired, gone history, off the payroll please.

What about the mediation procedure brochure I read that is given to management? Does that not apply if you are fired?


In reality, they should be treated differently than you are in both situations, because they have a different role in the organization and under the contract.

Again this is NOT true for part-time sups that the poster is talking about...

Also, in my experience, many times when employees are chatting and not working it is when there are breaks in the flow. If not, then it is a problem with their supervisor not supervising them which in your opinion could get the sup fired! Works both ways...

[PobreCarlos]

altstewie;

One thing in your comment (which overall I appreciated!) I'd dispute would be that "UPS can't ship our jobs overseas" in that, in a way, I think, starting more than 30 years ago now, they already have shipped quite a few. In my career, UPS went from being solely a domestic corporation to one that had an appreciable overseas presence. Since then, the overseas operations have grown exponentially, while domestic operations have essentially treaded water. Today, UPS would be a giant corporation (still one of the biggest) MINUS any Teamster and/or domestic participation at all. Meanwhile, following the '97 strike, many of the (potential, at least) domestic jobs HAVE been passed over to a non-union workforce...both within and without (note FDX Ground). And I'm convinced that if domestic delivery operations become a financial burden, then the company would have no problem "pulling a DHL" and dropping them. Companies simply aren't going to stay in business if they're losing money...nor, for that matter, are they going to even stay in an AREA of business if greater profits are available elsewhere.

Corporations exist for one reason only; to make money for those the corporation consist of (i.e. - shareholders). Call that "greed" if you want....but you're not going to get a corporation, which really knows no country boundaries (UPS, for example, is far from an "American company" today), to act primarily out of single-nation humantiarian concerns, either. So "yes", it DOES come down to money...with the point being that the provider of the jobs HAS to make money in order to pay workers. Beyond that, it's possible for companies/corporations/firms/whatever to make money without employees...but it's pretty much impossible for those that labor for hire to make money without employers.

Unions can bemoan that fact (i.e. - "money" is so important, "greed" exists, etc), but it's like complaining about gravity. The simple fact is that such is the way the world works. Now one can stick one's head in the sand and try to deny that fact and get burned in the process, or one can recognize it as a fact and deal with it POSITIVELY. Far, far too often over the last few decades, unions have tried to deny it..and thus deny economic reality. And look at the results.

I guess one thing I need to emphasize here is that, while it might take two sides to "come together", from managements/shareholders perspective, there's no absolute reason to "come together" at all - especially if the other side is being overly belligerant. By that I mean that companies don't always need their present work force, and could quite handily look elsewhere, or even simply go out of business, without the slightest ethical hindrance whatsoever.

[07960]

Originally Posted by altstewie

I understand what youre saying. Were on different sides of the spectrum on this one too. Im not sure you can entirely blame teamsters for losing power but more on the corporate greed of America. They can ship jobs overseas and make more money and get more shareholders when they tell people, look our profits are going up because we cut our operating cost. UPS can't ship our jobs overseas, but I've always wondered this though, when technology is there, we will be eliminated someday by robotic workers. There wont be anyone stopping this either. What it comes down to is money and its always down to money. As ive stated before I wasnt a union guy when i started this job. Having that viewpoint before and now having the one i have now. Ive had a chance to look at both sides in a way and i understand now why theyre unions but also why management is the way it is. It comes down to money and power and were always gonna have problems on both sides because there are employees who take advantage of the job and are dishonest and do that job the way theyre suppose to but then there is management who is unethical, unmoral, corrupt. Its gonna take both sides for us to come together. But its never gonna happend because then someone is going to lose money and power and no one wants to lose that.

Broken English aside, this is the crux of our problem.

[Dark_Team_135]

Originally Posted by PobreCarlos

altstewie;

I guess one thing I need to emphasize here is that, while it might take two sides to "come together", from managements/shareholders perspective, there's no absolute reason to "come together" at all - especially if the other side is being overly belligerant. By that I mean that companies don't always need their present work force, and could quite handily look elsewhere, or even simply go out of business, without the slightest ethical hindrance whatsoever.

God you sound like a poster called "SCB" that was on TeamsterNet that took shots at unions in almost every post even when they weren't the subject of the discussion...I HOPE you are not him or not like him. I think he finally got banned for hijacking threads...

[brownIEman]

Well Mr. IE...what about the part-time supervisors that this poster is likely referring to? Aren't they basically paid hourly now? I know if they work over a certain amount of hours they get "overtime" so I am betting they are. So when they are "stealing time" by you definition, it is the same as when we do it, right?

good point. My post more fit the full time supervisors. The part timers are now on a clock so to speak. They do have different roles than the hourlies, however, and it is a double standard to think they should be working every minute, and then get upset when they start working, know what I mean?

