Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by westsideworma, Feb 13, 2009.

  1. Any other management people get "trained" on that new bill thats likely to pass? There may have been a topic on this already but I couldn't find it so here we are. It seems like the company thinks we're going to unionize (PT Supes) because I took away that "UNIONS ARE BAD ETC" from it. I mean it did present both sides but it seemed to emphasize the non union side more (not that it was at all surprising). It was a 20 min slideshow (powerpoint). Just curious if anyone else got it and what you thought of it.
  2. Loco170Brownie

    Loco170Brownie New Member

    How would that work? Management is management. How would getting the jobs work? Would you have to go by time in or merit? How do the benefits work for the guys that have been there for years?

    Sounds like a bunch of smoke to me.

    If you have any sense and are a part time Sup at UPS get while the getting is good (Not that it is all that good right now). When the real cut backs happen who do you think goes first? The guys that move the packages or the guys that point at what packages to move?

    Look back to after the strike in MA, they cut back on the overloaded PT Sup jobs to save money, and bought out as many Full time Sups as they could.

    But then again if you are a PT Sup on the Preload in the Worcester building that means you work every day anyway because for some reason they can never hire enough people for the smallest shift in a full time building. :biting:
  3. I'm not really sure how it'd work either. I know there is a supe union in cali, I guess maybe if someone from there would post they could tell us how it would be set up?

    As for the supes working, believe it or not I can count the amount of times I've had to work so far on one hand (well this year haha). The drivers don't seem to mind if I load their cars (I used to load for all of them at one time or another in the west center) as I was pretty good at it.

    You from our building?
  4. kingOFchester

    kingOFchester Well-Known Member

    Since I have been more or less ostracized from BC for some of my views, my posts on the subject have been gone unnoticed.

    I have posted on this subject numerous times.

    Here is a opst that I posted a few days ago:
    "It's called the "Re-Empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Trades-workers". AKA the respect act. I brought this up b4. I am willing to bet this will be a big issue at UPS and BC before to long. In an nut shell, this Obama co-sponsored bill from 07 will change the wording of the National Labor Relations Act. It redefines who the NLRB consider to be a supervisor. It will ovorturn the "Kentucky River decision". In a not shell, anyone who spends less then 50% of their time hiring, firirng and promoting will be elgible to unuionize. I don't know any pt supes that spend more then 50% of their time doing these things. UPS has begun an offensive stance by aproaching PT supes and telling them that if this does pass, it would NOT be in their best intrest to unionize.

    This could change a lot for UPS and many many many other companies. Between this and the card check program, there certainly could be a huge increase in union members across the board. Good for Unions.....bad for compaines"
  5. sorry man haha but thanks for the informative post, I learned more from this than our official briefing (though it was the abridged version as it was during our presort meeting so that may be a factor).
  6. PobreCarlos

    PobreCarlos New Member


    I'm not sure ANY member of management - outside of some relatively low-level personnel interviewer, perhaps - would spend 50% or more of his/her time "hiring, firing and promoting"....that's simply not the prime function of management.

    Ask yourself...do you think that even the CEOs of UPS - past and present - ever spent close to 20% of their time "hiring, firing and promoting", let alone 50%?

    Seems to me that, unless there's a gross denial of reality (which, I'll readily admit, is something that, being Obama-sponsored, could easily fall in that category), this just wouldn't be a legal definition that would have much meaning.

    Beyond that, the present economic situation seems to be primarily one of those who create and maintain the jobs offered to labor in this country having lost confidence in the government...and I'm not too sure that the government is prepared at this time to antagonize job-givers further, and thus help them to decide to take even more of their employment opportunities offshore.
  7. JimJimmyJames

    JimJimmyJames Big Time Feeder Driver

    So, the corporations that have bought and paid for the government have lost confidence in their puppets? Can most service jobs in America be outsourced? Is there any manufacturing left to outsource (let's face it, manufacturing in America is a shadow of what it once was)? And finally, if companies do outsource all of their jobs who will be able to buy their services/products?

