Financial Analyst: Teamsters Agreement Bad Deal for UPS.

[Superteeth2478]

Well…. Uhhh… hmmm… sorry yea I can expect 75$. Don’t let your lack of imagination hold you back brother
And it’s just not expecting that, that is how much I got paid 15 years ago in real money. The same house I bought would have a payment more the 2.5x what my payment is currently. That would be right about 80$ an hour to be samsies. Ups shipping rates have also double since then.

Wait...what? Am I reading this correctly? You correlate housing prices to driver wages and then determine that it's the company's job to make sure you make enough money to buy a house with your wages?

With that reasoning, the cheapest Lamborghini in 1982 was just shy of $100,000, the Lamborghini Countach, so the company should have to double my pay rate so I can buy the cheapest Lamborghini in 2023 (which is the Lamborghini Huracan, just north of $200,000).

Because then we're "samesies". Absolutely ridiculous reasoning. It's like punishing the company for inflation. The only way the company should cover for inflation is cost-of-living adjustments that result in actual raises when considering inflation, not by making pay rates exactly commensurate with buying power and the prices of things 15-30 years ago. These are the kinds of idiotic arguments that, if they were successful and the union negotiated based off them would bankrupt the company in short order.

Don't be stupid. The company has given a fair deal for the workers. Now, if you choose to vote no because you think the company has to bend over and give all it's profits to us then if the world worked the way you wanted it to you'd be standing in the bread line along with everyone else that works at UPS, hourlies and management included. Great idea.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Wait...what? Am I reading this correctly? You correlate housing prices to driver wages and then determine that it's the company's job to make sure you make enough money to buy a house with your wages?

With that reasoning, the cheapest Lamborghini in 1982 was just shy of $100,000, the Lamborghini Countach, so the company should have to double my pay rate so I can buy the cheapest Lamborghini in 2023 (which is the Lamborghini Huracan, just north of $200,000).

Because then we're "samesies". Absolutely ridiculous reasoning. It's like punishing the company for inflation. The only way the company should cover for inflation is cost-of-living adjustments that result in actual raises when considering inflation, not by making pay rates exactly commensurate with buying power and the prices of things 15-30 years ago. These are the kinds of idiotic arguments that, if they were successful and the union negotiated based off them would bankrupt the company in short order.

Don't be stupid. The company has given a fair deal for the workers. Now, if you choose to vote no because you think the company has to bend over and give all it's profits to us then if the world worked the way you wanted it to you'd be standing in the bread line along with everyone else that works at UPS, hourlies and management included. Great idea.

I’m fine with voting No but the idea that it’s going to be renegotiated with some huge wage gain is pie in the sky.

 

[Superteeth2478]

I’m fine with voting No but the idea that it’s going to be renegotiated with some huge wage gain is pie in the sky.

That's exactly what I was telling people when I heard they wanted to vote no. They have a right to vote how they choose, but they need to understand the implications of what they're doing. If they did they wouldn't vote no understanding that it won't get them much more if anything.

I'm a steward. I never tell people how I vote one way or the other so I don't influence others to vote the way I do without educating themselves first. But if they think voting no will get them something better, then by all means they should vote how they choose.

Hell, I'm not happy about getting $1.50 in peanuts thrown at me when new hires now are starting at a pay rate nearly triple what I started at, but I'm not voting no because of that reason alone. I understand there's a bigger picture in play here.

 

[Thebrownblob]

That's exactly what I was telling people when I heard they wanted to vote no. They have a right to vote how they choose, but they need to understand the implications of what they're doing. If they did they wouldn't vote no understanding that it won't get them much more if anything.

I'm a steward. I never tell people how I vote one way or the other so I don't influence others to vote the way I do without educating themselves first. But if they think voting no will get them something better, then by all means they should vote how they choose.

Hell, I'm not happy about getting $1.50 in peanuts thrown at me when new hires now are starting at a pay rate nearly triple what I started at, but I'm not voting no because of that reason alone. I understand there's a bigger picture in play here.

The money is what it is it’s not going to change much at all. It does, however, sound like supplements were ignored.

 

[100%]

Teamster agreement a 'bad deal' for UPS: Analyst

The perspective from Wall Street and business analysts calling this $30B pay increase concerning for UPS. I'm not taking their side but point this out in light of so many part timers slamming the deal. People need to understand that yes, UPS makes a ton of money, but they are also a business in a competitive market and they've just agreed to something they didn't want to do. It will mean significant rate increases on customers to cover the costs and sets Fed-Ex up nicely to do the same. The idea that people are demanding much more is fantasy land. The idea that they've willingly worked here for years and now on the eve of their best contract ever are voting no is so phony.

This contract is already paid for. UPS just raised their shipping rates to cover this entire contract.

 

[PAS'd out]

Teamster agreement a 'bad deal' for UPS: Analyst

The perspective from Wall Street and business analysts calling this $30B pay increase concerning for UPS. I'm not taking their side but point this out in light of so many part timers slamming the deal. People need to understand that yes, UPS makes a ton of money, but they are also a business in a competitive market and they've just agreed to something they didn't want to do. It will mean significant rate increases on customers to cover the costs and sets Fed-Ex up nicely to do the same. The idea that people are demanding much more is fantasy land. The idea that they've willingly worked here for years and now on the eve of their best contract ever are voting no is so phony.

Full timer since'86. UPS has had a highly subsidized workforce in the Hoffa years, so they should have been wise in storing that money that they should have spending on fair labor wages in that time period.

 

[Phillip J Fry]

There's lots of economic variables in the world, housing is certainly one. It's not fair that our grandparents bought their houses for less than a Toyota Corolla costs. Housing today is ridiculous but I don't think we can expect to make $75-$100/hr to deliver packages.

Lol, well I mean you can expect that, militate for it even. End result is you’ll be running a forklift unloading docks at Walmart-mart for $17/hr.