$100 a week for insurance and little or no raises!!

[Anonymous 10]

No, I do not want a strike.

So, what you are saying is that Hall does want a fight and is intentionally NOT negotiating in good faith in order to get one? This could be helpful in litigation later on. If you could get me some verification I would appreciate it.

Litigation my ass. You are nobody and you know it. It's already decided. Don't come on here and act like you are somebody. You aren't. I know people on the committee that's all and I've got a few pictures of me and ken hanging in my garage but I can't speak for the man. I just know he will put it up (strike) to a vote and endorse it if he feels he is being jacked around. Remember this he is from West Virgina he knows crazy and he knows hard times.

 

[Anonymous 10]

I did look at 97. Lived through it. The union did a great job of sticking together. Everything you got in that strike though, you could have gotten without one. The company thought it was playing hard nosed negotiation, but negotiation non the less. The union was fighting.

I am sure you were told, and likely believe, the company in 97 was attempting "union busting". If so, they were a bunch of incompetent boobs, because they failed in every conceivable measure at that.

I could argue that the Union was making an attempt at "Company Busting" in 97. UPS market Share was 80% back then. It is around 50% now. So, yeah, you absolutely won that bout.

Strange that Fred took home the real purse though...

We will fight again. Watch

 

[brownIEman]

If hall said" We demand signing bonuses of $20,000" and UPS got up and walked away, I'm sure someone up top would say the same things. It just so happens he's trying to keep the membership informed, unlike the Wizard of Oz in Atlanta that sends orders out, not information.

Yet he has demanded work rule changes that will lower production and cost likely hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only has no one up top said anything, UPS did not walk away from the negotiations in a huff. Your premise lacks merit based on actual events, IMHO.

 

[brownIEman]

We will fight again. Watch

if you want to, you certainly can.

This time, Fred will take home a much bigger purse though. Watch.

 

[Anonymous 10]

Yet he has demanded work rule changes that will lower production and cost likely hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only has no one up top said anything, UPS did not walk away from the negotiations in a huff. Your premise lacks merit based on actual events, IMHO.

Your production is destroying our bodies. Oh yea he really didn't walk away. The negotiations aren't scheduled for another two weeks before this.

 

[brownIEman]

Litigation my ass. You are nobody and you know it. It's already decided. Don't come on here and act like you are somebody. You aren't. I know people on the committee that's all and I've got a few pictures of me and ken hanging in my garage but I can't speak for the man. I just know he will put it up (strike) to a vote and endorse it if he feels he is being jacked around. Remember this he is from West Virgina he knows crazy and he knows hard times.

Ok, I am nobody if that makes you feel better, and you hung with ken in your garage, so you da man. I accept your premise on its face, so maybe we can leave the insulting posturing out of the rest of the conversation?

I absolutely agree he would, and should put a strike vote out and endorse it if he believes he is being jacked around.

What I am asking is why is he jacking the company around? Does he feel he needs to to be seen as tough? Is he as insecure in that regard as Carey was in 97?

 

[Anonymous 10]

Ok, I am nobody if that makes you feel better, and you hung with ken in your garage, so you da man. I accept your premise on its face, so maybe we can leave the insulting posturing out of the rest of the conversation?

I absolutely agree he would, and should put a strike vote out and endorse it if he believes he is being jacked around.

What I am asking is why is he jacking the company around? Does he feel he needs to to be seen as tough? Is he as insecure in that regard as Carey was in 97?

i insulted you??? Your the guy that started talking about litigation. You have insulted me bud. Look we will strike end of story. Bring it on ie boy. Hall has done nothing wrong. He is asking for what we deserve. Nothing more nothing less. Stay out of his thread you will get nothing but hate here. We break our bodies for this company. You break your o-ring. Sorry about that but it is what it is.

 

[brownIEman]

Your production is destroying our bodies. Oh yea he really didn't walk away. The negotiations aren't scheduled for another two weeks before this.

