so how should performance issues be handled?

[TheDick]

Re: so how should performance issues be handled?er

thats fine hon. thats the way it should be. time measurement is not a perfect science. My first run was one future management candidates were generally assigned to as they rotated through delivery. As such it was a split car that absolutely sucked. i learned how to work doormen at apartment buildings and get them to sign for everything that went to the building. I learned to be the first guy to hit a shared high volume pickup. As such I was generally 30 minutes under scratch. lunch was of course optional. I may have been the best management candidate to run the route and certainly had better results then the guy who ended up with a nice cushy region job later on in life. Did that make me better then him or anyone else that ran the route. Absolutely not . I just figured out how to work it to make the numbers. Many of our drivers either can't figure it out or don't care to chase that number like I did. So I understand the time measurement issues. At some point we have to come up with a better way of measuring performance. I'm not sure I was anymore effective performance wise then anyone that had ever run the route I just figured out how to score on the route.

Most customers i know would like door to door delivery. if you couldnt get a sig from cons then doorman gets the leftovers. Even then ur supposed to go to nextdoor neighbors for indirect.
I chased the numbers for awhile , when i did and got my bonus the OMS under my center manager changed some codes or just took it away so i showed over everyday. So i dont care to chase the number anymore.
Right now theres about 18 drivers in SF,calif on discharge for SPORH vilolations. These guys are the ones tieguy would love to get termed. They SPORH x by themselves and SPORH faster when the sup is on car. I think this panels a tester for the rest of the country, IDK

 

[TheDick]

WORK MEASUREMENT
Time studies have demonstrated to be accurate 95% of the time for within + or - 5% for 95% of the routes.
Let's see what UPS is claiming then:
It is accurate for 19 out of 20 drivers.
For the 19, it is only accurate 19 days out of 20.
For the 19 drivers on those 19 days that it is accurate, it is only accurate to within 5% for those days.
That means that if the route plans up to 9 hours or 540 minutes, the planned day is in a range of 513 and 567 minutes.

That is why almost all operators concentrate on "demonstrated performance" that has been established over a period of time and verified on OJS rides.

DEMONSTRATED PERFORMANCE
Drivers have OJS rides performed when management does not believe they are performing at an acceptable level of productivity and/or quality.
If the supervisor rides with the driver and establishes a certain productivity level and then the driver drops considerably, a talk with is performed and if lower productivity continues, then one or more OJS rides are conducted. In my experience, this continues for several iterations prior to any serious disciplinary action is taken.

Of course, several levels and incidences of "harassment" may occur in the entire process.

Using your math my center manager can easily get his quota of warning letters for the monthMy center manager will do a warning ltr for anything under ur lock-in SPORH. I'm thinking if this continues they're be another class-action but for harassment if enough drivers are fired because of this. This is why customers wonder why we're so rude and wont talk to them

 

[pretzel_man]

It's not a fair measure because statistically, a 3-day ride does not accurately represent what the driver does all year. Any sampling rate this low (1%) is subject to a very high Standard Deviation (Deviation from the mean or average). As such it can never be accurately used to predict what a driver should do on a consistent basis.

I'm not sure that your analysis of the statistics are necessarily accurate.

I agree with you that if three rides are given with high variability; lets say 20.2 SPORH, 9.7 SPORH, and 12.2 SPORH. The average of the three is 14 SPORH. The high standard deviation of these samples makes determing a true average to variable. If the driver begins performing at 12 SPORH without supervision that is certainly within the error range and therefore inconclusive.

On the other hand, I do three rides with 14.1 SPORH, 13.9 SPORH, and 14.0 SPORH. I now have a low variability. If the driver without supervision delivers at 12 SPORH, we now have a large difference. I have seen the above example many times.

Again, why is this not a fair way to evaluate performance?

P-Man

 

[SWORDFISH]

P-man the problem I see are the variables. If a route could be put out everyday w/ the same stops, packages, size of packages, amount per stop, miles, nda, load,, area, loader, pick up volume,leaving the building late and trafic then I would be more likely to agree w/ a SPORH. All of those situations can drastically effect a SPORH though. Those situations could make you gain or lose a 2 or 3 or even more stops per hour. The issue for me is that UPS has so many devices to cach us stealing time as they think us drivers do all the time then they should be able to look at those devices to tell them whether or not this is happening. If a driver is stealing kick his but hard. If hes not why not trust that he is actaully doing an honest days work even though his SPORH is 2 stops per hour lower that day? It kills me that UPS wastes so much money on trying to catch us theifs(drivers) doing something bad and when they cant find anything because there is nothing they result to using #s. Now for the disclaimer. This is based on my experience at UPS and the center team I have dealt w/. There was a time when I didnt feel like this and look forward to not feeling like this again in the future.

