Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
True story....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pretzel_man" data-source="post: 558799" data-attributes="member: 927"><p>I really don't want to get into a "religious" war about I.E. or Work Measurement, but I have to weigh in with some other information.</p><p> </p><p>While I agree that this was handled poorly, the change WAS based on facts and was NOT a blanket reduction without regard to circumstances. The problem however really dates back to the early 1990's. I know this because I was part of the discussions back then. Oz Nelson was CEO, and Mike Eskew was not yet head of Corporate I.E.</p><p> </p><p>The corporate work measurement group recommended changing the time allowances. The work measurement systems and WOR was giving credit for writing all of the tracking information down for each package that had a tracking number on it. Remember that previously, there were few packages with tracking numbers.</p><p> </p><p>That recommendation was turned down by the head of Corporate I.E. I was in a meeting with him when he explained why he chose to not make that change. I understand that the recommendation to make that change came up regularly year after year.</p><p> </p><p>It was finally implemented when EDD came in. EDD had nothing to do with it, it was just a "convenient" time to make a change that was identified over 10 years earlier.</p><p> </p><p>Sober, maybe you can sheet the old way just as quick as keying in a DIAD. Most drivers would rather use the DIAD.... 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.</p><p> </p><p>I assume that even you would agree that scanning is quicker than writing down all that tracking info?</p><p> </p><p>P-Man</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pretzel_man, post: 558799, member: 927"] I really don't want to get into a "religious" war about I.E. or Work Measurement, but I have to weigh in with some other information. While I agree that this was handled poorly, the change WAS based on facts and was NOT a blanket reduction without regard to circumstances. The problem however really dates back to the early 1990's. I know this because I was part of the discussions back then. Oz Nelson was CEO, and Mike Eskew was not yet head of Corporate I.E. The corporate work measurement group recommended changing the time allowances. The work measurement systems and WOR was giving credit for writing all of the tracking information down for each package that had a tracking number on it. Remember that previously, there were few packages with tracking numbers. That recommendation was turned down by the head of Corporate I.E. I was in a meeting with him when he explained why he chose to not make that change. I understand that the recommendation to make that change came up regularly year after year. It was finally implemented when EDD came in. EDD had nothing to do with it, it was just a "convenient" time to make a change that was identified over 10 years earlier. Sober, maybe you can sheet the old way just as quick as keying in a DIAD. Most drivers would rather use the DIAD.... 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
True story....
Top