Non-union employee benefits

pretzel_man

Well-Known Member
You got to be kidding me if you think management should just be happy that they did not take a pay cut. There is more to it than what happened in 2009. Management has been seeing a steady decrease in their total compensation for the past five years. Changes to MIP, Decreases in benefit coverage and smaller raises. There are several problems here. One the company no longer cares about its management people and two they are falling in to the same rut that most union companies fall into. The company is in trouble. It is nothing new, actually it is just the same old story with every Union company. The company trying to stay in business gives into one crippling demand after another, until they are nothing but a shell of what they started out to be. The only thing we got going for us is that most of our jobs can’t be shipped overseas. FedEx will be bigger than us within the next five years. With our increased costs more companies will find alternatives, whether is it using a competitor or starting their own delivery fleet. The CEO and the Union President will be the only ones guaranteed to keep making more money. Argue if you want the cuts in management’s numbers and pay are just the start. There are less service providers on the road today and there will be even less next year. Take a look at any other union company that paid the ridiculous wages that we pay and then tell me why I am wrong.

So, if management should get more, who pays that bill? That money comes from somewhere.

P-Man
 

Hawaii50

Well-Known Member
>>Tell me again how much money UPS made last year. I am sorry, but saying a company that made over 3 BILLION dollars last year is in trouble is idiocy at its best!!
FedEx currently has a slew of legal problems in the pipeline and if you don't think those will level the playing field you need a wakeup call. Companies will find alternatives? Lemme guess.....DHL? The game is UPS, FedEx and USPS....these are THE ONLY GAMES IN TOWN!!! Companies won't start their own their own delivery fleets...1/2 those I know of who currently have their own fleets have alread,y or are currently shutting them down! 1 accident and they have lost 3x's the money they saved and thats before you factor in the costs of starting the fleet up in the first place!
I know several business are using their internal drivers to deliver, it's cheaper for business to use internal guys. UPS is just too expensive to deliver the bulk of their shipment.
In this state Courier corporation is starting to expand and there undercutting everyone expect USPS. They specialize in same city/state delivery, point A to B at a very cheap price. Business are using them to move documents instead of UPS.

UPS, FEDEX, USPS are the major players. UPS is the most expenisive player. Companies are using all three for what every service level they need.
 

randomUPSISer

Well-Known Member
Least you have job...Theres plent of people whod love to have any type of job right now


Keep thinking that along with all the other arrogant UPS managers up high. In the meantime the talented individuals will continue leaving the company in droves. Perhaps myself included. (Last several years my "merit raises" have been almost as much as other promotions)


Examine two separate facts;
First, you have a job during the largest worldwide downturn since 1933.
Secondly, what are you able to contribute, to justify keeping your present wage and benefits?
Math is a simple, exact science and present UPS strategy is applying it in a perverse manner.
As a driver, I will be painting with a broad brush in my observations.
Cost cutting in lower level management is a quick fix, to save cost.
Realigning districts will lower cost, and ultimately increase micro-management.
Micro-management has increased my work load-(and OT)- 15% in the last 3 yrs.
It boogles my mind that I was paid over $20.000.00 in O.T. last year, to save our company money.
Sorry for the rant, random.
In reality, I wish you had that extra 15% and I had that time to spend at home.

The math works out for me, and my job. It actually works out for alot of UPS specialist, and IT... its the reason we were hired in the first place. Where most of the math doesnt work out is in actual management. I dont think anyone in the company will disagree that there are too many managers and too many levels. As for being lucky, you might want to check the "least affected job markets". Healthcare, and IT are the number 1 and 2 respectively.

As I recall, the 401K match (3.5%) was something added. For my first 25 or so years, it didn't exist.

UPS didn't reduce the amount the company pays for our healthcare. The healthcare costs increased, and UPS did not cover the increase.

As far as no raise, from my perspective, we are lucky that there was no cut.

Tell my why you think the shareowners should pay the extra instead of management. I guess the best choice would have been force reductions last year. There would be less complaining.

The extra money will come from someone.

Do we make customers pay more? That would drive them to our competitors (who by the way made deeper cuts than us).

