Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
bluehdmc;

A couple of quick responses to some of your points, although albeit far from complete.

(1) I *DO* consider it the case that the UAW virtually "twisted" the automakers arms to produce "gas guzzlers". Nor am I alone in that consideration. The fact is, the companies were essentially forced to by an inefficient, cost-ineffective, inflexible union work force to manufacture the most costly type of car in order to simply break even. There wasn't money left over for essential design programs. Nor was there enough efficiency in the work force to make the production of more gas-stingy cars profitable. In essence, the company was left no choice.

(2) As for $4.00/gallon gasoline, I don't really ascribe that to either "gas speculators" or "Wall St". Oh, I guess "speculators" (like UPS, which hedged fuel prices) could be said to contribute to it somewhat...although the general consensus, I believe, is that such "speculation" actually smoothed price variables. However, by far the largest part of the price increase was simple market forces...and that primarily was a function of developing countries - particularly China - diving into the market on their own hook. And there, the unions AGAIN have some responsibility; i.e. - China wouldn't have prospered so quickly, nor have been so rapidly placed in the oil market if Unions hadn't driven the productive JOBS of this country into Chinese hands. I will give the unions credit for helping bring DOWN the price of fuel as well, however...since the deep, DEEP recession they [at least] helped create depressed the market for oil [gasoline] as well, and with it the price.

(3) As far what the Teamsters did in the way of "arm twisting"....again, just what choice did YRCW have? I wrote a little exposition on that topic back a couple of years or so ago when YRCW's stock was at $44 or so, and a Teamster in a another forum was blowing about how such a well-run Teamster organize company was tearing up the world.....pointing out that, with the tremendous pension liability burden resting on YRCW, the ONLY chance they had of making it was by expanding rapidly in order to disperse that liability. Heck, the price of YRCW's trucking company purchases - all of them combined - pales in comparison with the liability imposed up on it by the Teamsters CSPF ALONE...and that's not one bit YRCW's fault; until a couple of months ago, it was ENTIRELY current on it's pension payments. The liability was entirely brought about by the Teamsters.

(4) You mention industries that have gone out of business, and represent [I believe] as a somewhat natural phenomena. However, you mentioned a couple of areas in which I have a particular interest....and peeve. For example, you mentioned the dairy industry. No it just so happens that I followed rather closely a Teamsters strike against a dairy cooperative in the Pacific northwest a few years back....a cooperative composed of family dairy farms. During that strike, I read remark by remark by Teamster after Teamster that, if they didn't get what they wanted, they were going to "shut down" the cooperative owners and deprive them of their farms. And, in truth, several DID go bankrupt. Give me time, I think I could point out industry after industry where the same pattern has been followed.

(5) As for your question of....

"Would you like one of those plants in your neighborhood? Or would you want the govt to clean them up so your children would grow up in a safe area?"

....I think it goes without saying that, if there's no plant in the first place there [or it's equivalent] for "my children" to work in when they grow up, talk about uncertain "safety" considerations is rather a moot plant. Yep, no doubt the SAFEST type of facility is one that doesn't exist. Unfortunately, such a facility offers NO JOBS as well. Got to be a middle ground there. But when unions drive those facilities overseas - as has happened time and time again - you've gone well beyond any "middle ground"; you've destroyed peoples means of making a living.

(6) As for Argentina, "yep", it *IS* the "union's fault". Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but there's been a union movement there over the last few years in which they've expropriated private property and "operated" it for the union's benefit. Of course, even with property they've stolen, the unions have had absolutely no capability in running a profitable operation. Meanwhile, those that DO have such a capability aren't about to invest in a situation where these bozos can steal their investment in a heartbeat. Result? No capital. Yes, high inflation....so the unions enact legislation saying that prices for food are too high, and that farmer are now not allowed to export what they produce, but rather "sell" it locally at far below market prices. What happens then? Why, of course the farmers revolt, and now you've got them standing at the crossroads, guns in hand, fighting off industrial unionists who are trying to steal directly what they produce. Meanwhile, capital has fled the country, as is going to take a LOT of sweet-talking before it's coaxed back. Great situation. And "yes", it *IS* the unions fault.