Our production is very tough, absolutely. It is however, an integral part of the business model that makes UPS successful.

This is the simple Model that UPS uses - Pay UPSers more than any one else in the industry pays them by far. Then beat them like a red headed step child to get way more out of them than anyone else in the industry gets, by far.

I am not making a moral judgement, I am laying plain out what the model is, and we already know it is successful, at least from a profitability stand point. But if you want to cut back one side of that business model, you need to cut back on the other or you break the model.

UPS has argued that it should be allowed to require its employees to kick in for the rising cost of health coverage like most companies do. Hall has countered that UPS is not most companies, and that this argument holds no merit. I find Hall absolutely right in his stance.

But then Hall turns around and says that UPS should not be allowed to drive its employees to give the utmost in production, and should accept a much lower production standard from its employees, you know, like most companies do. Guess what Ken, UPS is not most companies.

 

[Jackburton]

Yet he has demanded work rule changes that will lower production and cost likely hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only has no one up top said anything, UPS did not walk away from the negotiations in a huff. Your premise lacks merit based on actual events, IMHO.

He didn't say "We need to get rid of all telematics in the vehicles". The key is when you come out trying to transfer such a large shift of the healthcare burden to the employee while you tout how each year record profits are being recorded, well you can see the problem I would hope.

 

[Bagels]

I could argue that the Union was making an attempt at "Company Busting" in 97. UPS market Share was 80% back then. It is around 50% now. So, yeah, you absolutely won that bout.

Strange that Fred took home the real purse though...

In 1997, e-commerce was virtually nonexistent; as the market segmentation took off, it was unlikely that UPS would remain the only major competitor (give the USPS's shady reputation for parcel delivery). The early reigns of FedEx's acquisition of RPS was disastrous, and in some ways helped UPS stay on top for many years (and companies like Newegg will probably never forgive FedEx). If FedEx had built an organic ground network, it could very well be stronger than what exists today.

 

[Anonymous 10]

Our production is very tough, absolutely. It is however, an integral part of the business model that makes UPS successful.

This is the simple Model that UPS uses - Pay UPSers more than any one else in the industry pays them by far. Then beat them like a red headed step child to get way more out of them than anyone else in the industry gets, by far.

I am not making a moral judgement, I am laying plain out what the model is, and we already know it is successful, at least from a profitability stand point. But if you want to cut back one side of that business model, you need to cut back on the other or you break the model.

UPS has argued that it should be allowed to require its employees to kick in for the rising cost of health coverage like most companies do. Hall has countered that UPS is not most companies, and that this argument holds no merit. I find Hall absolutely right in his stance.

But then Hall turns around and says that UPS should not be allowed to drive its employees to give the utmost in production, and should accept a much lower production standard from its employees, you know, like most companies do. Guess what Ken, UPS is not most companies.

We already produced at the highest level before the harassment.

 

[Jackburton]

If you want to have the most productive workforce then insuring they take care of themselves and their families would be very integral in that equation. You say you want production, I'll give that production as long as I'm able too. Increased workman's comps claims will also increase as people who wouldn't report a small injury would now be worried about paying for something more serious later on their own dime. Insurance deductables would rise and the level of care would decrease. Want me to be a mule to pull your cart, don't treat me like a dog and expect me to perform.

 

[brownIEman]

He didn't say "We need to get rid of all telematics in the vehicles". The key is when you come out trying to transfer such a large shift of the healthcare burden to the employee while you tout how each year record profits are being recorded, well you can see the problem I would hope.

Absolutely. Were I in your shoes, there is not a likely scenario in which I would come close to accepting a concession like UPS suggested. Yet I also would not get pissy and walk away from the table and threaten a strike just because UPS suggested it early in the negotiation process.

If you look at things in total, the unions position seems to be "You will give us everything we are getting now, and more" and on the production side, "We for our part will give you less and less than you are getting". You don't see a potential problem with that?

Many have said that they MIGHT consider chipping in for coverage if the company were actually losing money. I am asking why are we actively trying to create that scenario?

