Are We Ever Going To See This Implemented ?

[C$$]

Cut UHB some slack. Math is hard, and they sure don't go out of their way to explain anything to us.

Everything in the comparison is in "standard minutes," which are fractions of a minute. If things were rated in seconds, you are right, we'd have to dance around with factors of 60 to get to minutes.

Or another look. you get 0.0116 minutes/piece. Take the inverse (1/x) and you get pieces/minute for the units.

 

[WestCoastRural]

Yay! Math my favorite subject.?

 

[uselesshasbeen]

I should really apologize to some people. These incessant posts about what RRECS is going to do with so many people absolutely certain that it will be a bloodbath based primarily on 2 things. People are going to lose so much that they can't possibly make it up, and management is going to cheat to make sure it is to their advantage. Why do they need to cheat if it favors them so much to begin with? Either you believe that they are incapable of being honest or you throw that in to "prove" how bad it will be. I am in the minority because I believe that more people will be better off than worse off under this system, and a large number will probably end up with virtually no change.
RRECS came about because there was virtually no understanding of where the standards came from. I am guessing that there are reasons for each standard now, and if they say 86.4 is an average number for the verification of address, it seems likely they have data to back it up. How often do people post that they have timed themselves and it takes 5 minutes to sort 100 pieces of DPS? Or 2? Or 1? All I ever see is how unreasonable the USPS numbers are, with an undercurrent of the less the better, not what is actually fair.
You learn about people by how they react. When confronted with a view opposed to their own, do they simply attack and ridicule, or do they make an attempt to understand and explain?
Not sure how I got my calculator to give me that 60.24 but the basic point I wanted to make is that it can be easy to see a fallacy at times, and just because you can see the easy ones, doesn't really mean you see the hard ones, since so much is more than simple math. I may not live to see this implemented, but my best guess is most people who lose hours won't lose more than they are currently working under time.

 

[RDruckus]

They never need to cheat us.

They just do.

 

[stillfirstclass]

They never need to cheat us.

They just do.

when they conspired/manipulated/cheated/hid/delayed/diverted the mail in 2002, they felt the need to continue sop for counts or us rurals would have gained and that would be "just wrong"

 

[RR5]

I should really apologize to some people. These incessant posts about what RRECS is going to do with so many people absolutely certain that it will be a bloodbath based primarily on 2 things. People are going to lose so much that they can't possibly make it up, and management is going to cheat to make sure it is to their advantage. Why do they need to cheat if it favors them so much to begin with? Either you believe that they are incapable of being honest or you throw that in to "prove" how bad it will be. I am in the minority because I believe that more people will be better off than worse off under this system, and a large number will probably end up with virtually no change.
RRECS came about because there was virtually no understanding of where the standards came from. I am guessing that there are reasons for each standard now, and if they say 86.4 is an average number for the verification of address, it seems likely they have data to back it up. How often do people post that they have timed themselves and it takes 5 minutes to sort 100 pieces of DPS? Or 2? Or 1? All I ever see is how unreasonable the USPS numbers are, with an undercurrent of the less the better, not what is actually fair.
You learn about people by how they react. When confronted with a view opposed to their own, do they simply attack and ridicule, or do they make an attempt to understand and explain?
Not sure how I got my calculator to give me that 60.24 but the basic point I wanted to make is that it can be easy to see a fallacy at times, and just because you can see the easy ones, doesn't really mean you see the hard ones, since so much is more than simple math. I may not live to see this implemented, but my best guess is most people who lose hours won't lose more than they are currently working under time.

Wow. Your shown all the facts, but refuse to believe it. Why would they cheat if it's going to be so bad? If you haven't noticed, and it sure looks like you haven't, even with the billions they save from the Wells decision, it's still not enough. It's NEVER enough with them, always trying to capture more savings. New savings. But you just want to believe this is going to be to our advantage. Ignore the time standard changes, ignore the past corruption of mail counts, and benchmarks that they were caught cheating us, just ignore all facts and JUST BELIEVE!

