Look up Sun-Tsu and his principles of winning a war (same for Clausewitz).
The US of A was borne out of the principle of "No taxation without representation"
In UPS, we may have to adjust this sentence to "No change of standards without representation by frontline personnel", as standards apparently have been raised to a level, where PTS and FTS are not designed to win the war of numbers together with the other side of the table.
The amount of FTS/PTS work is increasing (as a consequence of standards set by personnel who have never seen loading a UOW, this is my assumption). So, is the amount of grievances just a cost of doing business? How ethical is this?
And then, PTS have to submit more and more paperwork, which in no way support any kind of improvement of working condition and making work smarter and more efficient. On the contrary.
Let me put it this way. More "administrative" work is piled on to the PTS/FTS, less resources (labor) is planned (as per standards), more late UOW is arriving after the sort has ended, going into a period, where drivers have already letf (resulting in LIB's), thus driving down achievement.
Is this the way to win an economic battle and war?
When I see new candidates on their initial tour, getting accepted, being exposed to harsh realities, I definitely do not see ANY change whatsoever between the time when I was hired and today.
It reminds me of something else. Aviation and maintenance. Pre-war, the level of technology required a certain number of mechanics, looking after engines and aircrafts, all at a certain cost level. Today, requirements have changed drastically, cost levels have changed, and who is going to perform maintenance as it is required by FAA/DOT standards? At what cost?
Another allegory. Maybe you know about the legendary reliability of the old Volkswagen Beetle boxer engine. I do not see this reliability any more, but what I see is the perception of "must have a high-powered car with an acceleration 0-60 below 10 seconds, a gas mileage North of 40 mpg, comfort, button-availability for every "comfort" requirement? At what price?
Yes, UPS is profitable (undeniably), but who contributes to the profit making? Is it Operations (domestic/international), is it Finance (they even made a profit out of the TNT exercise by - if I read it correctly budgeting USD 210 M and spending only USD 170 M), despite all the "little" detractions such as a USD 40 M settlement with DOJ and and a proposed fine of "peanuts" USD 4M for operating non-airworthy aircraft (this claim is definitely opposed by UPS), but in the end it comes down to Joe/Jane loader/unloader/whatever to get the boxes out to the customer in a manner, so that the customer can receive it and without any damages or claims.
My view is very limited (small center somewhere South of the Mason-Dixie line), but I have worked elsewhere and know how to connect the points. We do have the means, but we are squandering them from a resource point of view due to standards having been set by personnel (bean counters?), whose sole purpose is to show a profit on a spreadsheet without shedding one drop of sweat (they are all in air-conditioned accommodations, whereas the frontline is down in the trenches; and believe me, I have seen the trenches in North-Western Europe, a terrible sight when you have only the smallest inkling of history).
We have qualities and can fight the competitors, but we should be very careful in husbanding these resources.
I am linked to two FTS (he/she/it). One is not very far away from Sergeant Major Williams in the old British sitcom "It ain,t hot mom" with his "SHUT-UP" attitude and apparent projection of influence (at the end of WW2, he has nothing left to go to), the other one on the surface appears more understanding, but has resigned to an internal emigration, considering all the signals given to me. Both of them have no more choices. They have sold their future to the company. They will do whatever comes until they are broken or promoted. But the resources available to them get more and more limited and restrictive