 

[soberups]

be nice. longevity becomes a science in feeders. speed and pure performance are no longer an issue. controlling all that equipment to keep from killing someone is.

So are you saying that longetivity and safe driving are not as important in packages as they are in feeders? If I run over a child in my package car, he will be just as dead as if I had done it in a tractor.

 

[soberups]

Re: so how should performance issues be handled?er

I learned to be the first guy to hit a shared high volume pickup. As such I was generally 30 minutes under scratch. lunch was of course optional. I may have been the best management candidate to run the route..... Did that make me better then him or anyone else that ran the route. Absolutely not . I just figured out how to work it to make the numbers. ....I'm not sure I was anymore effective performance wise then anyone that had ever run the route I just figured out how to score on the route.

Translation:

"I rolled into high-volume P/U accounts and skimmed off the bags and smalls in order to inflate my numbers, thereby screwing over the guy who came in after me and had to deal with the bulky, heavy stuff. I falsified my timecard, cheated on the methods, and learned how to cut corners in order to myself look better at someone elses expense. I wasnt a better worker, I was merely a better manipulator of metrics. And this is what ultimately paved the way for my promotion into upper level management."

 

[soberups]

Re: so how should performance issues be handled?er

......

 

[705red]

I'm not sure that your analysis of the statistics are necessarily accurate.

I agree with you that if three rides are given with high variability; lets say 20.2 SPORH, 9.7 SPORH, and 12.2 SPORH. The average of the three is 14 SPORH. The high standard deviation of these samples makes determing a true average to variable. If the driver begins performing at 12 SPORH without supervision that is certainly within the error range and therefore inconclusive.

On the other hand, I do three rides with 14.1 SPORH, 13.9 SPORH, and 14.0 SPORH. I now have a low variability. If the driver without supervision delivers at 12 SPORH, we now have a large difference. I have seen the above example many times.

Again, why is this not a fair way to evaluate performance?

P-Man

You are comparing 3 days, maybe light days. Now the next day alone he has 5 stops all with boxes of paper lets say 2 boxes each in an office buidling. These day when you were with him, he ran in 20 envelopes without a cart. now he must use this cart at least 3 times for less packages which will lower his SPH.

 

[705red]

The question is fair, and so far not an answer.....

Lets try it again. A driver is ridden with by a trained supervisor. Under supervision and following methods, the driver performs at X stops per hour. He/she performs at X overallowed. This happens over 3 days and is called a "lock in" ride.

While not under supervision, the driver performs at a reduced stops per hour and / or overallowed.

This has nothing to do with IE. Its the operator's approach.

Is this a fair measure? If not, why? (I can think of a couple of reasons, but they are easily accounted for.)

P-Man

Most of our On cars are ex package car and my sup couldnt hack package car anymore and now he wants to talk to us because of performance? Not a chance, I say let these "trained sups" demonstrate using all the methods for 3 days and than use that SPH!

 

[soberups]

On the other hand, I do three rides with 14.1 SPORH, 13.9 SPORH, and 14.0 SPORH. I now have a low variability. If the driver without supervision delivers at 12 SPORH, we now have a large difference. I have seen the above example many times.

Again, why is this not a fair way to evaluate performance?

P-Man

IF the driver is actually running -2 SPORH unsupervised and IF the load quality, delivery area, traffic, on-call air's, misloads etc. are comparable to what occured while supervised, then you MIGHT have a case against the driver.

But if you want to write a warning letter for 13.7 SPORH unsupervised vs. a 3-day average of, say, 14.1.....or if you are going into the car before start time in order to "massage" the load and cherry-pick the fast and easy stops in order to set the supervised rides up to be more productive....your behavior constitutes harassment. You arent trying to solve the underlying problems, you are merely trying to bully the driver into working off of the clock in order to meet your unrealistic expectations.

If management would only spend as much time and effort setting the driver up to succeed as they spend trying to set him up to get fired...we would be stomping FedEx into the ground.

