Contract proposals from my local

[Catatonic]

I live in a fact-based reality. Over the last 35 years, worker productivity has soared. Median worker pay has been flat. Profits aren't a bad thing. But, the actual people working for the company enable the company to make profits. And, for the last 35 years, those actual workers haven't been getting a fair share. Go read this article, and follow the links to the original paper and Paul Krugman's take on the situation.

Economist's View: The Wedge between Productivity and Wages

Let me pose a question: the company is very profitable and has a large chunk of change in the piggy bank. Why not give out some raises? If not raises, bonuses. (Thereby not raising costs permanently) It has lots of money for dividends, which I certainly appreciate every quarter, why not let the worker bees participate in the good times?

I find your invoking Jim Casey a hoot. Jim Casey actually believed in sharing the profits of the company with the people he hired. Ever hear of 'brown shares'? Jim Casey has probably drilled a hole to China, he is spinning in his grave so fast from watching the current batch of yahoos destroy his legacy.

The UAW did not run the Detroit car companies into the ground, the MANAGEMENT of the Detroit car companies ran them into the ground. That's why they are called MANAGERS. The UAW did not design crappy cars, nor market crappy cars crappily. MANAGEMENT did all that. And MANAGEMENT negotiated crappy contracts that gave away the store and destroyed their own competitiveness.

Here's a question for you: why is it that Japanese and German car makers compete just fine on the world auto market with cars built by UNION LABOR in Japan or Germany, but need non-union labor to compete here in the US? Just askin'

I've posted elsewhere on this board that the Teamsters need to figure out some way to help the company compete against FedEx.

I understand where you are coming from on an emotional - feel good level.

It seems to be the gist of any "rewards" system that is natural is that it rewards risk and special talents.
My observation in almost 40 years at UPS is that there are no hourlies and almost no management at UPS that took any risks or had any special talent.
That is my biggest concern or whine in regards to the increased compensation of level 20s and above. They may work extremely hard and for the most part, they are above-average in intelligence but nothing really special and no real risk unless you equate stress with risk.
Your thoughts?

 

[TechGrrl]

I understand where you are coming from on an emotional - feel good level.

It seems to be the gist of any "rewards" system that is natural is that it rewards risk and special talents.
My observation in almost 40 years at UPS is that there are no hourlies and almost no management at UPS that took any risks or had any special talent.
That is my biggest concern or whine in regards to the increased compensation of level 20s and above. They may work extremely hard and for the most part, they are above-average in intelligence but nothing really special and no real risk unless you equate stress with risk.
Your thoughts?

I agree with you 100% on the level 20's and above. They are an example of how corporate america is flowing all the goodies to the top, and leaving crumbs for the people who do the REAL work. Hourlies have no way of being 'special' in the sense of any one individual having a major impact on the business. Good ones do stand out, and generally work their way up. I started as a box slinger and retired after making major impacts on stuff. However, my observation is that those kinds of people are no longer welcome in the business. Atlanta has sucked the life out of the districts, and is playing "top down thinking" all the way now. Very sad.

Several years ago, I had suggested that 50% of the compensation of 20's and above be based on THEIR QPR's, with tough goals for business development and profitability. Penalties would apply for injuries and turnover. And not just for their own little corner of the world. And the 50% would be paid in stock only, no options.

 

[beentheredonethat]

I live in a fact-based reality. Over the last 35 years, worker productivity has soared. Median worker pay has been flat. Profits aren't a bad thing. But, the actual people working for the company enable the company to make profits. And, for the last 35 years, those actual workers haven't been getting a fair share. Go read this article, and follow the links to the original paper and Paul Krugman's take on the situation......Let me pose a question: the company is very profitable and has a large chunk of change in the piggy bank. Why not give out some raises? If not raises, bonuses. (Thereby not raising costs permanently) It has lots of money for dividends, which I certainly appreciate every quarter, why not let the worker bees participate in the good times?