No, it's not a new mantra. And "no", it's not "all the union's fault". But a damned large part of it is....and I haven't seen a hard-core unionist yet accept ANY responsibility for it.

Have you? *IS* there such a thing as a "responsible unionist" today? My contention is that, until there are, (a) assuming they aren't dealt with more directly, this country is in deep doo-doo, and (b) the so-called "labor movement" will move constantly closer to complete disintergartion.

Essay over!
 

bluehdmc

Well-Known Member
Pobre Carlos,
Is the essay truly over, or are you going to write another 5000 worda, about how maybe not everything is the unions fault. Only 98%. It's funny how this thread started off with someone who couldn't get undocumented workers to work for $12 an hour and an observation that UPS starts out at $8.50. Gee and people complain they can't get good help. I guess that's "market forces". Good help wants to get paid more than $8.50, so instead you get people who are unreliable, (attendance). Uncaring, (they throw boxes, etc.) and turnover is astronomical. Meanwhile you have people who practically whip them to get them to "produce". And it's all the unions fault!!!!!
Someone a while back says you were a troll on a Teamsters website, and it seems you've just admitted it. So you go on and rant and rave and come up with all kinds of "evidence" to support your views.
Your like a religous fanatic, picking and choosing "facts" to support your viewpoint.
You just keep ranting and raving, you'll eventually solve all the worlds problems, which according to you are 98% the fault of the unions.
It's the unions fault!
It's the unions fault!
It's the unions fault!
It's the unions fault!
Gee I feel much better now!
 

govols019

You smell that?
You really want to get him started? Ask him how he feels about deregulation. That's good for another never ending 1000 word essay fight.
 

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
I *DO* consider it the case that the UAW virtually "twisted" the automakers arms to produce "gas guzzlers". Nor am I alone in that consideration. The fact is, the companies were essentially forced to by an inefficient, cost-ineffective, inflexible union work force to manufacture the most costly type of car in order to simply break even. There wasn't money left over for essential design programs. Nor was there enough efficiency in the work force to make the production of more gas-stingy cars profitable. In essence, the company was left no choice.

There is some truth to your supposition. I have stated, on these forums, that we (UPSERS) may be pricing ourselves out of the marketplace. And I used as an example the auto industry. But it is a leap of faith to then believe this is entirely the unions fault. A leap that I do not feel is warranted by the evidence you present.

If we are pricing ourselves out, we are doing it with the approval of management and their supporters in government. For reasons I have hit on in previous posts.
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
bluehdmc;

In reference to this last post of yours, let me toss a couple of your previous comments regarding *my* posts back at you. Why don't I start with your....

"Gee, I wasn't aware the ENTIRE economic meltdown was caused by the UAW striking American Axle"

...to which, I [correctly] responded that I didn't recall ever specifying "ENTIRE".

....the there's your....

"Someone a while back says you were a troll on a Teamsters website, and it seems you've just admitted it. So you go on and rant and rave and come up with all kinds of "evidence" to support your views."

...to which I might respond with the question as to just WHEN did I "seem to admit" that I was such a "troll"????

....which brings us to your....

"Is the essay truly over, or are you going to write another 5000 worda [sp?], about how maybe not everything is the unions fault"

...to which I have to respond back that, apparently, you WANTED such an essay, or else why would you have asked......

"Tell me more? Enquiring minds want to know"

...then there's your....

"You just keep ranting and raving, you'll eventually solve all the worlds problems, which according to you are 98% the fault of the unions."

...funny, but in all of my "ranting and raving", I don't recall specifying any percentage ("98") that are "the fault of the unions". Do you? If so, show me where. I mean, after all, YOU wouldn't "rant" - or even LIE - about such a thing, would you?

...then, lastly, there's your....

"Your [sic] like a religous fanatic, picking and choosing 'facts' to support your viewpoint."

To which I guess I would respond that I least I CAN marshal some "facts" to "pick and choose" in support of my position, instead of speaking dishonestly about the position taken by others. Jealous?

In conclusion, "bluehdmc", is it dawning on you yet that perhaps you just demonstrated WHY unions - and their members - get blamed as often as they do for the problems of the world?; i.e. - that with their dishonesty, making of wild assumptions, and obstinate refusal to deal with reality, there's simply no way they won't be targeted? Far too often, integrity is something that - as you've demonstrated in your recent posts - seems to come up lacking amongst those who perceive themselves to be "union" supporters...particularly Teamsters.

