REPORT ON MOST AND CAW WORK MEASUREMENT TRAINING

REPORT ON MOST AND CAW WORK MEASUREMENT TRAINING
FALL, 2000
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers recently sent activists on training in the Maynard
Operation Sequence Technique (MOST) work measurement system and we also participated in
the CAW Time Stud y Course which is offered to their activists by the national level of the Union
in the Spring and Fall at the Port Elgin Education Centre.
Sister Louise Jarret & Trevor Berry (AA Committee and National Work Measurement
Committee);
Deanna Nielson, (National Work Measurement Committee);
Carol Strasbourg (National Union Representative);
and Donald Lafleur, (4th National Vice-President);
were appointed to attend the MOST Training.
Brothers Yves Hénault (National Union Representative), and Donald Lafleur attended the CAW
Training Session.
MOST TRAINING:
The Union has been attempting to get MOST training for its activists for a long time now. The
National Work Measurement Committee presented a recommendation to the National Executive
Board in December 1999, as well as during the previous mandate. The courses were no longer
available in Canada and the training would be given in Pittsburgh unless the Union could ensure
that it would send at least 15 participants. During the AA process, the Corporation approached
the Union with a proposition that they would be getting Maynard to give the training in Basic
MOST in Ottawa and Vancouver. The Union agreed to send five members to be certified in
MOST. Certification must be renewed every 4 years and enables the person who is certified to
apply the MOST system of pre-determined time values to any job.
Because Canada Post has already used the MOST system in Project 176 for example, this
training will enable the Union to take a closer look at the elemental breakdown of those
standards. The Simplified 4 values soon to be presented to the Union will also be done in MOST,
as was the Mail Mobile Stop standard. We are also looking at integrating MOST into the
LCRMS & MSCWSS training. With time, this training will enable the Union to rely less on
engineers, and this will be of financial benefit to the Union.
2
What distinguishes the MOST system from all other pre-determined time systems is the fact that
there is no performance rating done when observations are done to develop standards. What
normally happens with other systems is that the engineer doing the observations must determine
the rate at which a worker is executing her or his work. This obviously is very subjective and is
often a bone of contention between management and the Union. For example, if the engineers
representing management decide that an operator is working at 80%, then the standards to be
developed will be reduced by 20% when the final assessment is done. If the trained Union
Observer evaluates the same operator’s work pace as being at 105% for example then the parties
have a problem before the standards can even be developed. The MOST system , which finds its
roots in the Methods-Time Measurement (MTM), was developed by merging the findings of
both, Frederick Taylor (TIME STUDY) & Frank & Lillian Gilbreth (MOTION STUDY). These
types of systems are referred to as pre-determined motion time system (PMTS). By combining
these systems performance rating was no longer required. What distinguishes the MOST from
MTM or BMT Basic Motion Time Study which is the system that was used by the Corporation
in the sixties is mainly that the system’s application is very straight forward and quite simple
once the general rules of application are understood.
On the evaluation sheet my answer to the question of whether this training would be useful
within our organization was that I felt this training could be beneficial to all members.
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS TIME STUDY TRAINING:
During the week of November 19 - 24, 2000, Brother Yves Hénault and I attended the CAW
Time Study Course in Port Elgin. The experience was worth every minute.
The instructors were Brothers Bob Hamilton, a retired CAW member, and David Ireland, a
Chrysler Plant worker. Both are very knowledgeable and they are good instructors.
We began by learning about the use of a stopwatch , and as a matter of fact, much of the course
focussed on practicing to work with a stop watch. Although the big three car makers use predetermined time standards, Chrysler uses MOST, Ford uses MODAPTS (Modular Arranged Predetermined Time Systems) and General Motors uses GM Standard Data, the stopwatch is often
used to challenge the application of the systems without challenging the actual pre-determined
standards. This enables the Union to gain additional time to do the work.
The CAW also puts a great deal of emphasis on performance rating, which is often a bone of
contention between the parties, as I have explained above.
