UPSide Down Brown

The last reported annual revenue of UPSide Down Brown was an impressive $54 billion+. The company formerly known as Federal Express, on the other hand, “only” notched about $43.86 billion. At first glance, one is likely to think that UPSide Down Brown might be the more dominant of the two companies. But with further examination, something quite phenomenal can be seen. Despite the fact that UPSide Down Brown made $10 billion dollars more in revenue than the company formerly known as Federal Express, still manages to bring in a greater profit. The net income reported by the company formerly known as Federal Express was $1.80 billion compared with $874 million for UPSide Down Brown.  What’s up with that? This, without a doubt, clearly shows that the company formerly known as Federal Express is providing greater value to shareholders. Hence their greater earnings per share of 5.71 compared with the humbling 0.90 for UPSide Down Brown.

In the past several years, UPSide Down Brown has seen net income jumping around somewhat unpredictably. It has fallen and risen numerous times, and currently seems to be spiraling downward. The company formerly known as Federal Express, on the other hand, took only one tumble around 2008-2009, and has otherwise experienced consistent and impressive growth, which seems to be a pattern that is currently active for the company.

An UPSide Down Brown Senior Supervisor at the Brooksville Florida Service Center knowingly supplied his keys and information that led to the theft of thousands of dollars in high value goods waiting to be shipped to Central Florida customers, according to a police statement.

The thefts occurred on December 23 and March 17 at the facility at 7230 Broad Street in Brooksville “by an unknown suspect(s) who used a key to enter the business, business office, and safe, used to store high value items…”

After a six-month investigation, investigators determined that Mr. Scott Astringer of Spring Hill was actually behind the burglaries.

According to his statement,  Mr. Astringer, 39, planned, organized and assisted in the commission of the crimes.  Investigators say he supplied his keys to the facility along with information including times, locations and staffing levels so the suspects, could gain entry into the facility completely undetected.

Mr. Astringer was arrested at the UPSide Down Brown facility where he worked. He was charged with burglary and grand theft.

When our hotel van arrived at the Ramada Inn just north of the DFW airport, we found a large UPSide Down Brown van parked up against the front entrance and blocking our way to the lobby.   Our driver pulled up to the left and in front of the UPSide Down Brown van leaving about 10 feet of space between vehicles.   We got out and I put down my computer bag to retrieve my roller bag.   Both the van driver and I looked up just in time to see the UPSide Down Brown truck pull out without clearing the area and running over the bag, which contained among other things, my IPAD 2!

I tracked down the driver before he drove off and he gave me the name and phone number of his supervisor.  All the UPSide Down Brown supervisors, with whom I subsequently conversed, were very polite, friendly and almost apologetic.  But the bottom line was, my case was sent on to LM insurance.  The agent denied my claim without collecting any information from the witness, looking at any diagrams or taking any photos.

She was obviously intent on denying me no matter how legitimate the claim.  The UPSide Down Brown supervisors said “their hands were tied” as the matter now belonged to LM insurance.  Thus they had a nice little racquet going.  They hand the matter off to the Insurance Company, who denies the claim.  It is a win win for UPSide Down Brown and their Insurance Company!   A big loss for me!

I wrote a letter to LM insurance with two concerns.  One was the injustice of denying my legitimate claim.  The second was in the dangerous operation by the driver.  He simply did not clear the area on his left before driving off.  I think he may have entered the van from the right hand door.  There could have been a child in a car seat or a toddler standing in the place where my computer bag was!  That would have been a real tragedy instead of property damage.

I still haven’t heard back.

The US Department of Transportation’s FAA  last week proposed a $4 million civil penalty against express freight group UPSide Down Brown  for allegedly improperly maintaining four cargo aircraft in of Louisville, KY, and then operating them when they were not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations. UPSide Down Brown has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s civil penalty letter to respond to the agency.

The FAA alleges that UPSide Down Brown failed to follow FAA-approved procedures for making structural repairs to two DC-8 aircraft and two MD-11 aircraft. UPSide Down Brown operated the four planes on more than 400 flights between October 2008 and June 2009. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said:

“The aviation industry knows that we take safety very seriously. Air carriers must comply with federal regulations to ensure aircraft are maintained to the highest level of safety.”