 

[pretzel_man]

IF the driver is actually running -2 SPORH unsupervised and IF the load quality, delivery area, traffic, on-call air's, misloads etc. are comparable to what occured while supervised, then you MIGHT have a case against the driver.

But if you want to write a warning letter for 13.7 SPORH unsupervised vs. a 3-day average of, say, 14.1.....or if you are going into the car before start time in order to "massage" the load and cherry-pick the fast and easy stops in order to set the supervised rides up to be more productive....your behavior constitutes harassment. You arent trying to solve the underlying problems, you are merely trying to bully the driver into working off of the clock in order to meet your unrealistic expectations.

If management would only spend as much time and effort setting the driver up to succeed as they spend trying to set him up to get fired...we would be stomping FedEx into the ground.

IF... IF.... Might.... You complain about management double speak....

Just go ahead and say it. No method of performance accountability is acceptable to you. Lets just get part over with so we can stop debating this.

You will only accept a 100% perfect system which no system ever will be. You assume that because a system isn't perfect that UPS purposefully caused the issue.

Yes, there are poor management who inappropriately try and hold drivers accountable. I do not approve of this and have never done so.

On the other hand, there are drivers that also inappropriately take advantage of their position. You won't admit that my measurement is good enough to catch those blatent discrepancies.

I don't condone management inappropriately using the system. You should not condone that in the driver ranks either.

P-Man

 

[soberups]

You will only accept a 100% perfect system which no system ever will be. You assume that because a system isn't perfect that UPS purposefully caused the issue.

I dont blame UPS when the study "isnt perfect".

I do blame UPS when the study is completely divorced from reality and the company absolutely refuses to correct it.

If you want me to accept some system of performance accountability, then you need to be willing to correct that system when it is demostrably and irrefutably flawed.

But we all know that will never happen. Once you do one of your "studies"...thats it. The result is chiseled in stone. It cant be disputed, it cant be appealed, it cant be verified. Good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair, it doesnt matter.

So tell me, P-man....why in the hell should I ever accept a system that you control, that you can alter at your whim, and that I cannot challenge or dispute?

 

[pretzel_man]

I dont blame UPS when the study "isnt perfect".

I do blame UPS when the study is completely divorced from reality and the company absolutely refuses to correct it.

If you want me to accept some system of performance accountability, then you need to be willing to correct that system when it is demostrably and irrefutably flawed.

But we all know that will never happen. Once you do one of your "studies"...thats it. The result is chiseled in stone. It cant be disputed, it cant be appealed, it cant be verified. Good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair, it doesnt matter.

So tell me, P-man....why in the hell should I ever accept a system that you control, that you can alter at your whim, and that I cannot challenge or dispute?

First, its not altered at a whim, regardless of what you say. Second, the issue isn't that you don't understand the system, you just don't like the answer. You refuse to hear the facts around the measurement system.

Third, what I posted here had NOTHING to do with work measurement. NOTHING to do with altering systems. It had to do with locking in performance without any I.E. influence.

You still refused to accept or acknowledge that.

I ride a driver for three days and document performance. Afterward, performance measured by over/under and / or SPORH is significantly different. You refuse to accept this as a performance measure.

P-Man

 

[soberups]

I ride a driver for three days and document performance. Afterward, performance measured by over/under and / or SPORH is significantly different. You refuse to accept this as a performance measure.

P-Man

Not true.

It depends upon your definition of "significant". And it also depends upon whether or not the days in question were comparable in terms of delivery area, bulk, misloads etc.

If the days in question were demonstrably equal and the driver is off by a full 2 SPORH unsupervised over a significant period of time, you may indeed have a case against him or her.

As a steward, I have seen cases where warning letters and harassment take place over less than .5 SPORH. And I have seen cases where apartment complexes, irregs and bulk stops are "conveniently" eliminated and the load is thouroughly massaged prior to the drivers start time on the days when he is being supervised.

To arbitrarily state that anything less than the "demonstrated" SPORH is grounds for discipline....no matter what the circumstances or how slight the difference....is nothing more than petty harassment and an unwillingess to deal with the real, underlying issues.

 

[soberups]

First, its not altered at a whim, regardless of what you say. Second, the issue isn't that you don't understand the system, you just don't like the answer. You refuse to hear the facts around the measurement system.

The facts are that;

The company performs time studies at its sole discretion;
The company can alter the allowances at its sole discretion;
The company will not correct a flawed timestudy;
The affected employee cannot appeal, dispute or challenge the outcome of the study;
The company will target those who fail to meet "standard" for increased levels of supervision.

