A random thought about RRECS

stillfirstclass

Well-known member
Went to union meeting, my office is a study office. Was told a few months ago that we were going to be getting the new scanners. Now at the meeting, we were told the P.O does not want to give us the scanners because RRECS will "be too costly" and they are going to pull the plug on it. No RRECS.
too costly for who? too stupid for everyone... maybe in may and june i like evaluated, April and july are ok for evaluated, but vote hourly for the rest of the year....
 

Jbmwolf53

Member
Question:
What is the Union official word on RRECS? Is it dead? What are offices doing that were in the study? Are they still doing Mapping for routes?
 

stingrayiii

Well-known member
The mapping is from your scanner, Almost all data points are collected with the scanner. As of now if there is a locked in neighborhood that neighborhood will have a different Vol Fac then Say the next neighborhood on your route will have a different Vol Fac. All depends on volume collected for those neighborhoods. Very cool to see where your heavy volume is being collected. Should make adjusting rts much easier in the future.
 

PastOThirty

Well-known member
The mapping is from your scanner, Almost all data points are collected with the scanner. As of now if there is a locked in neighborhood that neighborhood will have a different Vol Fac then Say the next neighborhood on your route will have a different Vol Fac. All depends on volume collected for those neighborhoods. Very cool to see where your heavy volume is being collected. Should make adjusting rts much easier in the future.
Is this applying only to parcels, or are they using zip+4 to measure mail/flats per neighborhood too?
 

LostinDakota

Well-known member
I have no confidence that ANY of the data collected will be used in any meaningful way to improve we rurals situation. If it doesn't provide free work for USPS there would be no reason to use it. I also don't believe that the district geeks looking at all of the data actually believe we are handling this much package volume. Somehow, from the inside of the district offices, they can "tell" we are padding the numbers and will try to "negotiate" a more "average" parcel number. I don't trust any of this data will be ever used to provide a more fair pay system for us.
 

Old Fart

Well-known member
I have no confidence that ANY of the data collected will be used in any meaningful way to improve we rurals situation. If it doesn't provide free work for USPS there would be no reason to use it. I also don't believe that the district geeks looking at all of the data actually believe we are handling this much package volume. Somehow, from the inside of the district offices, they can "tell" we are padding the numbers and will try to "negotiate" a more "average" parcel number. I don't trust any of this data will be ever used to provide a more fair pay system for us.
I agree. No confidence.

I have personally proven their data to be incorrect on numerous occasions. It's wrong. (Disclosure: I managed data analysis and interpretation as part of my corporate responsibility)
 

RDruckus

Well-known member
I agree. No confidence.

I have personally proven their data to be incorrect on numerous occasions. It's wrong. (Disclosure: I managed data analysis and interpretation as part of my corporate responsibility)
Q: Are the powers that be aware that it is wrong, or is manipulated?
(Perhaps some of both?)
I have no professional data experience. I constantly remind myself to use the word"data" as a plural .
 

stillfirstclass

Well-known member
Q: Are the powers that be aware that it is wrong, or is manipulated?
(Perhaps some of both?)
I have no professional data experience. I constantly remind myself to use the word"data" as a plural .
alot of the super's are ex clerks/mailhandlers/citycarriers, they look at our numbers of everything and say "no way in haiti's did that carrier deliver 145 packages, 550 flats, 1800 pcs of dps, 100 raw letters, drove 75 miles in one day, the data is wrong!" quote un quote.... lol
 

Windindaface

Well-known member
I feel like Linus looking for the Great Pumpkin. All those bread crumbs blowing in the wind. How wasteful

I find joy in finding a parcel Pumpkin mis chucked in my parcel Pumpkin patch unit by the clerks and the management scramble to get it out the door after all have left.

JS... What gives these days about the mis sort by clerks? Why are they immune from mis sort scans?
 

Old Fart

Well-known member
Q: Are the powers that be aware that it is wrong, or is manipulated?
(Perhaps some of both?)
I have no professional data experience. I constantly remind myself to use the word"data" as a plural .
Oh NO another LONGG answer from the Old Fart.....

My guess, and it's purely a guess, based upon experience, and little birdies speaking every so often, is that top up management (region, national) knows it's far from perfect but says it's "directionally correct" which means if you examine each piece, it may be incorrect, but what in total what the message says that the conclusions drawn from the data are right ones. (We know the individual incidents of backing may be wrong, but what we do know is backing up is being done and it's dangerous)

The outright fallacy of this is that when you put garbage in you get garbage out. In other words, if your foundation data isn't accurate, every conclusion from that data is inaccurate. Like a home foundation, if it's flawed, the rest of the structure won't have integrity.

Data can be manipulated by inputting information the person doing the input KNOWS is incorrect, but they are required to enter numbers to meet a requirement, or justify their job. (If a supervisor doesn't have time to do a field observation, they create such and enter the data which is all made up)

District and local management has to abide by whatever the numbers say, because that's what their boss is using to harass them. Nobody dares, during telecon, to say the data isn't right. The answer is usually "I'll take corrective action" and that gets the MPOO to move on to the next criminal. They may know it's not accurate, but their boss, and their peers, are abiding by it, so they have to as well. They work around it the best they can.

You EAS lurkers on here, you know there are what, 19 or so different programs where data is entered into each one separately, so numbers are generated from each program. The solution, though a very costly one, is to have ONE DATABASE and write every program to draw figures from that database. This would be a massive undertaking, because all new programs would need to be written, and the database populated and established. Massive job just to train tens of thousands of managers. The cost, the size, the scope has deterred the Post Office from trying to move ahead with this plan. So we limp along best we can, and with the culture of "you're doing something wrong, and my data supports that" continues. (A fairly recent shift for rural pay was made as compensation is now in TACS, but not IRMS, where clock rings and city pay is recorded)

The Post Office is reactive, so the purpose of data at the District or local level is to point out broken rules or bad behavior. If they had very accurate data, they'd use it for the same purpose, so why invest in getting the real numbers?
 
Last edited:

Itstillfun

Well-known member
My guess, and it's purely a guess, based upon experience, and little birdies speaking every so often, is that top up management (region, national) knows it's far from perfect but says it's "directionally correct" which means if you examine each piece, it may be incorrect, but what in total what the message says that the conclusions drawn from the data are right ones.

The outright fallacy of this is that when you put garbage in you get garbage out. In other words, if your foundation data isn't accurate, every conclusion from that data is inaccurate. Like a home foundation, if it's flawed, the rest of the structure won't have integrity.

District and local management has to abide by whatever the numbers say, because that's what their boss is using to harass them. Nobody dares, during telecon, to say the data isn't right. The answer is usually "I'll take corrective action" and that gets the MPOO to move on to the next criminal. They may know it's not accurate, but their boss, and their peers, are abiding by it, so they have to as well. They work around it the best they can.

You EAS lurkers on here, you know there are what, 19 or so different programs where data is entered into each one separately, so numbers are generated from each program. The solution, though a very costly one, is to have ONE DATABASE
Old Farts words of wisdom. Is that Oz behind that curtain? It be Old Fart spewing free knowledge. The machine is fooling no one. All this runs on stamp sales and parcels? P
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
Went to union meeting, my office is a study office. Was told a few months ago that we were going to be getting the new scanners. Now at the meeting, we were told the P.O does not want to give us the scanners because RRECS will "be too costly" and they are going to pull the plug on it. No RRECS.
So having gone to this meeting, and NOW seeing the new thread about RRECS being back on.... what do you think now???? :unsure:

https://www.ruralmailtalk.com/threads/is-it-on-its-way-rrecs.9212/#post-138212
 
Top