We spent a bit of time on allowances which was interesting to us because our system has a 7%
fatigue allowance. There are four types of allowances, the first being personal allowance, such as
getting a drink of water, going to the restroom or washing hands, usually between 10 and 20% of
a workday. If we take all of our breaks then for the external group this adds up to 63.35 minutes
3
a day for full- timers and we end up at 13.2%. The second allowance being the fatigue factor,
such as the 7% that is added to every standard in the LCRMS & MSCWSS. The third is a delay
allowance which gives the worker time to replenish stock. The fourth being a special allowance
for such duties as lubricating equipment.
The history of work measurement is also part of this course and CUPW will be able to
incorporate some of CAW`s material into its work measurement courses. The instructors put
some emphasis on the fact that people like Frederick Taylor and the Gilbreth`s did the leg work
in developing work measurement systems, but the reality is that they were funded by big
business in their ever- lasting efforts to increase profits, which I think is a reality that must be
made clear to participants in this type of training.
The CAW has within its ranks members who were trained in ergonomics (FITTING THE JOB
TO THE WORKER). Their Union work is centred around these types of issues. A segment of
this course was on ergonomics and the CAW also offers a five day course. The Auto Workers
also have Work Measurement Union reps trained and paid by management.
Brother David Robertson, Director of Education for CAW, came to do the segment on collective
agreement language. Most of the language was inherited from UAW. In the United States the
Labour Code allows workers to strike at any time unless specifically prohibited under the guise
of essential services. The UAW has maintained in their collective agreements the right to strike
for health and safety and work standard violations. In Canada, we obviously do not have that
right in the labour code, but in negotiations with Chrysler the CAW was able to achieve language
that would give workers the right to strike at any time over health and safety or work standard
violations if the Canada Labour Code ever changes. We should negotiate this type of language in
our contract. As I put forth my report to the 1999 Convention, the Labour Movement in Canada
should be striving to get back the right to strike in between negotiation periods. A copy of the
most recent CAW collective agreements language on standards has been given to the AA
Committee Members and was also filed under file number 1491-V.
The standard that impacts letter carriers the most is the .0037 of a minute, per foot on a flat
surface, the walking standard. This amounts to 3.07 miles per hour. At that speed it would take
.185 of a minute to walk 50 feet. One of the exercises in the course consists of measuring 50 feet
on the floor and timing the participants while they are walking this distance. Every participant
was walking above the standard by as much as 180% which amounts to 5.53 miles an hour. This
is an excellent exercise to include in our work measurement courses because it is a very graphic
way to show how external workers have been lured into working too fast.
4
The experience was worthwhile for our Union. Yves and I suggested to CAW that we could
accommodate participants from their Union into our work measurement training if they feel it
might be helpful.
In Solidarity
Donald Lafleur
4th National Vice-President
DL:im
opeiu 225
DELETE AFTER HERE
P.S. Reports of the other participants are attached.
DATE :
Le 4 novembre 2000
DEST. :
Donald Lafleur
4e vice-président national
EXP. :
Louise Jarret
Vice-présidente, section locale de Montréal
OBJET :
Formation MOST (Maynard Operation Sequence Technique)
Durant la semaine du 25 au 29 septembre 2000, le confrère Carol Strasbourg et moi avons eu la
chance de se joindre à vous et de participer à un cours MOST.
Cette séance de formation nous a permis de comprendre comment on mesure une tâche et
comment on peut établir une norme en observant l’exécution d’une tâche.
Voici un point important à noter dans le cours MOST de base : c’est le travail et non le
rendement du travailleur ou de la travailleuse qui fait l’objet de la mesure. Une fois qu’on a
compris les règles générales, le système est relativement simple à appliquer.
Don Hockman de Philadelphie (Pennsylvanie) était l’animateur et je me dois de souligner son
professionalisme et sa grande patience (il lui a parfois fallu répéter des explications que mon
« oreille française » ne parvenait pas à saisir).
Il importe de noter ce qui suit :
En décembre 1999, le Comité national de la mesure du travail a soumis une recommandation au
Conseil exécutif national dans laquelle il indiquait combien il était important que le Syndicat en
apprenne davantage sur la « mesure du travail » et qu’il envoie des membres du Comité, y
compris des membres élus du bureau national (qui s’occupent des manuels du SOSTCSP et du
SMIF), suivre une formation sur le sujet le plus tôt possible.