What about the mediation procedure brochure I read that is given to management? Does that not apply if you are fired?

That is an option I can choose to go to if I want, but if my boss has already talked to HR and laid out a case for me to be gone, my odds are slim and it won't take very long

Again this is NOT true for part-time sups that the poster is talking about...

yes it is true for part time sups, they have a different role. Altstewie wants them to be held to the same standards he is when it comes talking, yet be held to a different standard when it comes to picking up a package.

Also, in my experience, many times when employees are chatting and not working it is when there are breaks in the flow. If not, then it is a problem with their supervisor not supervising them which in your opinion could get the sup fired! Works both ways..

I work in a slide to car operation. On the slide, if there is work piled up on the slide, there is no such thing as a break in the work flow, and yet I constantly see employees chatting or going into a car to make phone calls and send texts.

So, are you saying if a union employee decides to sit down on the job and stop working, any time he steals is the fault of the supervisor who did not come up to him every minute and get him back to work? The hourly has none, zip, zero personal responsibility to keep working unless someone is telling him to do so? Really? I would suggest even the contract disagrees with you on that.

[Jones]

Originally Posted by Dark_Team_135

God you sound like a poster called "SCB" that was on TeamsterNet that took shots at unions in almost every post even when they weren't the subject of the discussion...I HOPE you are not him or not like him. I think he finally got banned for hijacking threads...

If you were down at the firehouse, someone would have yelled "Bingo!".

[upsguy72]

Originally Posted by PobreCarlos

altstewie;

One thing in your comment (which overall I appreciated!) I'd dispute would be that "UPS can't ship our jobs overseas" in that, in a way, I think, starting more than 30 years ago now, they already have shipped quite a few. In my career, UPS went from being solely a domestic corporation to one that had an appreciable overseas presence. Since then, the overseas operations have grown exponentially, while domestic operations have essentially treaded water. Today, UPS would be a giant corporation (still one of the biggest) MINUS any Teamster and/or domestic participation at all. Meanwhile, following the '97 strike, many of the (potential, at least) domestic jobs HAVE been passed over to a non-union workforce...both within and without (note FDX Ground). And I'm convinced that if domestic delivery operations become a financial burden, then the company would have no problem "pulling a DHL" and dropping them. Companies simply aren't going to stay in business if they're losing money...nor, for that matter, are they going to even stay in an AREA of business if greater profits are available elsewhere.

DHL came to the US to try to get into the North America ground package deliver business by buying Airborne and failed. UPS is a US based company that delivers world wide ground air and freight. DHL got excatly what they deserved they try to under cut the competition by pay there delivery drives hardly anything and got terrible results.

Corporations exist for one reason only; to make money for those the corporation consist of (i.e. - shareholders). Call that "greed" if you want....but you're not going to get a corporation, which really knows no country boundaries (UPS, for example, is far from an "American company" today), to act primarily out of single-nation humantiarian concerns, either. So "yes", it DOES come down to money...with the point being that the provider of the jobs HAS to make money in order to pay workers. Beyond that, it's possible for companies/corporations/firms/whatever to make money without employees...but it's pretty much impossible for those that labor for hire to make money without employers.

IF it wasn't for the employees then the people in management wouldn't have a job thus the company wouldn't exist.

Unions can bemoan that fact (i.e. - "money" is so important, "greed" exists, etc), but it's like complaining about gravity. The simple fact is that such is the way the world works. Now one can stick one's head in the sand and try to deny that fact and get burned in the process, or one can recognize it as a fact and deal with it POSITIVELY. Far, far too often over the last few decades, unions have tried to deny it..and thus deny economic reality. And look at the results.

Maybe the people in management need to take a pay cut. The Union is what gives people a fair living wage.

I guess one thing I need to emphasize here is that, while it might take two sides to "come together", from managements/shareholders perspective, there's no absolute reason to "come together" at all - especially if the other side is being overly belligerant. By that I mean that companies don't always need their present work force, and could quite handily look elsewhere, or even simply go out of business, without the slightest ethical hindrance whatsoever.

UPS isn't going out of business there are Three primary package delivery companies in the US and USPS, UPS and FED. To imply that UPS will go out of business because of labor cost is totally ridiculous I mean you would have to be a totally idiot to even bring that up.

[705red]

Originally Posted by City Driver

i dont know what planet you all live on but if i filed a grievance for a supervisor working for 1 minute, id be called into the office and disciplined for all sorts of things they will drag out

file grievance = put you on the radar

and the union does nothing for us.......our stewards are a joke

So because you do not have any stones you jump on one of our part timers that does not allow the company to take advantage of him?

Stewie keep up the great work! If city wants to open his wallet and allow UPS to take money out of it thats his call!

Sups should never work, call in full timers on the preload or ask them to stay later, but them doing the work is not going to happen!.