 

[RR5]

I should really apologize to some people. These incessant posts about what RRECS is going to do with so many people absolutely certain that it will be a bloodbath based primarily on 2 things. People are going to lose so much that they can't possibly make it up, and management is going to cheat to make sure it is to their advantage. Why do they need to cheat if it favors them so much to begin with? Either you believe that they are incapable of being honest or you throw that in to "prove" how bad it will be. I am in the minority because I believe that more people will be better off than worse off under this system, and a large number will probably end up with virtually no change.
RRECS came about because there was virtually no understanding of where the standards came from. I am guessing that there are reasons for each standard now, and if they say 86.4 is an average number for the verification of address, it seems likely they have data to back it up.

Just like they must have data that it only takes 10 seconds to deliver a parcel to the door. Someone must of shown this is possible. I believe they would've change this over the last 30 years if it wasn't so. I refuse they would cheat me if it wasn't so. I believe. I believe. Management would never cheat us. I believe!

 

[stillfirstclass]

"i know you cannot deliver a package in 10 seconds but i also know that most of these packages will fit in the mailbox" not word for word but close

 

[stillfirstclass]

my fear now is the reason this has not been implemented: they don't know where they will put the excessed carriers....

 

[Toolology]

I should really apologize to some people. These incessant posts about what RRECS is going to do with so many people absolutely certain that it will be a bloodbath based primarily on 2 things. People are going to lose so much that they can't possibly make it up, and management is going to cheat to make sure it is to their advantage. Why do they need to cheat if it favors them so much to begin with? Either you believe that they are incapable of being honest or you throw that in to "prove" how bad it will be. I am in the minority because I believe that more people will be better off than worse off under this system, and a large number will probably end up with virtually no change.
RRECS came about because there was virtually no understanding of where the standards came from. I am guessing that there are reasons for each standard now, and if they say 86.4 is an average number for the verification of address, it seems likely they have data to back it up. How often do people post that they have timed themselves and it takes 5 minutes to sort 100 pieces of DPS? Or 2? Or 1? All I ever see is how unreasonable the USPS numbers are, with an undercurrent of the less the better, not what is actually fair.
You learn about people by how they react. When confronted with a view opposed to their own, do they simply attack and ridicule, or do they make an attempt to understand and explain?
Not sure how I got my calculator to give me that 60.24 but the basic point I wanted to make is that it can be easy to see a fallacy at times, and just because you can see the easy ones, doesn't really mean you see the hard ones, since so much is more than simple math. I may not live to see this implemented, but my best guess is most people who lose hours won't lose more than they are currently working under time.

When this is implemented you make sure you are around. This is a bloodbath for low volume, high mileage routes. I think your assumptions on most staying the same is a pipe dream. I am a realist and loss of time on standards are simply devastating to the craft.

 

[C$$]

...
I am in the minority because I believe that more people will be better off than worse off under this system, and a large number will probably end up with virtually no change.
...

The RRECS DPS standards are bad. Extremely bad.

Why believe when you can KNOW?

1) Get a clock, a full tray of DPS, and an empty tray
2) Look at clock
3) Move letters from full tray to empty tray. Look at every address. Throw out bad addresses, fwds, out of orders etc.
4) Look at clock

Added bonus: do it in under 5 minutes and you can call me Chicken Little
Double bonus: do it on a route you don't know, like an RCA, in under 5 minutes and you can call me whatever you want


I think the problem is we're talking about time. Time is squishy, fuzzy, hard to perceive. Let's talk about cold hard cash:
At the top step of the new pay tables, on a 40k, a carrier is making just under $30 an hour. Let's say a full tray of DPS is 400 pieces. So the value of a tray of DPS is:

(400 pieces * minutes per piece)/(60 minutes) * $30/hr

Current Eval System:
llv: $4.64
pov: $6.67

RRECS:
all: $2.32

Why is a tray of DPS in RRECS worth 1/2 or 1/3 of what it was?

 

[FrozenToes]

I don't understand the rationale of low volume, high mileage vs high volume, low mileage.
Isn't high volume going to get slaughtered due to changes in DPS,flats,box standard,etc.. no long driveways to go down. So you're assuming the parcels/dismounts will make up for the mail losses?

