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 Discussions
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
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: 542859" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>bluehdmc;</p><p> </p><p>Sure, "deregulation of the trucking industry had something to do with it"...in the same sense that pulling welfare payments from a bum has something to do with HIS not being able to make it. By that I mean that "regulation" (outside of the area of safety, in which all - and more - pertinent regulation remains in place), did NOTHING positive for society generally. It did do a whole hell of lot negative, however. It slowed freight (for example, causing it to be routed through Pittsburg from Columbus, OH to Cincy, for example), and it cost the American consumer a bundle for the "welfare" subsidies he was forced to provide the few favored companies and the mob-infested Teamsters.</p><p> </p><p>Yep, after deregulation, Joe Schmoe *COULD* get in the business...and he COULD (and did!) put union carriers out of business, IF (and this is a BIG "if") he could do the job more efficiently and cost-effectively. The union-organized companies had an equal or better opportunity (after all, they already had THEIR "junk trucks" in hand, and already had the facilities to operate them, etc. But they didn't. Why didn't they? What significant difference is there (besides the "welfare payment") between the companies operating successfully today and the organized companies which have almost entirely bitten the dust? Think hard!</p><p> </p><p>As for your question as to "what has deregulation done for the airline industry?", I'd say again that it REMOVED THE BURDEN OF MAKING WELFARE PAYMENTS ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN CONSUMER! If maintenance is being "outsourced", then just WHY is it being outsourced? Aren't the "in-source" unions acting competitively and responsibly (again, I'll point to the AMFA mechanics and their deal with NWA a couple of years back)? Is safety being compromised? (here I'll ask you - as I would with truck de-regulation - to point to a single independent study indicating that safety is "worse" under de-reg) Are the consumers - who, after all, the industry exists to service - being charged more (a question you already answered with your "lower fares" comment)?</p><p> </p><p>As for the airline pilot you mentioned, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he is represented by a UNION, and the problem with his wages is that the UNION has negotiated them at that level in favor of unbalancing them toward the higher seniority personal (doubt me? Look at the pay scales the IPA has negotiated for UPS pilots/copilots.....and come back with me regarding what IPA thinks is "right" for junior co-pilots vs. senior captains). Beyond that, of course, whereas once upon a time, pilot "education" (hours on type, etc.) was primarily provided by the military, now it's up to the individual student to obtain it....and "time in type" in terms of the pilot you seem to be talking about seems to be more a case of him being PAID to train, as opposed to him paying for such training himself.</p><p> </p><p>I'll concede somewhat that it isn't ALL the UAW's fault in the Big Three's downfall...but don't you find it rather coincidental that it's ONLY the UAW-organized end-unit manufacturers in this country that are on the ropes? And don't you find it somewhat curious as well that, in those plants/areas where the UAW does NOT dominate - namely overseas - the Big Three are still doing rather well?</p><p> </p><p>"Yes", the problem is management's fault. But the biggest "fault" that most outsiders can see is that management allowed itself to be over-controlled by the union. Could it have made more saleable cars? (smaller, more efficient ones, for example) Sure...*IF* the union cost structure and work rules would have allowed it! But, time and time again, the intransigence of the union stood in the way....in a manner that would never have cropped-up in an "onshore" foreign, non-UAW plant....and we're seeing the results now. </p><p> </p><p>Remember "customer service" is expensive...and requires flexibility. So does product design. And so does "new model introduction". But the UAW "agreements" (which, as I've indicated elsewhere, the manufacturers did NOT actually "agree" to, but had foisted on them) stood in the way of the companies going that route.</p><p> </p><p>Considering your mentioning of the auto manufacturers starting-up brands/companies that failed (Saturn, Hummer, etc), let me bring up a comparable "extension" in the trucking industry - specifically organized CFWY's creation of NON-union ConWay. Tell me...which is in existence today?</p><p> </p><p>I appreciate your perception and, believe me, I've very much on the side of the American worker. It just seems to me, however, that the stance taken by far too many "support the union [or, rather, its bureaucracy!] at all costs" individuals is in denial of a reality that is figuratively KILLING the American worker. Much more such union "attention", and there won't be any jobs left for Americans to occupy.</p><p> </p><p>Finally, in an aside to one of your comments regarding Buick, I can't help but note that "Buick", though no longer being manufactured or sold here, is STILL a FANTASTIC [and profitable] seller for GM in China...which, last year, eclipsed the United States to become the world's largest automotive market. Whenever there's talk about requiring GM to manufacture cars solely in the U.S., think of that; i.e. - how often do manufacturers ignore the largest market and the areas they're profitable in?