In that vein, I suggest you might want to review your previous comments and see just how much "integrity" is demonstrated in them. THEN perhaps you might want to do a little thinking before, in the future, again trying to engage with bullsh_t a commentator discussing the problems that "organized" labor might have.

Sound like a plan?
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
JimJimmyJames;

I actually see that issue being a big part of the problem of getting FedEx organized as well. By that I mean that, even with UPS's labor price obligations, it's been relatively successful in competing with FedEx so far....successful enough that those hourly who work for FedEx might wonder just what type of future they might have with that company if the playing field was leveled and FedEx, too, was Teamster.

It's easy to point out to them how better wages, benefits, etc. might follow being organized....but I'd bet more than a few of them are wondering just how long their jobs would be maintained under the pressure of competing with UPS with a similar labor cost structure. To them, a job - any job, even one that offers less in pay and benefits than those offered by UPS - might be better than "no job at all". And, considering the relative efficiencies of the two companies, I have to assume that there might be massive job losses amongst FedEx personnel if the Teamsters organized them. And, given the Teamsters history of jobs losses, it could be difficult to convince them otherwise. The Teamster might volley-back by saying that the total number of jobs will be maintained (possible, I guess)...but that, again, does not protect THEIR jobs, which is what they're primarily interested in.

All speculation, of course...but one does hear FedEx'ers voicing such speculations, and probably with good reason.
 

JonFrum

Member
PobreCarlos said:
Close to home, who do you think caused the SIX BILLION dollar financial fiasco that was the Teamsters shake-down of UPS in terms of the CSPF withdrawal. "Yes", there was a "liability" there...but who CAUSED that liability?
The IBT has no control over the Central States Pension Fund. The Fund is a seperate legal entity controlled by a Board of Trustees composed of equal numbers of Union and Employer representatives as required by ERISA Law. The actual investment decisions are made by two Wall Street investment firms (currently Goldman Sachs Assets Management and Northern Trust Global Advisors) acting as Named Trustees under the Court Consent Decree. All this under the watchful eye of Judge James B. Moran.

There was no Teamster shakedown Of UPS . If anything, the opposite!!! UPS sought to leave the fund and offered to pay only about $4 billion to cover their Withdrawal Liability. The Trustees informed UPS that they, in fact, legally owed $6.1 billion as calculated by the required formula in ERISA. Hoffa and Teamster contract negotiators arranged to cancel the last seven months of the Collective Bargaining Agreement with UPS, and move negotiations and ratification of the new agreement up, so UPS could withdraw quickly from the Fund and make the $6.1 billion payment on Dec. 26, 2007. That allowed UPS to exit the Fund before the turn of the year when the Withdrawal Liability amount would have been much higher.

Withdrawal Liability is money the withdrawing company legally owes to the pension fund under ERISA. It's like when someone sells a house they own and moves away. They must pay off the remaining mortgage. They can't just walk away and leave the debt for someone else shoulder.

By the way, the $6.1 billion UPS paid was not paid in the names of its employees, as normal monthly negotiated contributions were. It was paid to the Trust, as such, without gaining any additional pension credit for the Central States employees. The money was an outstanding debt UPS owed directly to the Fund.

In closing, I would like to incorporate the complete text of the Encyclopedia Britianica by reference into this post, just as if I typed it out word, after word, after word, after word, after . . .
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
Jon;

Saying that "The IBT has no control over the Central States Pension Fund" in terms of the pension liability it created for the participants is similar to saying an arsonist had no control over the fire he started. The fact is, the IBT had ULTIMATE control. It's the entity that CAUSED THE PROBLEM.

The reason the Central States Pension Fund slid into the financial position it's in was NOT primarily because of the trustees, or even the actions of the investment managers...but rather because the IBT couldn't maintain the membership - or, to be more accurate - the membership employers to sustain the plan.

Again, I point to the notorious "Lynch Testimony" https://web.archive.org/web/2009110....house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=2864 Read it. Learn from it.