 

[Brownslave688]

If hall said" We demand signing bonuses of $20,000" and UPS got up and walked away, I'm sure someone up top would say the same things. It just so happens he's trying to keep the membership informed, unlike the Wizard of Oz in Atlanta that sends orders out, not information.

Yet he has demanded work rule changes that will lower production and cost likely hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only has no one up top said anything, UPS did not walk away from the negotiations in a huff. Your premise lacks merit based on actual events, IMHO.

There are no production standards now!!!! Fair day that's what you get. Considering we are the best in the business I think management gets more than a fair day out of most of the employees.

We can't help some guy in an office 1000 miles away makes up wack number you can't meant.

Your mistake was going into management. Don't take it out on us because your all butt hurt.

 

[brownIEman]

We already produced at the highest level before the harassment.

No. The "harassment" as you call it has been around for pretty much the life of the company. How old is the 340-Methods document?

This business model is not new.

 

[brownIEman]

There are no production standards now!!!! Fair day that's what you get. Considering we are the best in the business I think management gets more than a fair day out of most of the employees.

We can't help some guy in an office 1000 miles away makes up wack number you can't meant.

Your mistake was going into management. Don't take it out on us because your all butt hurt.

I am not talking about production standards. I am talking about work rules changes that will have the result of lowering actual production and increasing actual costs. And by the way, I am not against them on their own, they would actually make my day to day job easier. But they would lower production and increase costs.
The question is, is it fair and reasonable to ask UPS for more, and offer to give less, and expect that to be acceptable to UPS?

I am honestly not taking anything out on anyone, I am just having a conversation.

 

[Anonymous 10]

No. The "harassment" as you call it has been around for pretty much the life of the company. How old is the 340-Methods document?

This business model is not new.

Yea harassment has always been there but real men used to run this company and I was treated like a man back then. Now real men aren't ALLOWED to treat you like a man. This is what's wrong with the harassment. Just because you are treated like doesn't mean I'm going to ACCEPT it.

 

[Brownslave688]

If you want to have the most productive workforce then insuring they take care of themselves and their families would be very integral in that equation. You say you want production, I'll give that production as long as I'm able too. Increased workman's comps claims will also increase as people who wouldn't report a small injury would now be worried about paying for something more serious later on their own dime. Insurance deductables would rise and the level of care would decrease. Want me to be a mule to pull your cart, don't treat me like a dog and expect me to perform.

Bingo. Brought up this point today. Work comp claims will go way up. Also what they propose retirees pay would mean many people working to 65 at least. Which in turn means many more comp claims.

 

[Brownslave688]

We already produced at the highest level before the harassment.

No. The "harassment" as you call it has been around for pretty much the life of the company. How old is the 340-Methods document?

This business model is not new.

Ask any actual ups driver. Follow the methods to a T and production goes way down.

Why does all management believe we are all out to do as little as possible?

 

[brownIEman]

In 1997, e-commerce was virtually nonexistent; as the market segmentation took off, it was unlikely that UPS would remain the only major competitor (give the USPS's shady reputation for parcel delivery). The early reigns of FedEx's acquisition of RPS was disastrous, and in some ways helped UPS stay on top for many years (and companies like Newegg will probably never forgive FedEx). If FedEx had built an organic ground network, it could very well be stronger than what exists today.

Yet organic or not, he did build that network, and whatever you think about what it could have been, it is much stronger today than it was in 97, it will take a much bigger bite from us than it did then if we go that route.

As to e-commerce, it was in its infancy, but not nonexistent in 97. We were the best positioned to capitalize on its explosive growth, the major factor in our inability to completely dominate the market was the old original business model was broken. UPS first business model was the same as its first slogan "Best Service, Lowest Rates". Prior to 97, that model was already broken, as our cost structure had already prevented us from offering the lowest rates. Remember, the 80% market share we held in 97, as commanding as that seemed, was already down significantly from the few years preceding.