Cette recommandation a été mise en application lorsque nous nous sommes rendus compte
combien il pouvait être onéreux de retenir les services de spécialistes externes et combien les
économies pouvaient être importantes si nous, le Syndicat, avions un nombre suffisant de
membres formés dans le domaine de la mesure du travail.
Jusqu’ici quatre membres ont obtenu leur accréditation et, si je comprends bien, vous suivrez un
cours sur le chronométrage qui sera donné par les TCA dans les semaines à venir.
Peut-être pourrez-vous comparer les deux cours et nous en faire une brève analyse lors de la
prochaine réunion du Comité?
Enfin, nous voudrons peut-être examiner la possibilité d’élaborer notre propre cours par
l’entremise du Service d’éducation. Nous pourrions ainsi rejoindre le plus grand nombre possible
de membres et partager nos connaissances nouvellement acquises, étant donné que l’employeur
présentera sûrement au Syndicat les valeurs relatives aux quatre produits simplifiés d’ici peu.
Solidarité,
Louise Jarret
Comité de l’annexe AA
STTP
ab/scfp 1979
REPORT : MOST TRAINING - VANCOUVER 16-20 OCTOBER, 2000
As you are aware, the Union asked me to come to Ottawa in early 1990 to assist
with Project 176. At that time, no one in the Union was aware of MOST, a predetermined time measurement system that CPC had used to replace some 82 work
standards that had originally been established through/BMT measurements.
From that point, I have tried to self educate on this system, so that I could better
represent the members. As a member of both the NEB and Workload Structuring
committee, I have long advocated that the Union seek to bring this expertise inhouse, by training activists in MOST, and lessening our reliance on using costly
outside experts.
What I learned in these five days only reinforces these conclusions. In part, I am
angry at my own inability before now to figure out some of the political aspects of
CPC’s manipulation of this system. But rather than dwell on past errors the Union
has made, I will simply make the following points :
§ It is very likely that none of the 176 standards are valid, and we should review
them in more detail. The course instructor, a former Union member, advised me
that Stevenson-Kellogg, H.B. Maynard’s Canadian partner and the ocmpany
that produced the 176 standards for CPC, were dumped in the belief that they
were manipulating the system. A classic example is the A32 sort standard,
wherein no lower body movement is provided for.
§ CPC didn’t use MOST for walking because MOST counts steps; it doesn’t
measure distances because an operator carrying a load will shorten their pace to
accommodate the wright. MOST also gives the same credit for walking on
stairs as it does to walking on flat surfaces, contradicting the current CPC
regime of less credit for stairs.
§ At the Richard arbitration, CPC’s App. V evidence included their intention to
hire more Industrial Engineers; they have done so and have now trained a
number of them in MOST in the two recent courses. Obviously, they intend to
apply more MOST, perhaps even to some Group 1 activities?
§ Purolator Engineers were also recently trained in MOST by Maynard,
information we should pass to the Teamsters.
§ Notwithstanding the CAW/CLC troubles, we need to pursue collaboration with
CAW on education, training and ergonomic job design issues, particularly as
these matters relate to MOST. Chrysler uses this system in their operations, and
the boss pays for the training of Union stewards in MOST. CAW also provided
additional union training in the system at Port Elgin.
2
§ While I am not certain of the complete validity of the old adage ``knowledge
power`` I know that personally, I am much more confident in my understanding
of a work measurement tool that has dramatic consequences for our member`
working lives. This investment, therefore, is invaluable. I feel fully able to
validate standards created by others, and to develop standards from scratch. Of
some 39 critical issues identified in the AA process, 26 relate to work standards.
Certainly, the Union needs to have a sufficient number of MOST trained
activists to effectively represent the members, and, to closely collaborate with
postal and other Unions dealing with such systems to maximize our ability to
the end. Finally, we should explore other, related training opportunities, such as
ErgoMOST, for its relevance to our work.
In Solidarity
Trevor Berry
November 17, 2000
Donald Lafleur
4th National Vice-President - CUPW
RE:
MOST WORK MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
I attended the MOST Course in Vancouver from October 16-20, 2000. Myself and Treevor Berry
were the only CUPW members in attendance. There were 7 CPC Engineers, whose experience
with CPC ranged from 2 weeks to 16 years. Plus, one other CPC employee. since 1976, who said
he worked on special projects.
