soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
... The real issue is that the WOR system was giving you credit for writing down the full 1Z for every package with a tracking number. This is why the change was made.
...I assume that even you would agree that scanning is quicker than writing down all that tracking info?
P-Man
When we were on paper 50-liners, we never recorded a full 1Z label, we only wrote the 6-digit shipper# plus an ID. That is what the allowance was supposedly based upon.
Obviously, it is quicker to scan a 1Z label than it would be to physically write down all 18 digits...but since we never wrote all 18 digits in the first place, the comparison is meaningless. The only relevant comparison would be DIAD vs. recording 6 digits on a 50-liner.
In the late 80's/early 90's before DIAD we couldnt scan 1Z labels so we filled in the consignee info in the space provided, detached the perforated section, and turned them in at night. There was never any additional time allowed for this.
Fast forward a few years to the early 2000's, we are all on DIAD and PLD/EDD is implemented. All packages have full 1z labels. I.E comes along and screws us out of something like 20 seconds per package by falsely claiming that we had been given "too much" of an allowance in the first place.
That "allowance"...was based upon writing 6 digits on a 50-liner, not on writing the entire 1z label. And there is not a 20 second difference between scanning a package vs. writing 6 digits.
We got screwed, plain and simple.