    When we Americans decided (or were conditioned to resign our fate to the forces of the "global economy") that it was acceptable practice for American companies to close down their US factories, reopen them in foreign countries (some of them who happen to be communist, what was that whole cold war thing about again?), and sell their products back to their unemployed (or underemployed, hello Walmart!) former workers, we choose a future that will be more like a third world nation (the few rich....and than everybody else) than the America of our grandparents. If you disgree, do you at least like massive run-on sentences?

    Unions and fair trade created the middle class, the middle class in turn created the wealthiest nation on earth.
  8. stevetheupsguy

    stevetheupsguy sʇǝʌǝʇɥǝndsƃnʎ

    Sorry you feel that way KOC, hope you'll start posting your views again.

    Don't really have any further input for this thread, but thought I'd let you know that I like your viewpoint, though I have disagreed with something you said once. Not everyone will agree with you, just something that happens around here. All part of being in the big "Brown" family.
  9. brownmonster

    brownmonster Man of Great Wisdom

    Well said, pretty much nails it. Too bad our political and business leaders don't get it.
  10. kingOFchester

    kingOFchester Well-Known Member

    That's the point. There is no one that really spends more thn 50% of their time doing the things that I have outlined above.

    Like I said there is a bill that Obama is a co-sponsor. He is also incharge of appointing the members of the NLRB.

    Personaly, pre Obama I would say that the "respect act had a zero chance of being passed as it is written. Now with the "change" we see, I am giving this a better then 50% chance of becoming a reality. I have a lot more on this bill, but being that my kids are with me this weekend, I will most likely not have time to post more on the subject.
  11. kingOFchester

    kingOFchester Well-Known Member

    Thanks STUG. As in life, people will have different views. Makes life a much more interesting place to live. :happy2:
  12. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    Enjoy your time with the kids--we'll still be here when they go back to their Mom's.
  13. kingOFchester

    kingOFchester Well-Known Member

  14. kingOFchester

    kingOFchester Well-Known Member

  15. chopstic

    chopstic New Member

    I'm with UPS on this one... management should remain non-union. Sups are always preaching about doing what's good for the company. well that time has now come. Time for you sups to eat your own words and do whats best for the company. If you unionize you would be major hippocrates.
  16. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Joining a union turns you into a doctor??
  17. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    Would they then have to take an "oath"?
  18. PobreCarlos

    PobreCarlos New Member


    Yes, most of the service jobs in America CAN be outsourced! In one way or another, many of them already have...take call centers, accounting services, data processing, etc. for example. No doubt many others will "outsource" (or leave) when the services they fulfill are no longer needed or sustainable in line with the rest of the nation's productivity, or rather lack thereof. The fact is that jobs will migrate toward labor that is more competitive...and, over the long run, no amount of legal artifice or union denial is going to change that fact. Now, whether that more competitive labor (and please DON'T read "more competitive" as "less well paid"...there's a VAST difference in the two terms!) is here in America, or somewhere else, is up to labor itself. And, in recent decades, non-union labor in this country has been fairly competitive (look at the unemployment rate even a few short months ago). Organized labor, on the other hand, has (overall - I'll grant there are exceptions...and that at UPS very much is one generally!) an abysmal failure.

    As for your question as to "who will be able to buy their services/products?", well the answer, of course, is those who ARE competitive and who ARE willing to put the effort out to earn them. It's not coincidence that the largest automotive market in the world last year was NOT the U.S., but rather China. Those who are willing to competitively earn goods and services will always be around to buy them off of those that offer them. Will organized U.S. labor be among those who can afford them? Questionable today. That's not "the puppets" fault...unless you consider "the puppets" those who are gullible enough to believe that, by virtue of taking a union pledge, they're worthy of getting a free ride out of life.

    As for the "choice" that was made, it seems to me that the "choice" consisted of the "organized" American worker thinking that, for some reason or another, he was owed a high standard of living simply because of being in existence. Unfortunately, those in other parts of the world chose not to automatically agree with him; they decided that they were willing to COMPETE to EARN their wherewithal...while the organized America worker insisted on biting the very hand that fed him.