I really enjoyed this course - which was mainly of a Math and Physics content. I did very well in
Math in school - so thought this would be a piece of cake. By the end of the third day of classes,
my brain was fried, just as the instructor, Don Hockman had warned. The exam took me 5 ½
hours to write - it was gruelling. The passing mark was 75%, I scored 86% - which was a
disappointment for myself.
Don Hockman was an excellent instructor. He was very patient and very adamant that Health &
Safety play a major role when using the MOST measurement system. He made the class
interesting (hard to do when your talking math).
I would like to have seen some of CPC’s RMO’s taking this course - think this would be an eye
opener for them (I’m thinking of the constant bending that a Letter Carrier does and the time
values we should be having for that).
I found this course hard, challenging and interesting. I would have liked to have had a bit more
class time though.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to attend this course. I appreciate it, muchly.
Deanna Nielsen
Chief Steward - Letter Carriers
Edmonton Local
Le 8 décembre 2000
December 8, 2000
Objet :
Re : Report on MOST training October
25-29, 2000
Rapport sur formation MOST
reçue du 25 au 29 octobre 2000
À QUI DE DROIT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
Si je puis résumer mon expérience après
avoir suivi le cours de MOST, en un mot se
serait, « intéressant ».
If I could sum up my experience following
the MOST course, in one word it would be
“interesting”.
Mon but, lorsque j’ai accepté de suivre le
cours de MOST, étais d’approfondir mes
connaissances en mesure de travail et ce
cours m’a donné exactement ce que je
voulais.
My goal when I accepted to follow this
course was to deepen my knowledge in
work measurement and this course sure did
that.
J’ai souvent entendu l’employeur dire qu’il
utilisait le système MOST pour mesurer
notre travail et je voulais savoir ce que cela
étais.
I often heard the employer say that they
used the MOST system to measure our
work and I wanted to know what it was.
Je suis persuadé que certaines, sinon toutes
les mesures du Projet 176, sont incorrectes.
Peut être que nous devrions les vérifier !
I am certain that a majority and may all of
the measurements in Project 176 were
wrong. Maybe we should go back over
them !
J’ai reçu de ce cours exactement ce que je
voulais et je crois que tous les membres qui
sont intéressé par les mesures de travail
devraient recevoir cette formation.
I got from this course exactly what I wanted
and I think that every member who is
interested in work measurements should
take this course.
Pour ce qui est du cours lui- même, il est très
difficile. Rendu à la troisième journée,
j’avais le cerveau en bouillies ! Mais j’ai
finalement compris les grands principes du
système MOST .
As for the course itself, it is very difficult.
On the third day, I felt that y brain was
mush ! But I finally understood the general
principles of the MOST system.
En conclusion, je crois que plus il y a de
membres qui reçoivent cette formation
moins l’employeur sera tenté de jouer avec
les chiffres. Il est important de noter que
dans ma classe, 95 p. cent des participants
In conclusion, I think that the more of our
members who take this course, the less the
employer will be tempted to play with the
numbers. It is important to note that in the
class I was in, 95 % of the participants were
dans ma classe, 95 p. cent des participants
venaient du côté de l’employeur.
class I was in, 95 % of the participants were
from the employer’s side.
Le 8 décembre 2000
December 8, 2000
Objet :
Re : Report on MOST training October
25-29, 2000
Rapport sur formation MOST
reçue du 25 au 29 octobre 2000
À QUI DE DROIT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
Si je puis résumer mon expérience après
avoir suivi le cours de MOST, en un mot se
serait, « intéressant ».
If I could sum up my experience following
the MOST course, in one word it would be
“interesting”.
Mon but, lorsque j’ai accepté de suivre le
cours de MOST, étais d’approfondir mes
connaissances en mesure de travail et ce
cours m’a donné exactement ce que je
voulais.
My goal when I accepted to follow this
course was to deepen my knowledge in
work measurement and this course sure did
that.
