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: 542950" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>bluehdmc;</p><p> </p><p>I stand corrected, of course, on Buicks still being manufactured in the U.S. (I was thinking of Oldsmobile) Sorry! But I think the thrust of my comment still holds true.</p><p> </p><p>From my perspective, I know HOW the auto companies allowed themselves to be controlled by the union (heck, doesn't take a genius - or a very long look at the "job banks" - to figure that one out), but just exactly WHY escapes me.</p><p> </p><p>As for the "give and take on both sides", the fact remains that the essence of bargaining - i.e. - the ability to JUST WALK AWAY WITHOUT REACHING AN AGREEMENT - is simply unavailable to employers. Employees, in contrast, can terminate the employer/employee relationship at any time of their choosing, with or without reason. Companies can't do that. Nor can they simply choose not to reach an agreement and go elsewhere; note how many charges of "surface bargaining" have been brought up by unions to the NLRB. If there was TRUE bargaining allowed, there wouldn't BE any such charge...simply because there would be no reason to HAVE to bargain in ANY fashion to begin with. The field is very heavily tilted in that manner.</p><p> </p><p>Onward: As I've said a time or two before, wages are not the only - and probably not even the primary - reason companies don't want to be "organized". Work rules, control issues, and flexibility probably far outweigh any direct salary issues. As for auto industry wages of "imports" coming close to that of union employers, all I can say is this: the non-UAW companies are successful paying those wages to non-UAW employees, while those that employ UAW workers aren't. As for "legacy costs", so what? Those "legacy costs" are a function of unionization, or more specifically (as is the case with the Teamster pension funds as well) a function of the unions not working to maintain the companies that provided their employment. Make no mistake; "legacy costs" are STILL "labor costs"...and are just as relevant as wages themselves. </p><p> </p><p>"Yes", it *IS* "all about the bottom line"...and until unions figure that out, and act accordingly (i.e. - see that their employees look GOOD "on the bottom line" by functioning competitively), they're going to be sucking wind. Making a profit is what it's all about...and if the unions can't help their employer do so, then they're NOT protecting their members' interests...and probably have no reason to exist (a state, I believe, which is all too true of many unions today)</p><p> </p><p>As for you comments about it "going into the dealers pocket", tell me; you know of a lot of auto dealers who are making out like bandits today? Truth is, there's damned little of ANYTHING "going into their pockets"...and way, way too many of 'em are losing their asses. Simply put, I'm afraid I can't buy such a fallacious argument.</p><p> </p><p>Then there's your comment of....</p><p> </p><p>"...Teamsters are involved in a lawsuit against Con-way for diverting business to the non union carrier"</p><p> </p><p>....to which I would reply "Gee, no kidding! The Teamsters actually filed a SUIT!!!! Is that going to bring back the 16,000 (got that; SIXTEEN THOUSAND!!!!) jobs they pissed away? Think you'll read about it - along with all the other myriad "bad" things that terminate similar Teamster efforts on the IBT's website - when nothing comes of it? (Meanwhile, I'll tell you this...no, it was no accident, regardless of the resolution of the court issue. Yep, Consolidated's owners knew that it couldn't be as profitable as a non-union company, and thus THEY ventured-out into a non-Teamsters one. And, wonder of wonders...IT is able to make a profit! Who would have thought it!?</p><p> </p><p>As for what the American worker is "entitled" to, my feeling is that his/her sole "entitlement" is to EARN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LABOR HE PROVIDES!!! For some people, no doubt that won't be a "living wage"...at least as you consider the term. But if YOU care to subsidize their living (i.e. - give them welfare), then YOU go right ahead and YOU pay them. Frankly, however, I don't consider that thy're entitled to anything of mine that they didn't earn, nor do I think that they're automatically "entitled" to any more than any other worker any place else in the world (Heresy!!!!) . And I don't for a minute believe that American workers ought to be subsidized in order to make up for them being less competitive than foreign workers (and, at the same time, I'm well aware that MOST American workers ARE competitive; it's primarily the "organized" ones who can't seem to measure-up).</p><p> </p><p>Not sure what the airline pilot "being a woman" had to do with anything...other than, perhaps, a brute effort to inject gender qualification into the discussion. Woman or man, my comments stand.</p><p> </p><p>You mentioned a "happy medium" was struck....after the "agreement" was sent to the union membership for a vote. Have you ever wondered how many such agreements would be "happ[ily]" implemented if they were handed-over to the SHAREHOLDERS directly for a vote as well prior to implementation? My question there would be one of "what makes what's good for the goose NOT good for the gander?"</p><p> </p><p>Lastly, has it occurred to you that, generally, MOST American workers ARE earning their way, and that most American management is earning it's way as well...ON THE WORLD STAGE!!! Frankly, it seems to me that, if there's a disparity in distribution of wealth, it's because it's being distributed on the basis of who makes the greater CONTRIBUTION to the CREATION of that wealth. And, in that sense, "organized" labor over the last few decades has been more intent on DESTROYING rather than "creating"...and, in truth, has already received much, MUCH more than it deserves. That's a burden our economy - and society - can no longer tolerate...or at least not tolerate while maintaining anything close to its accustomed standard of living.