I can't and won't speak for other companies, but I will speak regarding UPS. Yes, UPS has had lots of gains in overall productivity. Let's look at Delivery Information. When I started we had a whole department of folks working in the district (Back when there were approx 70 districts). UPS invested money in the DIAD so that information could be captured electronically vs on paper. UPS was able to virtually eliminate this entire department and all the costs associated with it. At the same time they improved the response time to the customer on questions such as where is my package?. Now UPS invested a lot of money in the DIAD, as well as ups.com and the UPS tracking API's. That investment in technology improved our costs. So because "productivity" improved, should we have given everyone raises based on that? When I started we had a whole department for data processing that took the "Pick up book detail" receipts the drivers took each day and keyentered them into the local computers and uploaded to the mainframe. That department went away in the districts due to UPS investing millions upon millions of dollars in computers for our customers (TDP program) and investing money by creating Worldship, Iship, Campusship, Connectship. The PLD that these systems (and other third parties) upload to UPS eliminated the need for this department. So because UPS invested money into these systems which resulted in cost savings and therefore more profit. Does that mean we should have increased the pay for our people? When UPS invested heavily in PFT, this resulted in the vast reduction in training hours spent to get a new preloader up to speed. UPS invested money in upgrading our Air fleet with more fuel efficient engines, planes that need only 2 people in cockpit vs 3. UPS I can go on and on where productivity gains have come about due to UPS investing in itself.

Now to be clear, do drivers work hard? Yes, they do. They work very hard. Are UPS drivers the highest paid delivery drivers in the U.S.? Yes they are. Do they have the best benefit pkg in the industry? Yes they do. Why is the definition of a fair days pay have a relation to the profit a company makes?

If I feel I am underpaid, I can leave UPS and go work for another company that will pay me more. That's called the free market. But.. what driver will leave UPS and make more in a similar job? Not many if at all.

 

[beentheredonethat]

The UAW did not run the Detroit car companies into the ground, the MANAGEMENT of the Detroit car companies ran them into the ground. That's why they are called MANAGERS. The UAW did not design crappy cars, nor market crappy cars crappily. MANAGEMENT did all that. And MANAGEMENT negotiated crappy contracts that gave away the store and destroyed their own competitiveness.
.

I've said in my earlier post, the problem with the big 3 was a combination of bad management and UAW contracts that were unrealistic. I still believe that. Bad overpriced cars wasn't going to last once a competitor came into the US.

 

[beentheredonethat]

I've posted elsewhere on this board that the Teamsters need to figure out some way to help the company compete against FedEx.

How do you propose doing this? (Other then the obvious, let's organize FDX). If that is the solution, this is the same thing as the Big 3 all employed UAW and paid the same wages. That isn't a solution that is good for all. (ALthough, for a while, the teamsters will do well).
UPS is competing against a company that has more flexibility with it's work force, and pays them vastly less money then a UPS driver makes.

Here's some of my opinions of what is needed to help UPS compete.

1. FDX is beating us in transit time. They use contract carriers to bring their trailers from hub to hub. If you look at their 1 day footprint compared to ours, and even more so their 2 day footprint compared to ours, they are much better then UPS is. We need flexibility to make this work done by mileage drivers\gypsy drivers whatever. We need to be able to move this work from hub to hub in a speed that matches FDX that is cost competitve. This wouldn't impact what we currently have for feeder drivers moving local sort to hub or hub to preload loads. But it would impact the longer distance hub to hub loads. To try to win back or keep this volume, UPS has resorted to giving 2DA and\or 3DS to customers at discounted ground rates to keep the customers pkg in our network. This is very costly to UPS.

2. For many years now, UPS has had management pay a portion of their HW costs. Most all companies have done the same. It is not realistic anymore for a person to not to expect to pay a portion of their HW costs.

3. Two tier pay rates. This will allow long term drivers to keep their pay rate that they are accustomed to, while giving jobs to new hires at still a very competitive rate that they will be happy with.

4. Allow helpers year round. There are some areas where helpers can easily be used to make deliveries. Mall routes alone represent good areas where a helper could assist the driver to finish his\her day earlier or to do the mall and then cover another portion of a route with the time savings. In many areas, helpers year round wouldn't make financial sense and wouldn't be used. But in some areas it would be very beneficial.

