You have got to be kidding. From the article: "Developed by organizational psychiatrist David Cooperrider, a professor at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland."
Isn't that the sister school of the South Western Holy College of Wisconson at Imigren for the Three Mile Radius Celebrating the Saint Helen?
As for the topic, I think there is a different culture at UPS than other companies. There are many Teamsters that I work with that are embarassed by and make fun of brothers who are eXtremely mule-like. I can only think of one that holds out on his muleness.
I think corp. office ought to let IE look at it and figure out how it ought to be done. Ask the people that actually DO the job.......Nah it wont work
When they relooped the center, one of the main ideas the brainchildren had was to make center st( actually what it is) the base line for adding and cutting runs. Sounds good, looked good on paper. But Center st is mostly business. Now how happy are business customers when you go screwing with their delivery times. And when the pickup driver gets there before the delivery driver. And every thing for blocks around is business. So at least 25% of all the business stops in town are affected by this brilliant stroke of the pen. Did they ask the drivers for input? NO If they had, would they have done it any way? Probably. And now with FDX ground and others knocking at their door promising to make deliveries before 2 and pickups after 3, is it any wonder that we are loosing business?
Here FDX ground went from a small 6 truck center to a 23 truck center. Guess who gave them the growth oppertunity?
Hopefully, this trend will continue, although it is nothing new. In the past, I believe this was referred to as "Boulwarism". Contract negotiations and employee relations should improve for the better when the principles of the free market are adhered to and understood.
The problem with Boulwarism is that UPS tried to accomplish that with the Challenges meetings in the 80's and 90's. Personally I beleive that those programs were responsible for the great growthdurring that time. Workers are never more motivated that when they feel they can make a difference and can benifit from the expansion of the company. It is a Damn shame that the Teamsters felt threatened by this, more jobs mean more people hired= more teamsters.
But they still cling to the outdated thought of "you would be nothing without us" mentality. Shame!
Ports Have to Go With the Flow Los Angeles Times
Thursday, October 10, 2002 By ADAM THIERER
The ghost of Ned Ludd haunts West Coast ports in a labor dispute that shut down the American shipping industry until a federal court intervened at the request of President Bush.
Whether Ludd was a real person or a mythical figure made up to stir the passions of the masses is a subject of debate. What is certain, however, is that a band of machine-hating textile workers calling themselves Luddites rose up in England in 1811 and began destroying the textile frames that they feared would render their jobs unnecessary. As futurist Alvin Toffler points out in the Third Wave, the Luddites weren't the first organized labor movement to employ such tactics.
Workers in England had razed sawmills in 1663, smashed ribbon-making machines in 1676 and destroyed stocking frames in 1710. John Kay, inventor of the flying textile shuttle, fled England after mobs destroyed his home. History is full of examples of workers revolting when they feared that machines would replace them.
At the heart of the West Coast labor dispute too is a fear that automation and technological progress are bad for workers. While dockworkers have yet to take up arms against port machinery, central to their demands is a stipulation that their current jobs, which pay from $80,000 to more than $100,000 a year, will not be replaced by new systems or technologies. As the Washington Post noted, the lockout was less about money than ... about control of new technology that will determine efficiency of the ports.
Our docks need new technology, not Luddites.
Specifically, workers are fighting the use of bar-code readers, hand-held computers and the Internet. Technologies that made it into your local grocery store years ago still haven't found their way to U.S. ports, largely because of union resistance. Shippers must allow workers to do business the old-fashioned way: carry paper forms on clipboards from container to container as they are unloaded from ships.
Meanwhile, port operators around the globe adopted automated systems and electronic verification and tracking techniques years ago, leaving United States in the shipping Stone Age.
So how long can American dockworkers resist such changes? If we're still living in the pencil-and-clipboard era 10 years from now, what will it mean for the efficiency and competitiveness of U.S. shipping?
Some dockworkers might not care to ponder this question, but they should. Basic economics tells us that firms or industries that are unable or unwilling to adapt to technological change ultimately give way to those that can and do.
Of course, the longshore Luddites do have one thing working in their favor as they attempt to freeze technological progress: A port can't be easily moved or replaced. If workers made such anti-automation demands in another sector, companies could move to a more hospitable locale and hire workers willing to acclimate themselves to new systems and technologies. But voting with your feet is not an option with shippers. There is airborne shipping of course, but that would not be efficient for getting fleets of new cars or giant slabs of steel overseas.
Improvements in technological productivity are the key to long-run growth and prosperity, both for the broader economy and individual industries. Some jobs may be displaced by technology, but it can also create new industries and job opportunities.
Some Luddites apparently continue to believe the economic fallacy that every technological advance will forever displace jobs held by humans. If there were any truth to this zero-sum philosophy, it would mean almost no one on Earth would have a job today. Doesn't that prove Ludd and the unions wrong?
Adam Thierer is director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, www.cato.org, and editor of the book Copy Fights: The Future of Intellectual Property in the Information Age (Cato Institute, 2002).
Some extra food for thought from an Op-Ed piece from a few months back. I wonder if the unions involved with the freight negotiations, learned they have to do a better job of adapting to the business from the West Coast port lockout. The alternative is being left in the dust.
Interesting wording for someone dancing around responsibility. You called me a liar, I don't recall any fancy moon walk wording thrown into that it was pretty direct. Too bad your apology is not quite so direct. A weak effort at best. I guess you did the same dance from responsibility when Avon stopped shipping to your town because you were destroying or losing too many packages.
Tie guy, show some respect for the other posters that are trying to keep things focused on the post heading. Your constant bickering is an insult to the poster.
As for apologies not being so direct, how is this. YOU sir are a liar or very sick. ANd without knowing more about you I am not in a position to make the final decision. And that sir is as close to an apology as you will get.
Any other attemps to derail posts like this will be ignored. Take your poison to the derailed post.
"As for apologies not being so direct, how is this. YOU sir are a liar or very sick. ANd without knowing more about you I am not in a position to make the final decision. And that sir is as close to an apology as you will get. "
How sad to see you again except no responsibility for you actions. You were proven wrong and yet you continue to use terms like liar. I had thought you might have some character and address your wrongs but I see that was my mistake. No wonder Avon no longer ships to your route.