As for there not being a "shakedown", if you recall, in '97 that pension liability was only a HALF billion or so...and UPS offered a FULL billion to withdraw. When the union wouldn't accept withdrawal even at that level, it went on strike...only to "blink" - UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE CSPF a few weeks later (again, I cite "Sprague v. CSPF" at "http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm"; read that and learn it as well!), with the presentation of a hundred million rebate FROM the CSPF. As for the full FINAL withdrawal liability, if you recall, the CSPF originally quoted that at 4 (FOUR) billion dollars, and UPS ultimately paid more than 6 (SIX) billion.

Now, maybe you don't call an extra 5.5 BILLION dollars - and a MASSIVE cost to UPS Teamsters retirement benefits - a "shakedown", but I do. And I'll stick with that appellation, thank you! If anything pointed to the moral bankruptcy of the Teamsters union, that whole adventure did...starting with being dishonest with the membership prior to the '97 strike, down to the end, when the union proved that concern for the actual pensions of the members it was supposed to represent came way down on the list.

The withdrawal liability is nothing LIKE a mortgage when someone "sells a house and moves away". What it *IS* "like" is the forcing of one innocent homeowner to pay-off the mortgage of third-party deadbeat...or, more accurately, like the Teamsters putting employer after employer (read "contributor after contributor") out of business, and then demanding that the remaining employers take up the slack. And that attitude of the Teamsters is costing it additional employment today. Take a look at the problems YRCW is currently experiencing, for example. Or the ongoing newspaper problem up in the Twin Cities Tribune bankruptcy negotiations with the Teamsters.

The fact is, time after time, the union showed that one CAN "...just walk away and leave the debt for someone else shoulder"....IF you're put out of business by the union! (in that vein, do you remember the statements put out by CSPF itself following the bankruptcy of CFWY?) And I don't recall ERISA mandating that a union put the bulk of its contributors out of business so the remaining few can be stuck with the bill....do you?

Again, DO THE READING....then you come back and tell me that "The IBT has no control over the Central States Pension Fund". If you can do so with a straight face, then I suggest a bright future for you writing blurbs on either the TDU's or the IBT's web pages and/or print publications.

Lastly, you don't have to incorporate the entire "Encyclopedia Britianica" in your posts..but it WOULD be nice if, in your presentation, you could at least incorporate a COUPLE of actual facts with references in support of your position....and not blindly spew-forth the same tired crappola that Teamster apologists have been feeding their [declining] membership for lo these many years now.

P.S. - Lest we forget, perhaps it should be noted that, of the full body of trustees, "yes" only half are from the union, and half from the employers...ALL the employers. As competitors, they don't (and could not) function as a unit. The Teamsters could and did. It might also be worth noting that, at no time, did UPS ever have more than 1 (ONE) trustee on the board, even though it made contributions at levels many times higher than the next largest contributing employer. One also can't help but recall that it was only in the final years of UPS's participation in CS that it had even that 1 (ONE) trustee on the board; prior to that, it had NONE AT ALL! Yep, that's "separate" alright! [grin!]
 
Last edited:

bluehdmc

Well-Known Member
Pobre Carlos,
Yes you did not say 98% of all the worlds ills are caused by the unions. You do seem to have "facts" to back up all sorts of problems that are the "fault of the unions".
The mortgage crunch was "from unions pressuring lenders to lend in 'redlined' area".

As I brought up in another post, do you think that the bundling and derivatives and such were created by PRIVATE interests? Do you think that Freddie Mac, Gennie Mae, and Gennie Mac were initially PRIVATE propositions? Nope...they were creations of a liberal government in response, in large part, to union pressure, designed to force the dissemination of loans by financial institutions who would NOT normally make them to individuals who would NOT normally receive them.[unqote]

Gee now we can blame the unions and "liberal government". Although for the 8 yrs prior to the "financial meltdown" didn't we have a Republican (conservative) administration?
Funny, Time magazine did an article on the 25 people to blame for the Financial Crisis They never mentioned Unions. The do mentions politicians, Bill Clinton, (a liberal), George Bush, (a conservative), Phil Gramm, (a conservative). The amercan consumer, home builders, and a whole bunch of Wall St types.
They must be wrong, because according to you, it's the unions fault!