P-Man

Yes I do believe the shareholders should eat the cost of raises. Why? Because without those raises we are seeing the "best and the brightest" leave the company. I know arrogant UPS upper management seem to think that all you need are geniuses in the level 20 and up and all of us are only to follow their orders, but successful companies simply dont work that way. UPS's "Human capital" is leaving in droves. Our balanced scorecard is a laughable manipulation of it (look at the people element and tell me if its "balanced" or not in relation to financial?) When the recession is over, UPS will NOT be poised to take advantage of the new climate because all the good worker bee's will have left the company. However, we will look good in the short term since we are sacrificing people for better financial performance. (Disagree? Go do some reading on what a balanced score card is supposed to be)

You got to be kidding me if you think management should just be happy that they did not take a pay cut. There is more to it than what happened in 2009. Management has been seeing a steady decrease in their total compensation for the past five years. Changes to MIP, Decreases in benefit coverage and smaller raises. There are several problems here. One the company no longer cares about its management people and two they are falling in to the same rut that most union companies fall into. The company is in trouble. It is nothing new, actually it is just the same old story with every Union company. The company trying to stay in business gives into one crippling demand after another, until they are nothing but a shell of what they started out to be. The only thing we got going for us is that most of our jobs can’t be shipped overseas. FedEx will be bigger than us within the next five years. With our increased costs more companies will find alternatives, whether is it using a competitor or starting their own delivery fleet. The CEO and the Union President will be the only ones guaranteed to keep making more money. Argue if you want the cuts in management’s numbers and pay are just the start. There are less service providers on the road today and there will be even less next year. Take a look at any other union company that paid the ridiculous wages that we pay and then tell me why I am wrong.

Mostly agree.

Simply put, LAYOFFS are the better way to go than punishing everyone. Punishing us all simply drags down those who remain, and drives out those who know they can get more elsewhere. A company is nothing but the combination of the intelligence and abilities of its people. UPS's hubs wont run without the labor guys, our planes wont fly without pilots, our planes wont get fixed without mechanics. Similiarly, our IT systems wont get cost savings changes to them without bright IT guys, without engineers new processes wont happen, etc etc. In knowledge based jobs, you absolutely HAVE to keep the best and the brightest around. They carry the other 80% of their work groups

UPS can go against that if they want, but it would be going against nearly everything taught in business schools, and against every case study of a wildly successful company in modern times.
 

Brown287

Im not the Mail Man!
Well us dumb truck drivers have seen the writing on the walls for years. IT=Information Technology. Well heres some information, technology improves on a daily basis for the better of all. Each employee at UPS is asked to do more and more not because UPS is evil, but due to our technology we are able. Drivers deliver more then ever, loaders load more then ever, we can have less mechanics for our fleet, and yes I'm sorry to say we can have less IT employees doing more. You guys have no one to thank but yourselves.
 

randomUPSISer

Well-Known Member
Well us dumb truck drivers have seen the writing on the walls for years. IT=Information Technology. Well heres some information, technology improves on a daily basis for the better of all. Each employee at UPS is asked to do more and more not because UPS is evil, but due to our technology we are able. Drivers deliver more then ever, loaders load more then ever, we can have less mechanics for our fleet, and yes I'm sorry to say we can have less IT employees doing more. You guys have no one to thank but yourselves.

Less automation people automating things? I agree less region IT guys supporting stuff thats supportable from far away. However, all of these cost savings and productivity items you mention are, as you said, due to IT guys enabling them. Why would you get rid of people that make everyone else more productive? That defies logic? Especially when multiple times a year IT tells the business "we dont have enough resources for XYZ you want, you'll have to scale that back". Sure, they could outsource it to India or whatever, but that's not happening nearly as fast as people are leaving. That being said, I didnt want to turn this into an IT debate.