 

[DB.Cooper]

Wow. Your shown all the facts, but refuse to believe it. Why would they cheat if it's going to be so bad? If you haven't noticed, and it sure looks like you haven't, even with the billions they save from the Wells decision, it's still not enough. It's NEVER enough with them, always trying to capture more savings. New savings. But you just want to believe this is going to be to our advantage. Ignore the time standard changes, ignore the past corruption of mail counts, and benchmarks that they were caught cheating us, just ignore all facts and JUST BELIEVE!

Look at 2012, Billions more with the Tables 2 & 4... each of these carriers will make 100's of Thousands less over a career... it's never enuf.... they'll get the chance to donate more, no doubt... ?

 

[DB.Cooper]

my fear now is the reason this has not been implemented: they don't know where they will put the excessed carriers....

I really don't see how peeps will ever meet
their evals under these standards...

So they're sayin' 2021 implementation now??? Lots of peeps jumping ship then...

 

[Wilco183]

I don't understand the rationale of low volume, high mileage vs high volume, low mileage.
Isn't high volume going to get slaughtered due to changes in DPS,flats,box standard,etc.. no long driveways to go down. So you're assuming the parcels/dismounts will make up for the mail losses?

Agree with your estimation...and HV/LM CBU/parcel locker routes like mine will lose the biggest.

 

[DB.Cooper]

Agree with your estimation...and HV/LM CBU/parcel locker routlike mine will lose the biggest.

Who are the "winners"... other than the USPS....

 

[btdtret]

All -- RRECS "standards" information.

-- The BIG question should be: How come C$$ is able to do it and pass along the info while NOTHING from NRLCA?

-- Is the NRCLA still trying to figure out the data?

-- Has anyone at NRLCA HQ been assigned the task of determining how the RRECS "standards" will be affecting rural carriers?

-- Probably the above should have been directed at the national officers at the convention.

 

[Wilco183]

Who are the "winners"... other than the USPS....

WestCoast Rural will get cut after first RRECS evaluation comes out!!

 

[RR5]

I don't understand the rationale of low volume, high mileage vs high volume, low mileage.
Isn't high volume going to get slaughtered due to changes in DPS,flats,box standard,etc.. no long driveways to g

All -- RRECS "standards" information.

-- The BIG question should be: How come C$$ is able to do it and pass along the info while NOTHING from NRLCA?

-- Is the NRCLA still trying to figure out the data?

-- Has anyone at NRLCA HQ been assigned the task of determining how the RRECS "standards" will be affecting rural carriers?

They know, but they'll act shocked when this hits. They're not going to break the bad news and take a backlash from the craft. They're just hoping it won't be implemented for a long time, make their large salaries for as long as possible, then leave. They got us into this mess due to their inability to negotiate and protect the standards over the years, then leading us to the engineer study. A complete failure, alot more work, less pay, lost of days off, and now this coming at us. The new engineer standards were posted in their mag over a year ago. Isn't difficult to do the math with these lower standards. They know what's coming, but why upset us now. Dead silence. But when it all hits, much lower evaluations, sub standard routes thru out the country, loss of routes, they will rise up and guarantee us they're looking into the matter. Another lie, another false promise, and nothing accomplished.

 

[Toolology]

Agree with your estimation...and HV/LM CBU/parcel locker routes like mine will lose the biggest.

My route is 85 miles low volume/high mileage I get 2 min a mile, under new system the max I get between boxes that are a mile apart is 1:30 a mile in 3 places. The rest is way under that. I will lose over 5 hrs just in driving standard alone. Now high volume/low mileage do not have the mileage factor too lose near as bad. Say a route is 30 miles. You may only lose under 2 hrs compared to my 5 hrs. No routes will be slaughtered like low volume/high mileage. I am down 5 hrs and we have not figured in anything but mileage. The fact I have gravel and dirt roads was not even a consideration in the study and either was weather factor. Most low mileage routes are pavement.