J’ai souvent entendu l’employeur dire qu’il
utilisait le système MOST pour mesurer
notre travail et je voulais savoir ce que cela
étais.
I often heard the employer say that they
used the MOST system to measure our
work and I wanted to know what it was.
Je suis persuadé que certaines, sinon toutes
les mesures du Projet 176, sont incorrectes.
Peut être que nous devrions les vérifier !
I am certain that a majority and may all of
the measurements in Project 176 were
wrong. Maybe we should go back over
them !
J’ai reçu de ce cours exactement ce que je
voulais et je crois que tous les membres qui
sont intéressé par les mesures de travail
devraient recevoir cette formation.
I got from this course exactly what I wanted
and I think that every member who is
interested in work measurements should
take this course.
Pour ce qui est du cours lui- même, il est très
difficile. Rendu à la troisième journée,
j’avais le cerveau en bouillies ! Mais j’ai
finalement compris les grands principes du
système MOST .
As for the course itself, it is very difficult.
On the third day, I felt that y brain was
mush ! But I finally understood the general
principles of the MOST system.
En conclusion, je crois que plus il y a de
membres qui reçoivent cette formation
moins l’employeur sera tenté de jouer avec
les chiffres. Il est important de noter que
In conclusion, I think that the more of our
members who take this course, the less the
employer will be tempted to play with the
numbers. It is important to note that in the
les chiffres. Il est important de noter que
dans ma classe, 95 p. cent des participants
venaient du côté de l’employeur.
numbers. It is important to note that in the
class I was in, 95 % of the participants were
from the employer’s side.
Carol Strasbourg
Permanent syndical national
National Union Representative
CS/jg
siepb-opeiu 225
RAPPORT DE YVES HÉNAULT
Permanent syndical à l’éducation
Sujet :
Cours sur la mesure au travail des T.C.A. à Port Elgin
Comme vous le savez, dans la semaine du 19 au 24 novembre 2000, j’ai participé, avec le
confrère Donald Lafleur, 4e Vice-président national, à un cours sur la mesure du travail (time
study) mis en oeuvre par les T.C.A. à Port Elgin.
Notre participation avait comme objectif d’identifier ce que nos deux syndicats avaient en
commun au sujet des mesures du travail et de ce qu’ont pouvaient apprendre l’un de l’autre dans
ce domaine.
Durant cette semaine, nous avons eu la chance d’analyser différentes facettes des systèmes
de mesure du trava il, telles que :
Ø divers aspects du chronométrage
Ø examiner différentes tables de conversions
Ø comment analyser les éléments de séparations des mouvements et les unités de mesure
possibles pour chacun de ces mouvements (separating elements)
Ø les évaluations du pourcentage de productivité et de déplacement
Ø l’analyse de différents systèmes d’évaluation de mesure du travail (T.M.U. – time measure
unit) comme, par exemple : système MOST, MODAPTS, GM Standard Data, etc.)
Ø Les stratégies des déléguées et délégué s syndicaux à propos de la mobilisation, pour une
productivité uniforme.
Ø nous avons aussi traité d’ergonomie et de santé-sécurité
Nous avons conclu la semaine par un examen qui consistait à dresser le plan d’un
environnement de travail et d’en chronométrer les mouvements, les déplacements du travailleur
ou de la travailleuse à l’intérieur de cet environnement de travail afin de déterminer une
moyenne équitable pour chacune des travailleuses et travailleurs assujettis à ces mêmes
fonctions.
Il est incontestable que cette semaine d’évaluation nous a permis d’échanger et comparer
nos différentes expériences en rapport avec la mesure du travail et la productivité avec nos
consoeurs et confrères des T.C.A. Dans cet ordre d’idées, nous avons constater que nous avons
un point en commun « la surcharge de travail ».
Pour terminer, ce fut une semaine très profitable dans le sens que nous avons retenu
certains sujets et activités qui ont un lien direct avec nos cours du SMIF et du SOSCSP, dans
lesquels nous pourrons incorporer ces activités et sujets dans nos deux futurs versions.
Si vous avez des questions concernant cette semaine d’éducation ou pour le contenu du
cours, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec moi.
Solidarité,
Yves Hénault
Permanent syndical national
/jg
siepb 225