5. Have a profit sharing with union members. I agree that profit should be shared. The harder a person works, the more the company makes and a portion of the profit can be given to the teamsters. This would give a good incentive for people to do their best and want the company to make more profit. It would make drivers want to do more sales leads to win new business since that will help them in the end.

6. Reduce some of the union rules. (In my area, we have multiple locals covered under the same district). We can't have a feeder driver from one local take a load from the hub to the end customer since that's delivery work that belongs to the other local. Therefore we need to spend time doing a drop\swap so the correct local can deliver the work. (Similar for pickups). We have some drivers moving an empty trailer past a customer that we have to send another driver to do a pickup in since the first driver was not in that local.
Granted, short term, this gives another job to a teamster. But it makes absolutely zero sense economically. We can't afford to be inefficient due to these type of union rules. We know FDX wouldn't have that issue.

There are more, but it's late. Let the flaming start, I'm sure the majority won't like what I posted.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

If I feel I am underpaid, I can leave UPS and go work for another company that will pay me more. That's called the free market.

No, that is not called the free market. lol Labor market has not been free in our lifetimes.

 

[beentheredonethat]

No, that is not called the free market. lol Labor market has not been free in our lifetimes.

I can understand your point of view when you have a pay rate higher then the rest of the industry. Not too easy to leave when virtually all the other like jobs pay less. The reverse is true for a lot of our jr management team. I've seen dozens of new (8 years or less with UPS) leave in this economy because they got job offers making 10 - 30% more then they made at UPS and have to work less hours then at UPS. So.. for them it is a free labor market. Yet somehow, you are the one complaining.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

It is a free labor market for those with marketable skills.

Most hourly UPSers have little choice but to stay.

 

[Coldworld]

It is a free labor market for those with marketable skills.

Most hourly UPSers have little choice but to stay.

A majority of the jobs in the us are service jobs....so there are millions of people with little or no marketable skills..not just upsers...and for those with college education, still doesn't mean you have a marketable skill...wasn't a slam, just wanted to add that.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

A majority of the jobs in the us are service jobs....so there are millions of people with little or no marketable skills..not just upsers...and for those with college education, still doesn't mean you have a marketable skill...wasn't a slam, just wanted to add that.

...it wasn't taken as a slam as it was spot on...I have my 4 year as do several of my co-workers...the problem is I haven't been in a classroom since 1989...it wold take me a long time to refresh those skills...

 

[Coldworld]

Especially with college costs going through the roof

 

[brown_trousers]

How do you propose doing this? (Other then the obvious, let's organize FDX). If that is the solution, this is the same thing as the Big 3 all employed UAW and paid the same wages. That isn't a solution that is good for all. (ALthough, for a while, the teamsters will do well).
UPS is competing against a company that has more flexibility with it's work force, and pays them vastly less money then a UPS driver makes.

Here's some of my opinions of what is needed to help UPS compete.

1. FDX is beating us in transit time. They use contract carriers to bring their trailers from hub to hub. If you look at their 1 day footprint compared to ours, and even more so their 2 day footprint compared to ours, they are much better then UPS is. We need flexibility to make this work done by mileage drivers\gypsy drivers whatever. We need to be able to move this work from hub to hub in a speed that matches FDX that is cost competitve. This wouldn't impact what we currently have for feeder drivers moving local sort to hub or hub to preload loads. But it would impact the longer distance hub to hub loads. To try to win back or keep this volume, UPS has resorted to giving 2DA and\or 3DS to customers at discounted ground rates to keep the customers pkg in our network. This is very costly to UPS.

2. For many years now, UPS has had management pay a portion of their HW costs. Most all companies have done the same. It is not realistic anymore for a person to not to expect to pay a portion of their HW costs.

3. Two tier pay rates. This will allow long term drivers to keep their pay rate that they are accustomed to, while giving jobs to new hires at still a very competitive rate that they will be happy with.

4. Allow helpers year round. There are some areas where helpers can easily be used to make deliveries. Mall routes alone represent good areas where a helper could assist the driver to finish his\her day earlier or to do the mall and then cover another portion of a route with the time savings. In many areas, helpers year round wouldn't make financial sense and wouldn't be used. But in some areas it would be very beneficial.