My real concern / complaint is that we are driving away all of the best of the UPS knowledge workers. That doesn't bode well for us long term unless we intend to hire them all back at higher salaries? Within my work group there are several people who are known paper weights to everyone, including management. Within other work groups Ive been in, there are known paper weights. Management isnt stupid, they know who are worthless knowledge workers and who are good. Wouldnt it have made alot more sense to layoff the deadwood and not drive away the good? Since you are a driver, if you were a manager and didnt have to work around seniority issues, would it make more sense to keep your best drivers and lay off the guys that werent pulling their weight, or just keep everyone, and convince your good drivers to leave? (Resulting in you keeping the bad drivers)
 

Brown287

Im not the Mail Man!
I agree with your argument in regards to driving away the good employees. However from what Ive seen technology now allows you guys to do more and more through programs enabling you to trouble shoot computers from a far. I agree this argument is not reserved for IT employees but just look around and you will see that at this point all UPSers are doing more than ever. Besides I would also like to point out that UPS does not by any stretch of the imagination have the market on driving up production while cutting staffing. Its a crule world we all live in but remember UPS is just like us, trying to survive.
 

pretzel_man

Well-Known Member
Yes I do believe the shareholders should eat the cost of raises. Why? Because without those raises we are seeing the "best and the brightest" leave the company. I know arrogant UPS upper management seem to think that all you need are geniuses in the level 20 and up and all of us are only to follow their orders, but successful companies simply dont work that way. UPS's "Human capital" is leaving in droves. Our balanced scorecard is a laughable manipulation of it (look at the people element and tell me if its "balanced" or not in relation to financial?) When the recession is over, UPS will NOT be poised to take advantage of the new climate because all the good worker bee's will have left the company. However, we will look good in the short term since we are sacrificing people for better financial performance. (Disagree? Go do some reading on what a balanced score card is supposed to be)

.

I guess I can't answer your belief that shareowners are making too much. I guess you should invest in companies that place shareowners last.

By the way, its not true that the best and brightest are leaving in droves. At least not in operations. Maybe in IS. Latest trends in the districts are directly opposite of what you said. We will be losing 1800 soon.

One more thing... I do know about balanced scorecards. I was there in the very first days when UPS created the first one.

P-Man
 

randomUPSISer

Well-Known Member
I guess I can't answer your belief that shareowners are making too much. I guess you should invest in companies that place shareowners last.

By the way, its not true that the best and brightest are leaving in droves. At least not in operations. Maybe in IS. Latest trends in the districts are directly opposite of what you said. We will be losing 1800 soon.

One more thing... I do know about balanced scorecards. I was there in the very first days when UPS created the first one.

P-Man

Feel free to explain to me how UPS's corporate balanced scorecard isnt extremely lopsided. I'd really like to see reasoning.

As for placing the shareholders last? Not at all. A well run company knows that by having the best of the best in terms of employees, it actually benefits the shareholders because those employees are able to make more money for the shareholders long term. It may look good on paper short term to drive away intelligent employees, but long term those people arent there to come up with the great ideas that help the company.

Districts laying off 1800? I actually applaud that one. Without a doubt UPS is middle management heavy in ALL areas. A wise one once said that a manager should be able to justify having at least 15 direct reports to their peers for the work the "group" is doing. If they cant, then either the work isnt that important, or you have too many managers. Even within I.S., there are too many chiefs and not enough indians. Its no secret. If I were planning to drive away workforce, I'd start there. I can think of 2 layers of upper management within I.S. alone that could be chopped out and noone would notice. I'm sure every group within UPS is like that. Multiply that across the organization, and youd find out there is a TON of money to be saved, and work wouldnt suffer a bit since we would still have all the worker bees.

As for "its not true the best and brightest are leaving". How do you know? Last I looked, there is no way to "measure" best and brightest. Sure, there is QPR, but its more reflective on you of what youve been asked to do, and how well your manager likes you than anything else. I've known some extrodinarily bright people with terrible QPR scores. I've also known some extrodinarily worthless people with great QPR scores. Its all up to the raters and how well you get along with your manager.
 

brownblood

Active Member
I agree with noway. For those of us who have been here for 20+ years, we have seen the most proud and strongest mgt philosophy has become a shell of it's former self. Ever since the company went public, it has been on a downslide. There are Division and District level people who have never held a driver accountable or even ridden with one to improve his performance. The strong and determined leadership that was once there, is gone. There are too few " determined men working together..." left to accomplish real changes/improvements. Unfortunately, there will be more negative changes. I do not see the present downslide reversing. We haven't even seen how this consolidation will work. I doubt 3% will be the real number when all is said and done. From attrition due to forced career changes, location changes, and other reasons, it will be higher.

