86ppm and the union

[Dazy]

I'd encourage everyone to make up 86 pieces and take it to your local and state meeting. Offer $1,000 PAC donation if anyone can accomplish verifying 86ppm. Then ask your board rep to the challenge when they take the mic.

LOVE THIS!!!

 

[forrest]

Honestly I probably could if my OCD wouldn't. make me put the bigger piece in the back and if we get separate letter counts for misthrows, fwds, and ubbm. Probably depends a lot in volume factor. My rural route is much more suburban route so 86 pieces is maybe 15-20 boxes on most days on lower volume days probably not because of the simple time it takes to skip boxes that don't get anything and get to where you are restarting. But it is supposed to be the average employee correct? not us that have been on the route 15 years.

 

[Twingrlie]

The engineers should be brought back in to recalculate this. Anyone with a brain knows this system is flawed. If management goes ahead and implements this new pay system then I would hope our union sues or files a grievance or whatever needs to be done. I like to think the numbers are on our side with as flawed as all of this is. Which in the end we would go back to our old numbers and receive back pay from this crap shoot of rrecs we have.

We still have Dr. Mericle on our payroll. They’re still working on the fact that so many routes are split everyday. It was never as big of an issue when they created the standards.

 

[Rt2mailman]

I believe our union should Foia request the methods used to figure out the method of measurement used to determine these findings.
1) 86 DPS pieces/minute
2) 3 minutes to fill a government vehicle (It takes 56 seconds to dismount)
3) 233 feet for 1 minute for walking distances
And any other place we are getting screwed over on the Rrecs system.
If these were legitimate findings let’s see how these engineers, that were paid top dollar, came about determining what they are.

 

[Ray Redline]

This standard baffles me the most out of every hair brain thing about rrecs. More baffling is the union just rolling over and saying, welp seems fine to us!

My serious question is why didn’t anyone from the union simply and kindly contact these “engineers” and ask for a breakdown and demonstration to prove that the 86ppm standard is accurate? I don’t think this is an unreasonable request.

If the number was flawed and only achieved by casing mail and then throwing and going without true verification, then they should have demanded that this particular standard be essentially redone using the correct method of mail delivery. I would think “engineers” would jump at the chance to ensure their data is 100% correct.

I’ve asked before, what if the “engineers” had said we could do 1000ppm, would they still be like herp derp this seems like a fair standard!

I mean how could you drop the ball on something so slam dunk incorrect? It makes me wonder how flawed the rest of the “engineers” findings are and how they incorrectly came to their measurements. 86ppm is a super human impossibility. If the study wasn’t conducted correctly then I’d say legally the whole thing could easily be scrapped by the appropriate powers, courts and such.

I have asked management for more information on this. I am told more is coming in March. I have no idea of the standards you are talking about. I am only rural in office and have never had the union to stop by just to chat. I have been here over 20 years.

Where did you get the info on the new standards? Do I file a FOIA sooner rather than later?

 

[gerl2]

I believe our union should Foia request the methods used to figure out the method of measurement used to determine these findings.
1) 86 DPS pieces/minute
2) 3 minutes to fill a government vehicle (It takes 56 seconds to dismount)
3) 233 feet for 1 minute for walking distances
And any other place we are getting screwed over on the Rrecs system.
If these were legitimate findings let’s see how these engineers, that were paid top dollar, came about determining what they are.

I had previously stated, has the union even received copies of the study or I will call that our associate just took the fudged numbers that were given to them and said OK looks good.

 

[Ponder]

I found the culprit that they based the study off of...

Omg lol!!!

 

[Gotrope]

It was a problem during the test, trial period. They tossed data on those routes. Ignoring data wasn't the answer. A test route in my vicinity wasn't carried a single day by the regular. It was split or sat for the entire 3 year data period. This was not an unusual circumstance.
Let's hope a good faith attempt to implement shows the faults and they are corrected or the system is tossed.