5. Have a profit sharing with union members. I agree that profit should be shared. The harder a person works, the more the company makes and a portion of the profit can be given to the teamsters. This would give a good incentive for people to do their best and want the company to make more profit. It would make drivers want to do more sales leads to win new business since that will help them in the end.

6. Reduce some of the union rules. (In my area, we have multiple locals covered under the same district). We can't have a feeder driver from one local take a load from the hub to the end customer since that's delivery work that belongs to the other local. Therefore we need to spend time doing a drop\swap so the correct local can deliver the work. (Similar for pickups). We have some drivers moving an empty trailer past a customer that we have to send another driver to do a pickup in since the first driver was not in that local.
Granted, short term, this gives another job to a teamster. But it makes absolutely zero sense economically. We can't afford to be inefficient due to these type of union rules. We know FDX wouldn't have that issue.

There are more, but it's late. Let the flaming start, I'm sure the majority won't like what I posted.

The only problem with your logic, is that UPS has proven to be very successful while at the same time paying us the wages + benefits they do. Not only are they still remaining competitive, but we see growth in profits every year. From some people's perspective, this is a win-win scenario, in that UPS profits continue to grow... and our paychecks continue to grow.

So why on earth would we want to change this win-win scenario into a win-lose scenario, or possibly a lose-lose scenario?

I'm sure at some point in time our union wages + benefits will reach that equilibrium point where it prevents UPS profits from growing. We obviously haven't reached that point yet, as UPS is currently showing GREAT profits and growth. Until we reach that equilibrium, I doubt our union will accept ANY concessions!

 

[PobreCarlos]

brown-trousers;

I don't neccessarily disagree with your assessment, at least in terms of how things stand currently. However, although UPS has remained "competitive" in a sense, it HAS lost a large percentage of its core business to the competition over the past few years, and is likely to lose more if costs squeeze things in that direction. Secondly, the ability of the company to remain profitable has, to a degree that's increased virtually every year over the past 30, become dependent on non-Teamster, non-domestic operations. Again, I believe that with the absorption of TNT, a full 38% of the company's revenue will be coming from non-domestic sources. That might leave the company profitable...but with less and less of that profit coming from the Teamsters. As has been seen with Caterpillar of late, companies don't tend to reward non-profitable segments of the business, even if the company as a whole is profitable.

Beyond that, I'm afraid that once the point of "equilibrium" you mention is reached, it'll be too late. Corporations tend to be a bit more foresighted (quite a bit, actually!) than unions, and if it reaches a point where the company sees that profits are beginning to slide, they dispose of that segment while it still has value in terms of a sale; they don't wait until it's actually losing money. And in that scenario - while UPS could very well win - I don't see how the Teamsters would. Note that the scenario is VERY similar to what has happened to Teamsters employed in the bulk of the once-organized transportation firms they considered under their mantle...and, in the process, the majority of existing Teamster jobs were lost over just a couple of short decades. While I hope it's unlikely, it's not impossible that the same couldn't happen to UPS. After all, thirty or thirty-five years ago, I could never have conceived of UPS having the competition it has today from FedEx.

 

[Coldworld]

brown-trousers;

I don't neccessarily disagree with your assessment, at least in terms of how things stand currently. However, although UPS has remained "competitive" in a sense, it HAS lost a large percentage of its core business to the competition over the past few years, and is likely to lose more if costs squeeze things in that direction. Secondly, the ability of the company to remain profitable has, to a degree that's increased virtually every year over the past 30, become dependent on non-Teamster, non-domestic operations. Again, I believe that with the absorption of TNT, a full 38% of the company's revenue will be coming from non-domestic sources. That might leave the company profitable...but with less and less of that profit coming from the Teamsters. As has been seen with Caterpillar of late, companies don't tend to reward non-profitable segments of the business, even if the company as a whole is profitable.

