Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
EFCA
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 482548" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Jim & Jones;</p><p> </p><p>Sorry guys, but I don't see the connection....nor do I think that hyperbole is ever going to provide me with any better look. By that I mean, of course, that I don't recall anyway asking you to have UPS "rescind all of [your] benefits and to lower [your] pay...overtime pay especially needs to be eliminated", do you? In fact, in my comments wasn't there a specific "UPS" exclusion? Beyond that, do you recall the comments about working more COMPETIVELY, rather than for [automatically] less compensation? Or did I just spit in the wind when I spoke in that direction?</p><p> </p><p>Furthermore, are either one of you under the assumption that UNIONS gave you the "benefits", "pay", and other stuff mentioned? Did the unions do right by their textile industry members? Or their steel industry brothers? What about domestic automotive...guess that's a thriving area with jobs more than abundant for members offspring, right? Or take the Teamsters own LTL trucking....after all, what's the big deal with losing NINE OUT OF TEN of their members' jobs? Gosh, haven't unions been valuable for their American members....or at least those that - before they had their jobs frittered away - WERE members!</p><p> </p><p>In that line, people seem to forget that more Teamster members had jobs BEFORE Jimmy Sr. took office decades ago than have jobs today...and that most of them were in the transportation industry, and not "bedknobs and broomstick" server types of jobs that the union primarily has "organized" today. And that says nothing, of course, of the UPS growth over the period...growth which today is pretty much is the sole salvation of the Teamsters union.</p><p> </p><p>Lastly [and here it gets back to potentially a lack of "reading" again], you seem to be presupposing that it's only "you" [read "the American worker"] who can buy things as a result of their labor? Didn't you read the factoid I presented that, in 2008 (for the first time, BTW) the USA was *NOT* the largest automobile market (in terms of units sold), but rather that CHINA was? You see, corporations, companies - heck, individual owners - don't really care "who" a legitimate buyer is, as long there *is* one. And, obviously, over the long haul, the "buyers" are going to be those that work the most efficiently and competitively to earn the wherewithal to buy things. There's no law - particularly any natural law - that says it has to be the "workers" in the U.S. If the efficient labor is found elsewhere, then it won't be long before the consumer market follows...as sure as day follows night.</p><p> </p><p>Not particularly enthralled with that imperative myself...but I'm realistic enough to understand that no amount of cynicism and/or denial of reality it going to change it.</p><p> </p><p>But "heh", if that's the path you choose to go, then so be it. I'm just suggesting that you ought to be prepared to join the long line of previous followers who found themselves on the short end of the stick.</p><p> </p><p>"Sixteen tons, and what do you get?" Well, one might remember that the next line - as depressing as it might sound - is "another day older and deeper in debt".....the point being that, without that "16 tons", there *ISN'T* another day, and there *AREN'T* wages to support that "debt". Remember, no one FORCED that miner to "load that coal"; rather, he did it of his own free will. If he thought he had the capacity and personal resources to do it HIS way, instead of the company's, there wasn't anything stopping him....except, again, what might be his personal lackings. (in that light, one might recall what the advent of "unionization" did to the coal industry and the thousands upon thousands of jobs it once provided. Haven't read "Atlas Shrugged" recently...but I do recall the ultimate point of "Night Comes To The Cumberlands")</p><p> </p><p>It's easy to 'cuss and discuss the job givers. However, it's a sight more difficult to find a replacement for them....especially those who count of them for the very economic existence of they and their families. Given that, it just doesn't make a sense to me that so-called "organized labor" seems bound and determined to chase them away. What is it, I wonder, that they propose to replace them with?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 482548, member: 16651"] Jim & Jones; Sorry guys, but I don't see the connection....nor do I think that hyperbole is ever going to provide me with any better look. By that I mean, of course, that I don't recall anyway asking you to have UPS "rescind all of [your] benefits and to lower [your] pay...overtime pay especially needs to be eliminated", do you? In fact, in my comments wasn't there a specific "UPS" exclusion? Beyond that, do you recall the comments about working more COMPETIVELY, rather than for [automatically] less compensation? Or did I just spit in the wind when I spoke in that direction? Furthermore, are either one of you under the assumption that UNIONS gave you the "benefits", "pay", and other stuff mentioned? Did the unions do right by their textile industry members? Or their steel industry brothers? What about domestic automotive...guess that's a thriving area with jobs more than abundant for members offspring, right? Or take the Teamsters own LTL trucking....after all, what's the big deal with losing NINE OUT OF TEN of their members' jobs? Gosh, haven't unions been valuable for their American members....or at least those that - before they had their jobs frittered away - WERE members! In that line, people seem to forget that more Teamster members had jobs BEFORE Jimmy Sr. took office decades ago than have jobs today...and that most of them were in the transportation industry, and not "bedknobs and broomstick" server types of jobs that the union primarily has "organized" today. And that says nothing, of course, of the UPS growth over the period...growth which today is pretty much is the sole salvation of the Teamsters union. Lastly [and here it gets back to potentially a lack of "reading" again], you seem to be presupposing that it's only "you" [read "the American worker"] who can buy things as a result of their labor? Didn't you read the factoid I presented that, in 2008 (for the first time, BTW) the USA was *NOT* the largest automobile market (in terms of units sold), but rather that CHINA was? You see, corporations, companies - heck, individual owners - don't really care "who" a legitimate buyer is, as long there *is* one. And, obviously, over the long haul, the "buyers" are going to be those that work the most efficiently and competitively to earn the wherewithal to buy things. There's no law - particularly any natural law - that says it has to be the "workers" in the U.S. If the efficient labor is found elsewhere, then it won't be long before the consumer market follows...as sure as day follows night. Not particularly enthralled with that imperative myself...but I'm realistic enough to understand that no amount of cynicism and/or denial of reality it going to change it. But "heh", if that's the path you choose to go, then so be it. I'm just suggesting that you ought to be prepared to join the long line of previous followers who found themselves on the short end of the stick. "Sixteen tons, and what do you get?" Well, one might remember that the next line - as depressing as it might sound - is "another day older and deeper in debt".....the point being that, without that "16 tons", there *ISN'T* another day, and there *AREN'T* wages to support that "debt". Remember, no one FORCED that miner to "load that coal"; rather, he did it of his own free will. If he thought he had the capacity and personal resources to do it HIS way, instead of the company's, there wasn't anything stopping him....except, again, what might be his personal lackings. (in that light, one might recall what the advent of "unionization" did to the coal industry and the thousands upon thousands of jobs it once provided. Haven't read "Atlas Shrugged" recently...but I do recall the ultimate point of "Night Comes To The Cumberlands") It's easy to 'cuss and discuss the job givers. However, it's a sight more difficult to find a replacement for them....especially those who count of them for the very economic existence of they and their families. Given that, it just doesn't make a sense to me that so-called "organized labor" seems bound and determined to chase them away. What is it, I wonder, that they propose to replace them with? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
EFCA
Top