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 542950, member: 16651"] bluehdmc; I stand corrected, of course, on Buicks still being manufactured in the U.S. (I was thinking of Oldsmobile) Sorry! But I think the thrust of my comment still holds true. From my perspective, I know HOW the auto companies allowed themselves to be controlled by the union (heck, doesn't take a genius - or a very long look at the "job banks" - to figure that one out), but just exactly WHY escapes me. As for the "give and take on both sides", the fact remains that the essence of bargaining - i.e. - the ability to JUST WALK AWAY WITHOUT REACHING AN AGREEMENT - is simply unavailable to employers. Employees, in contrast, can terminate the employer/employee relationship at any time of their choosing, with or without reason. Companies can't do that. Nor can they simply choose not to reach an agreement and go elsewhere; note how many charges of "surface bargaining" have been brought up by unions to the NLRB. If there was TRUE bargaining allowed, there wouldn't BE any such charge...simply because there would be no reason to HAVE to bargain in ANY fashion to begin with. The field is very heavily tilted in that manner. Onward: As I've said a time or two before, wages are not the only - and probably not even the primary - reason companies don't want to be "organized". Work rules, control issues, and flexibility probably far outweigh any direct salary issues. As for auto industry wages of "imports" coming close to that of union employers, all I can say is this: the non-UAW companies are successful paying those wages to non-UAW employees, while those that employ UAW workers aren't. As for "legacy costs", so what? Those "legacy costs" are a function of unionization, or more specifically (as is the case with the Teamster pension funds as well) a function of the unions not working to maintain the companies that provided their employment. Make no mistake; "legacy costs" are STILL "labor costs"...and are just as relevant as wages themselves. "Yes", it *IS* "all about the bottom line"...and until unions figure that out, and act accordingly (i.e. - see that their employees look GOOD "on the bottom line" by functioning competitively), they're going to be sucking wind. Making a profit is what it's all about...and if the unions can't help their employer do so, then they're NOT protecting their members' interests...and probably have no reason to exist (a state, I believe, which is all too true of many unions today) As for you comments about it "going into the dealers pocket", tell me; you know of a lot of auto dealers who are making out like bandits today? Truth is, there's damned little of ANYTHING "going into their pockets"...and way, way too many of 'em are losing their asses. Simply put, I'm afraid I can't buy such a fallacious argument. Then there's your comment of.... "...Teamsters are involved in a lawsuit against Con-way for diverting business to the non union carrier" ....to which I would reply "Gee, no kidding! The Teamsters actually filed a SUIT!!!! Is that going to bring back the 16,000 (got that; SIXTEEN THOUSAND!!!!) jobs they pissed away? Think you'll read about it - along with all the other myriad "bad" things that terminate similar Teamster efforts on the IBT's website - when nothing comes of it? (Meanwhile, I'll tell you this...no, it was no accident, regardless of the resolution of the court issue. Yep, Consolidated's owners knew that it couldn't be as profitable as a non-union company, and thus THEY ventured-out into a non-Teamsters one. And, wonder of wonders...IT is able to make a profit! Who would have thought it!? As for what the American worker is "entitled" to, my feeling is that his/her sole "entitlement" is to EARN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LABOR HE PROVIDES!!! For some people, no doubt that won't be a "living wage"...at least as you consider the term. But if YOU care to subsidize their living (i.e. - give them welfare), then YOU go right ahead and YOU pay them. Frankly, however, I don't consider that thy're entitled to anything of mine that they didn't earn, nor do I think that they're automatically "entitled" to any more than any other worker any place else in the world (Heresy!!!!) . And I don't for a minute believe that American workers ought to be subsidized in order to make up for them being less competitive than foreign workers (and, at the same time, I'm well aware that MOST American workers ARE competitive; it's primarily the "organized" ones who can't seem to measure-up). Not sure what the airline pilot "being a woman" had to do with anything...other than, perhaps, a brute effort to inject gender qualification into the discussion. Woman or man, my comments stand. You mentioned a "happy medium" was struck....after the "agreement" was sent to the union membership for a vote. Have you ever wondered how many such agreements would be "happ[ily]" implemented if they were handed-over to the SHAREHOLDERS directly for a vote as well prior to implementation? My question there would be one of "what makes what's good for the goose NOT good for the gander?" Lastly, has it occurred to you that, generally, MOST American workers ARE earning their way, and that most American management is earning it's way as well...ON THE WORLD STAGE!!! Frankly, it seems to me that, if there's a disparity in distribution of wealth, it's because it's being distributed on the basis of who makes the greater CONTRIBUTION to the CREATION of that wealth. And, in that sense, "organized" labor over the last few decades has been more intent on DESTROYING rather than "creating"...and, in truth, has already received much, MUCH more than it deserves. That's a burden our economy - and society - can no longer tolerate...or at least not tolerate while maintaining anything close to its accustomed standard of living. [/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