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html

Let me guess, now your gonna say Time magazine is "liberal press".

The unions "forced automakers to make gas guzzlers", German automakers, Japanese automakers, and Korean automakers, are all unionized in their home countries. Somehow they've managed to successfully develop and build fuel efficient cars in their unionized home countries to the point they've been able to build plants here in the US. Maybe efficient management had something to do with that? But according to you the US automakers ills are caused by unions.

You seem to have a rebuttal to most of my points, but you seem to have NO rebuttal to the OP original post, and my comments about "market forces" wages paid by UPS and undocumented aliens.

Then you go on to attack my integrity.

You seem to be the one who has turned this entire post into an attack on unions.

As far as bull***** you seem to be the expert!!!!!!!!!!
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
bluehdmc;

Re: your admission of....

"Yes you did not say 98% of all the worlds ills are caused by the unions."

...why speak so obtusely? Why not just say "I LIED". Wouldn't that be a lot clearer...and a whole lot more accurate?

As for your comment of...

"You seem to have a rebuttal to most of my points, but you seem to have NO rebuttal to the OP original post, and my comments about "market forces" wages paid by UPS and undocumented aliens."

...I suggest you read my responses again. Damn right I have a "rebuttal to most of [your] points"...including this one. As for foreign enterprises unions, I *AGAIN* suggest you read my posts, in which I *SPECIFICALLY* noted that unions in other countries (while also noting that I have had some direct experience with them) are much more collegial and less adversarial than their U.S. counterparts. 'Course, your "integrity" wouldn't let you admit that you ever had the opportunity to read those comments, wouldn't it?

As for "attacking your integrity", I think your own words (got that? Your OWN words!) pretty much demonstrated that you HAVE NO "integrity".

Clear enough? Or are we going to have to read more wishy-washy statements in reference to your "integrity" like "Yes you did not say 98% of all the worlds ills are caused by the unions" or some-such?

Lastly, in reference to YOUR post, specifically to YOUR "you "turned this entire post (which, again, was in *YOUR* post!!!!) into an attack on unions".....pray tell, just how did I force *YOU* to "attack unions"???? Seems to me that YOUR posts are YOUR responsibility; not mine.

Sorry if I'm not all that patient with dishonest clowns. If you don't care to read my responses, then don't; no problem. But if you're going to lie about them, them I'm gonna' crack the whip on your vaunted "integrity" each and every time.
 

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
...FedEx might wonder just what type of future they might have with that company if the playing field was leveled and FedEx, too, was Teamster.

Interesting how you are sentimental about FedEx worker's job, but not of their union competitors. If the sole reason FedEx is able to compete with UPS is because of their cheaper labor costs, am I supposed to feel pity for their inefficient and poorly constructed organization?

This is one of my beefs regarding current U.S. trade laws. It is not fair to domestic industry when a product can be sold here, produced in a foreign factory not subjected to the same safety, environmental, and labor laws as our employers are. Am I advocating we toss our laws? No! Would you want to turn the clock back to the unsafe, polluting, robber baron days of yesteryear? Well, maybe you would but I certainly think most Americans would not. Since we cannot force foreign producers to meet our standards, we can use the power of the tariff to level the playing ground financially.

When it comes to FedEx, we simply want to level the playing field by insisting that the laws of the land are applied fairly to all. FedEx has been manipulating the government for years to allow FedEx to operate outside of the laws that apply to UPS. They have also manipulated the concept of the independent contractor to do the same.

I contend that a company, all things being equal, should compete based on quality of the service provided. Of course they should compete on costs also, but the cost advantage should be derived form the efficiencies of the company, not an end-around domestic safety, environmental, and labor laws.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
If the sole reason FedEx is able to compete with UPS is because of their cheaper labor costs, am I supposed to feel pity for their inefficient and poorly constructed organization?

More of the fact that UPS has more "Stop Density".
The USPS has even more stop density than UPS and that is why we created the Basic service and why UPS has lobbied for years to ensure that the the post office does not "lump" their small packages in with the mail delivery. They are suppose to charge for their small packages as if the letter delivery system was not in place.
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
Jimmy;

Not all that "sentimental" about FDX workers jobs at all; simply stating the reasons they may think as they do. In that sense, it's worth recalling that, for a long measure of time, not all that long ago, FDX Express was NOT under the auspices of the Railway, but under the NLRB...until Fred was able to get Congress to provide him "cover" again. Even that was quite a few years after the Teamsters should have made a concerted effort to organize his company...something which they didn't do, and haven't done, up until this day.