Beyond that, I'm afraid that once the point of "equilibrium" you mention is reached, it'll be too late. Corporations tend to be a bit more foresighted (quite a bit, actually!) than unions, and if it reaches a point where the company sees that profits are beginning to slide, they dispose of that segment while it still has value in terms of a sale; they don't wait until it's actually losing money. And in that scenario - while UPS could very well win - I don't see how the Teamsters would. Note that the scenario is VERY similar to what has happened to Teamsters employed in the bulk of the once-organized transportation firms they considered under their mantle...and, in the process, the majority of existing Teamster jobs were lost over just a couple of short decades. While I hope it's unlikely, it's not impossible that the same couldn't happen to UPS. After all, thirty or thirty-five years ago, I could never have conceived of UPS having the competition it has today from FedEx.

You do know that many of UPS's international operations have workers that are in unions...right.

 

[brown_trousers]

brown-trousers;

I don't neccessarily disagree with your assessment, at least in terms of how things stand currently. However, although UPS has remained "competitive" in a sense, it HAS lost a large percentage of its core business to the competition over the past few years, and is likely to lose more if costs squeeze things in that direction. Secondly, the ability of the company to remain profitable has, to a degree that's increased virtually every year over the past 30, become dependent on non-Teamster, non-domestic operations. Again, I believe that with the absorption of TNT, a full 38% of the company's revenue will be coming from non-domestic sources. That might leave the company profitable...but with less and less of that profit coming from the Teamsters. As has been seen with Caterpillar of late, companies don't tend to reward non-profitable segments of the business, even if the company as a whole is profitable.

Beyond that, I'm afraid that once the point of "equilibrium" you mention is reached, it'll be too late. Corporations tend to be a bit more foresighted (quite a bit, actually!) than unions, and if it reaches a point where the company sees that profits are beginning to slide, they dispose of that segment while it still has value in terms of a sale; they don't wait until it's actually losing money. And in that scenario - while UPS could very well win - I don't see how the Teamsters would. Note that the scenario is VERY similar to what has happened to Teamsters employed in the bulk of the once-organized transportation firms they considered under their mantle...and, in the process, the majority of existing Teamster jobs were lost over just a couple of short decades. While I hope it's unlikely, it's not impossible that the same couldn't happen to UPS. After all, thirty or thirty-five years ago, I could never have conceived of UPS having the competition it has today from FedEx.

Exactly how unprofitable is our domestic small package operation? I doubt we are operating in the red domestically even though the domestic side is unionized

 

[PobreCarlos]

brown_trousers and coldworld;

"brown_trousers": No one that I'm aware of said that our "domestic small package operation" is "unprofitable". What's being pointed out is that, relative to other segments of the company's business, it's not necessarily all THAT profitable....and that growth in the area has lagged behind that of other segments. Beyond that, it's also the segment most under competitive pressure, and the least likely to retain a competitive cost advantage. And like I indicated in my post above, I don't think it ever will become unprofitable as long as UPS owns it. However, there's not a doubt in my mind that the company would be able to read the writing on the wall to the extent that it would dispose of that area of the business while there was still some value to it....and I'm not sure how the Teamster would fare in the process. I am aware that, as a declining revenue/profit center, the union doesn't (and can't) have the "pull" it had when it represented the entire operations of the company.

"coldworld": In response to your question about my knowing that "that many of UPS's international operations have workers that are in unions", "yes", I'm well aware of that, having worked with them myself some time back. Admittedly, my experience has been primarily with a union that eventually merged with others to become "Ver.Di" (the world's largest labor union?) in Germany. However, in comparing many of the unions abroad with the Teamsters, it seems to me that there's quite a differential generally. From what I've seen (and discussions I've had with European workers representatives), unions are far more likely to act collegial; their primary interest is in maintaining and developing the company's business in order retain and grow their members jobs, rather than engage in an adversarial relationship in which there's petty squabbling all the time. And, overseas, unions often train and discipline workers themselves; they don't wait for the company to do it. In any case, while not entirely different, it's far from the same environment working with union overseas than it is with the Teamsters.

 

[brown_trousers]

brown_trousers and coldworld;

"brown_trousers": No one that I'm aware of said that our "domestic small package operation" is "unprofitable". What's being pointed out is that, relative to other segments of the company's business, it's not necessarily all THAT profitable....and that growth in the area has lagged behind that of other segments. Beyond that, it's also the segment most under competitive pressure, and the least likely to retain a competitive cost advantage. And like I indicated in my post above, I don't think it ever will become unprofitable as long as UPS owns it. However, there's not a doubt in my mind that the company would be able to read the writing on the wall to the extent that it would dispose of that area of the business while there was still some value to it....and I'm not sure how the Teamster would fare in the process. I am aware that, as a declining revenue/profit center, the union doesn't (and can't) have the "pull" it had when it represented the entire operations of the company.