Perhaps these facts are not correct in your world, but for 99% of the drivers out there....they are the reality.

 

[pretzel_man]

The facts are that;

The company performs time studies at its sole discretion;
The company can alter the allowances at its sole discretion;
The company will not correct a flawed timestudy;
The affected employee cannot appeal, dispute or challenge the outcome of the study;
The company will target those who fail to meet "standard" for increased levels of supervision.

Perhaps these facts are not correct in your world, but for 99% of the drivers out there....they are the reality.

And what does this have to do with a three day lock in ride?

 

[tourists24]

And what does this have to do with a three day lock in ride?

because a three day lock in ride is only when it is convenient for the company. I for one had 3 separate 3 day rides last year. Each time I ran fewer stops per hour when I was with a supervisor. Funny no lock in occurred. Add/cuts also affects a days work, and the company will use the numbers to work against the driver when it is in their favor.

The problem isnt with the system itself, it's how the system gets used by operations management. They are not allowed to run things the way they feel it needs to be run. They are dictated by IE how things are to be done and the reports are all that matters. When their numbers are not acceptable, they need to justify why and here the game begins.

 

[soberups]

And what does this have to do with a three day lock in ride?

Very little, actually.

You merely stated that I "refused to hear the facts around the measuring system."

I was responding to that statement with some "facts about the measuring system".

I would point out that, in virtually all cases, the driving force behind a 3-day ride is that the driver in question is overallowed.

It is interesting to me that "bonus" drivers who take unsafe shortcuts and work off of the clock are not given 3-day lock in rides. In most cases, these drivers will do less SPORH when supervised because they are unable to take the same unsafe shortcuts or work off of the clock during an OJS...yet for whatever reason, this discrepancy between supervised vs. unsupervised performance is conveniently ignored.

P-man...would you care to speculate on why this is?

 

[pretzel_man]

Very little, actually.

You merely stated that I "refused to hear the facts around the measuring system."

I was responding to that statement with some "facts about the measuring system".

I would point out that, in virtually all cases, the driving force behind a 3-day ride is that the driver in question is overallowed.

It is interesting to me that "bonus" drivers who take unsafe shortcuts and work off of the clock are not given 3-day lock in rides. In most cases, these drivers will do less SPORH when supervised because they are unable to take the same unsafe shortcuts or work off of the clock during an OJS...yet for whatever reason, this discrepancy between supervised vs. unsupervised performance is conveniently ignored.

P-man...would you care to speculate on why this is?

Sure... Poor management. What you say happens. I had an issue with this last week. I had to go after a division manager who didn't want to have a driver's methods corrected because he was a "good" driver.

This still has nothing to do with a three day lock in ride. There are drivers who performs well under supervision and slack off when not watched. By the way, I think this is 10% or less of the drivers. Just as there are poor management, there are poor drivers.

From my perspective, lock in rides are a fair way to hold them accountable.

P-Man

 

[Omega man]

I'm not sure that your analysis of the statistics are necessarily accurate.

I agree with you that if three rides are given with high variability; lets say 20.2 SPORH, 9.7 SPORH, and 12.2 SPORH. The average of the three is 14 SPORH. The high standard deviation of these samples makes determing a true average to variable. If the driver begins performing at 12 SPORH without supervision that is certainly within the error range and therefore inconclusive.

On the other hand, I do three rides with 14.1 SPORH, 13.9 SPORH, and 14.0 SPORH. I now have a low variability. If the driver without supervision delivers at 12 SPORH, we now have a large difference. I have seen the above example many times.

Again, why is this not a fair way to evaluate performance?

P-Man

If a driver performed at similar rates over much longer periods of time then your argument might be valid. The low sample rate induces a large margin of error. The deviation is not from the average of the 3 days but from the average for the year. Your driver may produce a SPORH averaging around 14.0 in March. The same driver may drop to a 13.0, 13.2 and 13.4 in August. And go up to a 16.0, 16.2 and 16.4 in December. Of course, you can't have 50-day rides. Managers are using discipline for any failure to maintain, no matter how small. The low sample rate is only one of the problems with using SPORH. The driver would also have to be sent out with the same area stop density and volume every day of the year for 3-day average to be applicable to any other day of the year. This will never happen. Drivers are never dispatched with consistent workloads so how can you expect consistent performance?