I sort of sympathize where you're coming from in terms of the trade issue...but then I'm reminded of what protectionism brought about in the late 20's and early 30's. As for demanding protectionism, have you forgotten what brought the foreign auto manufacturers to our shores? When I was a young adult, there really wasn't such a thing as a foreign-owned domestic auto factory....until Congress imposed import restrictions/tariffs based on domestically-produced content. Then, all of a sudden, Toyota, VW, Nissan, Kia, Benz - you name it - had simply moved production OVER HERE. That production was - notably NON-union, except for the co-owned plant in Fremont (?) California. They functioned under the same labor and safe regulations, etc....yet they STILL came out on top. Meanwhile, the protectionism that brought them here backfired in the sense that it limited OUR ability to export to the nations we set up barriers against. So what do "we" (i.e. - American capitalists) do? Move production overseas to capture some of their markets...but leaving the jobs behind. I maintain that protectionism like that is a vicious circle, in which essentially nobody wins...although the most competitive - over the long run - will almost invariably PREVAIL (if not actually "win" something).

Finally, I guess my [unspoken] point regarding the law and FDX is that, at this point in time, I suspect there's a large body of FDX hourlies who realize that, regardless of the law, if it will mean jobs losses (and I believe most people realize that it would), it's not worth it for them to be "organized". And when companies see the burden imposed by the Teamster pension funds, I'm not too sure that firms even the size of FDX wouldn't fight to the bitter end (meaning perhaps even dissolution) in order to avoid being "organized".

There's a nice little article hinting at this ("http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/03/02/focus10.html") that I found. Take a look about half-way down, when it talks about the lumber company deciding to go out of business, even though it was still relatively a "going concern", because of the Teamster pension liability it saw going forward. And, again, I'd like you to remember that capital, much like water, seeks its own level, and follows the path of least resistance. And, like it or not, "capital" is what provides the jobs.
 

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
More of the fact that UPS has more "Stop Density".
The USPS has even more stop density than UPS and that is why we created the Basic service and why UPS has lobbied for years to ensure that the the post office does not "lump" their small packages in with the mail delivery. They are suppose to charge for their small packages as if the letter delivery system was not in place.

Right, and FedEx does not approach our level of stop density because they feel it is necessary (probabaly just to escape the threat of unionization) to have scaty-eight divisions delivering what we primarily deliver out of one big brown truck! An inefficienct and poorly constructed company in order to keep labor costs down. Unbelievable.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
Right, and FedEx does not approach our level of stop density because they feel it is necessary (probabaly just to escape the threat of unionization) to have scaty-eight divisions delivering what we primarily deliver out of one big brown truck! An inefficienct and poorly constructed company in order to keep labor costs down. Unbelievable.
But they're an Airline!

Good follow-up!
 

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
Thanks :happy2:.

I gots to go for now (work), but I think it might be fun to try to tackle Pobre Carlos's contention that the trade polices of the 20's and 30's created the Great Depression. That is a myth that has been floated around forever, but like I said I have to go.

Cya.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
Right, and FedEx does not approach our level of stop density because they feel it is necessary (probabaly just to escape the threat of unionization) to have scaty-eight divisions delivering what we primarily deliver out of one big brown truck! An inefficienct and poorly constructed company in order to keep labor costs down. Unbelievable.

Just think how much more competitive they could be if they more closely followed our business model yet kept their labor costs at a more manageable level?

Dannyboy mentioned in another thread that, with the advent of PAS/EDD, he predicts a top rate for UPS drivers of approx. $13.50/hr by the year 2020. I will be retired (hopefully) by that time but his prediction may not be as far-fetched as some may think. We all know that with PAS/EDD UPS can hire someone off the street and with minimal training that person would be able to do the job by simply following EDD. I am not saying that this person would provide the same level of service or be nearly as efficient as a seasoned driver but this was part of the thought process in implementing PAS/EDD.
 
Top