What other segments are more profitable??? It would be interesting to see if UPS publishes different profit values for each segment of their business. I don't really keep up with UPS's other business venture's, but it seems like it would be difficult for any other segment to bring in the sheer amount of cash that our small package operation does.

 

[TechGrrl]

brown_trousers and coldworld;

"brown_trousers": No one that I'm aware of said that our "domestic small package operation" is "unprofitable". What's being pointed out is that, relative to other segments of the company's business, it's not necessarily all THAT profitable....and that growth in the area has lagged behind that of other segments. Beyond that, it's also the segment most under competitive pressure, and the least likely to retain a competitive cost advantage. And like I indicated in my post above, I don't think it ever will become unprofitable as long as UPS owns it. However, there's not a doubt in my mind that the company would be able to read the writing on the wall to the extent that it would dispose of that area of the business while there was still some value to it....and I'm not sure how the Teamster would fare in the process. I am aware that, as a declining revenue/profit center, the union doesn't (and can't) have the "pull" it had when it represented the entire operations of the company.

"coldworld": In response to your question about my knowing that "that many of UPS's international operations have workers that are in unions", "yes", I'm well aware of that, having worked with them myself some time back. Admittedly, my experience has been primarily with a union that eventually merged with others to become "Ver.Di" (the world's largest labor union?) in Germany. However, in comparing many of the unions abroad with the Teamsters, it seems to me that there's quite a differential generally. From what I've seen (and discussions I've had with European workers representatives), unions are far more likely to act collegial; their primary interest is in maintaining and developing the company's business in order retain and grow their members jobs, rather than engage in an adversarial relationship in which there's petty squabbling all the time. And, overseas, unions often train and discipline workers themselves; they don't wait for the company to do it. In any case, while not entirely different, it's far from the same environment working with union overseas than it is with the Teamsters.

Amen, brother! Just like the Japanese and German car companies are unionized in their home countries, but move to right-to-work states here to build their cars.

I would add another factor: European and Asian companies are not yet QUITE so beholden to the Wall Street Mentality of "What have you done for me this quarter?" The financial sector has not TOTALLY taken over the managerial mindset yet. Oh, and did I forget to mention that since those evil socialistic countries have universal health care that is NOT the responsibility of the actual companies, that is a competitive advantage US companies don't enjoy.

 

[brown_trousers]

brown_trousers and coldworld;
"coldworld": In response to your question about my knowing that "that many of UPS's international operations have workers that are in unions", "yes", I'm well aware of that, having worked with them myself some time back.

We also have a good portion of that international market being processed here domestically by union workers as well. I worked along side many intl auditors in my hub days, and it was definitely teamsters working those jobs. So a lot of those international shipment profits are the result of our union work as well. It seems like all the profitable markets at UPS are handled by Teamster hands!

 

[PobreCarlos]

brown_trousers;

That portion you're speaking of is considered part of the domestic operations; i.e. - that work takes place here, not abroad. And if you think "all the profitable markets at UPS are handled by Teamster hands", I suggest you follow the company's financial announcements (say on "Yahoo"), and notice where the company's growth has come over the last few years. Fact is, there are extremely profitable markets which Teamster hands don't come within thousands of miles of. The European domestic market (inter-Europe) alone is relatively huge. Remember, with the acquisition of TNT, UPS is rivalling DHL as the largest "domestic" carrier on that continent as well. And some of those operations (and non-Teamster workers, such as drivers, sorter, etc) have been part of the company for more than 35 years now.....as long, or longer, than the vast majority of UPSers in the U.S. have been with the company. They're mature organizations...as mature in their own way as the domestic U.S. operations.

Not putting down the profitability of Teamster-organized operations. Just pointing out that they're far from the be-all and end-all of the company's profit centers.