These violations stem from UPSide Down Brown’s failure to fully comply with the terms of a consent agreement in which the carrier agreed to inspect all aircraft in its fleet and compare actual repairs with maintenance records. This would have ensured the four aircraft were in compliance with the regulations. An FAA Administrator Michael Huerta commented:

“No aircraft should leave the ground until the operator has made all necessary repairs, and made them according to the correct procedures.”

Despite ample opportunity to respond, UPSide Down Brown remains silent on the matter, despite issuing several press releases since the FAA statement nothing relevant has been heard from the company.

Guess who lost a seven-year contract with the U.S. Postal Service valued at about $10.5 billion to carry mail between U.S. airports? It was UPSide Down Brown.

The new accord to fly Express Mail and Priority Mail starts in October once the current contract ends. The Memphis, Tennessee-based company didn’t give details beyond the value and length of the agreement.

The contract locks in the business with the Postal Service and erases concern that it would lose some work to UDB as the USPS mail carrier restructures after years of losses. Now guess who has a larger U.S. air network and already has the labor and assets to handle Postal Service volume, most of which is processed during the day after the company’s premium overnight packages and documents have been cleared.

UPSide Down Brown’s management apparently doesn’t realize they must actually compete.

There can be a lot of obstacles UPSide Down Brown needs to overcome in its efforts to deliver packages — no one is home, the address is wrong — but one might think there’s some kind of policy regarding who can send a package back where it came from. One might think that only the intended recipient can return a package to sender, but as Karen found it, that isn’t always the case.

Karen said that she had been waiting for a package from a retailer when something interesting and confusing popped up on the tracking page for the item. It suddenly showed that the package had been refused when UPSide Down Brown tried to deliver it while she was at work one morning, and then again later in the evening.

After a chat, an UPSide Down Brown representative assured her someone would call her by the end of day, and no one did (can you imagine that) she called UPSide Down Brown up directly to get to the bottom of the situation.

“When I got through, I was basically told that someone must have refused the package. I informed the lady on the phone that I live alone, was at work at the time the package was ‘refused’ and so that wasn’t possible,” said Karen.

The rep kept insisting that “We deliver to a location, not a person, so if we go to that location and someone refuses the package, the driver sends it back.”

When the rep suggested that perhaps a neighbor had gotten involved, an alarm bell sounded for Karen.Why would a neighbor, or anyone else for that matter, be able to refuse her package? That couldn’t be what UPSide Down Brown was saying. Or could it? (Well yes it was)

“So if you turn up at my house and there’s a random homeless person sitting on the doorstep who says ‘naaah, she doesn’t want that,’ the driver returns it to the sender?” Karen says she asked the customer service rep, who replied, “Yes, ma’am.”

Karen adds that UPSide Down Brown didn’t apologize for what would appear to be its mistake, and as it goes with these situations, of course the package never made it back to the retailer.

“I would have been out $90 except the retailer refunded my money, with a profuse apology for something that was clearly not their fault. Apparently any old passer-by can dictate what can happen to your UPSide Down Brown packages, if they happen to be near your house at the time.”

In its final week of the session, the Maryland’s General Assembly is poised to pass new protections for pregnant workers.

The legislation was prompted by the case of an UPSide Down Brown driver from Landover, Maryland.  UPSide Down Brown denied her request for lighter duty when she became pregnant, and she eventually lost her job. Now, the Maryland House and Senate are coming to the rescue.

Mr. Tom Hucker from Silver Springs sponsored legislation to ensure basic workplace accommodations.

“All employers have to grant reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers who request such accommodations,” Hucker said, “That might be a bottle of water so they can stay hydrated; it might be a chair if they’re on their feet all day.”

This legislation also requires employers to make minor adjustments to work schedules and duties for pregnant women who request them.

The legislation should make it easier for women to keep working during their pregnancies, Mr. Hucker said, “This is good for employers as well, because it keeps productive workers on the job as long as possible during their pregnancies.”

The House and Senate have given preliminary approval to the legislation. Final passage is expected this week.