Ben-Ben, I don't think the only issue is the fact that we are a union company. For me, it is the leadership or rather, the lack thereof. Hopefully, you are not of the mindset that we are "too big to fail". Although I won't deny Noway's concern for the high cost of being a union company and how it is a factor. Our business model is one that is accustomed to being a monopoly. The competition has forced us into a box we are not ready to be in after so many years of being a monopoly.

And yes, UPS has not laid off or force cut backs to date. Yes, the jobs are all still there. No forced pay cuts. But it is hard for all of us who have been in Mgt for many years to digest these changes. To ask us to give up our values, ethics, and determination we have been groomed and mentored with, for the sake of quick fixes and profitability. I remember when mgt would say to one another that so and so sup/mngr wasn't fired because it was the right thing to do. They had been put in a situation that was not right and fair and poor results occurred as a consequence. Today, that person is gone 9 out of 10 times.

As I recall, there were district consolidations only 1 year ago. So when is it enough? And I don't see how this will lead to micr-mgt. How can 1 region go from Washington state to the gulf coast be micro-managed? With less mgt people?

Jim Casey had a quote and I am probably paraphrasing it:

"If we are only in business to make money; then there is no surer way for us to go out of business."
 

pretzel_man

Well-Known Member
Feel free to explain to me how UPS's corporate balanced scorecard isnt extremely lopsided. I'd really like to see reasoning.

.

Okay...

There are 11 elements.

4 are related to cost or profitability
3 are related to growth
2 are related to service
1 is safety
1 is sales

From a weighted standpoint, cost, revenue, and profitability account for 60% of the weight.
Safety and service make up 40%.

I don't think its "extremely lopsided" for profit to be 60% of the balance. If it were 80% or 90%, I would agree.

25 years ago, it was ALL about cost and profit. Tell me which elements you would change.

P-Man
 

DiadDude

Well-Known Member
Okay...

There are 11 elements.

4 are related to cost or profitability
3 are related to growth
2 are related to service
1 is safety
1 is sales

From a weighted standpoint, cost, revenue, and profitability account for 60% of the weight.
Safety and service make up 40%.

I don't think its "extremely lopsided" for profit to be 60% of the balance. If it were 80% or 90%, I would agree.

25 years ago, it was ALL about cost and profit. Tell me which elements you would change.

P-Man

I would argue that Sales is more of a "cost, revenue, and profitability" factor than it is "saftey and service".
 

Washu234

Well-Known Member
Do we make customers pay more? That would drive them to our competitors (who by the way made deeper cuts than us).

P-Man

How did FedEx make deeper cuts then UPS?

They too suspended the 401k match and raises but only laid off 1,000 management employees in the entire company (globally). This past month brown laid off 1,800 management positions (http://www.kold.com/global/story.asp?s=11791610).

If you're talking about the 5% cut lower management took last year and the 10% executives took, is that really a deeper cut then actual layoffs?
 

Andorian440

Well-Known Member
I just read today that Fed-ex reinstated their 401k match. Will UPS follow suit? If so, how long will it take?

I don't think it's good policy to screw over the skilled workers. A lot of us will have other options when the economy improves. If indeed there is a mass exodus of skilled workers from the company in the near future, the company will have to recruit and train a whole new generation all at once. In the meantime, service and efficiency will suffer.

The only ones in my building who aren't planning on leaving as soon as is feasible are the ones who aren't very well qualified to begin with.
 

ups79

Well-Known Member
The economy probably will not improve until 2015. Does that mean you as a dead beat will be here that long?
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
I just read today that Fed-ex reinstated their 401k match. Will UPS follow suit? If so, how long will it take?

I don't think it's good policy to screw over the skilled workers. A lot of us will have other options when the economy improves. If indeed there is a mass exodus of skilled workers from the company in the near future, the company will have to recruit and train a whole new generation all at once. In the meantime, service and efficiency will suffer.

The only ones in my building who aren't planning on leaving as soon as is feasible are the ones who aren't very well qualified to begin with.

Please be careful not to hurt yourself as you are patting yourself on the back.
 
Top