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 542859, member: 16651"] bluehdmc; Sure, "deregulation of the trucking industry had something to do with it"...in the same sense that pulling welfare payments from a bum has something to do with HIS not being able to make it. By that I mean that "regulation" (outside of the area of safety, in which all - and more - pertinent regulation remains in place), did NOTHING positive for society generally. It did do a whole hell of lot negative, however. It slowed freight (for example, causing it to be routed through Pittsburg from Columbus, OH to Cincy, for example), and it cost the American consumer a bundle for the "welfare" subsidies he was forced to provide the few favored companies and the mob-infested Teamsters. Yep, after deregulation, Joe Schmoe *COULD* get in the business...and he COULD (and did!) put union carriers out of business, IF (and this is a BIG "if") he could do the job more efficiently and cost-effectively. The union-organized companies had an equal or better opportunity (after all, they already had THEIR "junk trucks" in hand, and already had the facilities to operate them, etc. But they didn't. Why didn't they? What significant difference is there (besides the "welfare payment") between the companies operating successfully today and the organized companies which have almost entirely bitten the dust? Think hard! As for your question as to "what has deregulation done for the airline industry?", I'd say again that it REMOVED THE BURDEN OF MAKING WELFARE PAYMENTS ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN CONSUMER! If maintenance is being "outsourced", then just WHY is it being outsourced? Aren't the "in-source" unions acting competitively and responsibly (again, I'll point to the AMFA mechanics and their deal with NWA a couple of years back)? Is safety being compromised? (here I'll ask you - as I would with truck de-regulation - to point to a single independent study indicating that safety is "worse" under de-reg) Are the consumers - who, after all, the industry exists to service - being charged more (a question you already answered with your "lower fares" comment)? As for the airline pilot you mentioned, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he is represented by a UNION, and the problem with his wages is that the UNION has negotiated them at that level in favor of unbalancing them toward the higher seniority personal (doubt me? Look at the pay scales the IPA has negotiated for UPS pilots/copilots.....and come back with me regarding what IPA thinks is "right" for junior co-pilots vs. senior captains). Beyond that, of course, whereas once upon a time, pilot "education" (hours on type, etc.) was primarily provided by the military, now it's up to the individual student to obtain it....and "time in type" in terms of the pilot you seem to be talking about seems to be more a case of him being PAID to train, as opposed to him paying for such training himself. I'll concede somewhat that it isn't ALL the UAW's fault in the Big Three's downfall...but don't you find it rather coincidental that it's ONLY the UAW-organized end-unit manufacturers in this country that are on the ropes? And don't you find it somewhat curious as well that, in those plants/areas where the UAW does NOT dominate - namely overseas - the Big Three are still doing rather well? "Yes", the problem is management's fault. But the biggest "fault" that most outsiders can see is that management allowed itself to be over-controlled by the union. Could it have made more saleable cars? (smaller, more efficient ones, for example) Sure...*IF* the union cost structure and work rules would have allowed it! But, time and time again, the intransigence of the union stood in the way....in a manner that would never have cropped-up in an "onshore" foreign, non-UAW plant....and we're seeing the results now. Remember "customer service" is expensive...and requires flexibility. So does product design. And so does "new model introduction". But the UAW "agreements" (which, as I've indicated elsewhere, the manufacturers did NOT actually "agree" to, but had foisted on them) stood in the way of the companies going that route. Considering your mentioning of the auto manufacturers starting-up brands/companies that failed (Saturn, Hummer, etc), let me bring up a comparable "extension" in the trucking industry - specifically organized CFWY's creation of NON-union ConWay. Tell me...which is in existence today? I appreciate your perception and, believe me, I've very much on the side of the American worker. It just seems to me, however, that the stance taken by far too many "support the union [or, rather, its bureaucracy!] at all costs" individuals is in denial of a reality that is figuratively KILLING the American worker. Much more such union "attention", and there won't be any jobs left for Americans to occupy. Finally, in an aside to one of your comments regarding Buick, I can't help but note that "Buick", though no longer being manufactured or sold here, is STILL a FANTASTIC [and profitable] seller for GM in China...which, last year, eclipsed the United States to become the world's largest automotive market. Whenever there's talk about requiring GM to manufacture cars solely in the U.S., think of that; i.e. - how often do manufacturers ignore the largest market and the areas they're profitable in? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
Top