UPSide Down Brown will forfeit $40 million to the US government that it collected from pharmacies over seven years for delivering drugs that were illegally purchased online without a prescription, federal prosecutors in San Francisco indicated Friday.

The agreement allows the UDB to avoid prosecution. In a joint statement, UDB acknowledged it had been on notice that some of the pharmacies were violating the law, but did not close their accounts. Greedy, Greedy!

The sales took place across the country from 2003 to 2010. According to the statement by both sides, company officials met with federal law enforcement agencies five times from 2004 through 2006 to discuss UDB role in stopping the illegal Internet pharmacies.

A UDB officials testified twice to Congress, in 2004 and 2005, that the Atlanta company was making sure it was not shipping illegally sold medicines or drugs. (Just another little white lie.  Hell no, that’s a huge deadly lie!!)

At the same time, the joint statement said, a marketing supervisor was discussing sales opportunities from online pharmacies, “both legit and not legit,” and UDB shipped packages for one pharmacy for more than a year after authorities ordered it shut down. (Why would UDB stop when easy money is involved?)

Prosecutors said UDB had cooperated with the investigation and had taken steps to guard against future illegal shipments.  So what are those steps?

“Good corporate citizens like UDB play an important role in halting the flow of illegal drugs,” U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag said in a statement.  (That’s a laugh, now isn’t it)

John Roth, Director of Criminal Investigations at the USDA, predicted the case would lead to “a significant transformation of illicit Internet pharmacy shipping and distribution practices.”

UDB, in a statement, said it has “an obligation and responsibility to help curb the sale and shipment of drugs sold through illegal Internet pharmacies.” You really think??

A Seattle Sushi Restaurant takes on what they see as an                                         injustice by UPSide Down Brown

Posted since December on the front window of Aoki Sushi on Capitol Hill is a sign by owner Hitoshi Nishitani of what he thinks of UDB.  Aoki Sushi has been in business at this location for over twenty years and has served customers like Microsoft founder Bill Gates and actor Paul Newman as well as thousands of locals and tourists over the years.  Simple and authentic cuisine, the restaurant is a well known landmark with a dedicated Sushi Chef so I really took notice when the restaurant kept posting their sign regarding the damaged box. Just like their sushi, they are serious. Like any straight forward business, when you receive a package from an established delivery service, you naturally assume it will be in one piece.  Apparently that is not always the case. The owner has put on display in the front of the restaurant the actual glass case that was broken and damaged by UPSide Down Brown.

Your Basic Discrimination Case

A federal court jury in Midland, Texas, has awarded a $600,000 verdict against UPSide Down Brown (UDB) in a sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a former driver for the giant package carrier.

The verdict represents the culmination of a four-year legal battle between Odessa resident Amber Ibarra and Atlanta-based company. The company fired Ms. Ibarra in 2009 after she was involved in an on-the-job single-vehicle accident, although she argued that the accident was simply an excuse, and that she actually was fired because she is a woman. The jury  actually agreed, awarding a six-figure verdict against UDB.

“We always felt that if we could get a jury of Amber’s peers to hear this case, to hear what happened to her, and how she was treated, we would be fine,” says Midland attorney Ms. Williams of the Williams Law Firm, who represented Ms. Ibarra at trial along with attorney Mr. Carney. “The jurors agreed with us that women should be treated equally in the workplace, and I believe they intended to send a message with their verdict.”

In the 2009 accident, Ms. Ibarra was driving a UDB delivery van when it hopped a curb and hit a telephone pole, causing no injuries. Trial witnesses testified that several male UDB drivers from the same facility were allowed to continue in their jobs despite being in far worse accidents, including two accidents involving fatalities and others involving serious injuries.

Trial testimony also showed that UDB managers gave Amber more deliveries than her male counterparts, including one incident when her manager set aside six 100 lbs. packages for Ms. Ibarra to deliver between 9:30 and 10 p.m. even though she was pregnant at the time.

Jurors also heard how Ms. Ibarra and other women at the local facility were subjected to a pattern of repeated insults and harassment based on their gender, including testimony that male managers did not want women working at UDB based on their perception that women were weaker and slower and because they had menstrual cycles.