    Want examples? Look no further than the American Axle strike of a few months back. EVERY knowledgeable responsible voice was screaming about just how vulnerable the American automotive industry (and the jobs it provided!) was....yet here are these "workers" who go out on strike at a company who's owner had previously made HUGE sacrifices in order to maintain their jobs, making damn sure they (virtually) spit in his face in the process. Result? Well, doesn't take a history major to figure that one out. Nor does one need a sixth sense to look backward at the consequences of the concurrent strike against GM's best selling model.

    Another example? Take a look at the Teamsters ongoing Oak Harbor Freight job action. Yet another might be the Teamsters/Red Star debacle of a couple of years or so ago. Want another? Look at Consolidated Freightways (and at it's non-union spin-off Conway...while sparing the fabricated rhetoric). And, as UPSers, how many here need to be reminded of the "wealth" that the Teamsters involvement with CSPF has "created" (and "yes", I'm being sarcastic)

    Similar stories - many, many, MANY of them - could be told over and over again to show that, far from "creating" the middle class in this country, or helping to "create" the wealthiest nation on earth, unions generally over the long term have worked to destroy the nation's wealth and it's middle class (and one might keep in mind that an artificially-created ersatz "middle class" isn't a true "middle class" at all; rather, just a group of welfare recipients being temporarily subsidized beyond what it's natural productive capacity would warrant). Doubt that declaration? If so, then why don't you explain to massive destruction suffered primarily by the most "organized" of the nation's industries; by the textile industry, the steel industry, the chemical industry, and the domestic auto industry - along with virtually every other "unionized" industry in this country. Even the vaunted Teamsters have been far from immune; look at the blurb memorializing Jimmy the Elder on the IBT's website today...and the number of those covered under the NFMA when he FIRST organized it. Then compare that number with what there are today. See a problem there? The jobs they once represented didn't go someplace else because job offerers want to screw the nation, or anything of the sort - they left because those that once held them didn't value them enough to want to compete for them; they figured that, somehow, the world would give them a free ride instead. Well, guess what....it proved-out that things don't quite work that way. Big surprise.
  19. gandydancer

    gandydancer New Member

    Pt supes are "management"? ROFL! They should be in a different union than the other hourlys, but they badly need a union.
  20. JimJimmyJames

    JimJimmyJames Big Time Feeder Driver

    American consumer demand (by our artificially-created ersatz "middle class"), fueled by a living standard created by capitalism but with an egalitarian distribution of wealth demanded by unionism created the opportunity for foreign nations (many with authoritarian social structures comprised of "have" and "have-nots") to prey on our working classes through the use of cheap labor and unsafe and environmentally unsound work practices. How were these foreign powers able to do this? They did it in collusion with our own goverment and our own corporations.

    This was working out for America while we still had living wage jobs to sustain our purchases. It happened over such a long period of time it was barely perceptible at first. Than the factories started to close down. Blue collar jobs were eliminated. We were told, "get retrained". Computers were the future! Than they started shipping the "tech" jobs overseas too. It was a great ride. But now we see what it has done to us economically. But if the American consumer is really not that important anymore, why is the world economy in the tank? If all those Americans, with good wages, healthcare benefits, pensions, safe and ecologically sound work environments are not needed anymore, why the current world economic malaise?

    The problem is that, as we are seeing now, the fantasy is crashing down around us. Where people had real wealth before in order to purchase items, now they have credit. And now that the artificial housing bubble has burst (the elites one last shot at creating wealth that we all now know was a ficition), the credit is gone too. To blame unionism, in essence to blame a society that places value in the idea of a "fair day's pay for a fair day's work", for our current predicament is entirely missplaced. It is the fact that we have abandoned the ideals of unionism that have us were we are today.

    To argue differently reminds me of George W. Bush's warning of falling for "protectionism and isolationalism". Ok, but since we haven't practiced neither in the past 60 odd years, how are these two ideals to be blamed for all that ails us? It is like blaming unionism, when hardly anybody anymore is in fact in a union.