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: 543235" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>bluehdmc;</p><p> </p><p>Think for a minute....if the union DIDN'T piss away those jobs, then what MOTIVATED Consolidated to make an "end run" around the union? That's the point! Companies are aware that they can't be profitable with the Teamsters, and they make an "end run". (BTW, in terms of the "end run" and all the other alleged nefarious stuff that Teamsters love to dream-up - CFWY buying CNWY's fuel, all the CFWY managers having jobs at CNWY, etc. - minus absolutely NO documentation to the contrary, I'm convinced it just didn't happen)</p><p> </p><p>As for the "Wall Street theives [sic]", perhaps you haven't noticed, but their bonuses ARE placed before the shareholders for approval. As a side example, one might notice that such compensation for UPS higher-ups just came up for shareholder approval as well. Bear in mind that those bonuses, as much as you may dislike them (and I'll admit that I find them distasteful as well,) are awarded COMPETIVELY, and are designed to retain personnel which that "market" sees as crucial to being maintained. After all, who pays these "astronomical salaries"? And *WHY* are they paying them? I'd submit that it's because market forces have determined their worth. If and when the market determines that they're NOT worth that amount, then they'll drop. In that sense, they're not the rotten fruit of a legal mandate, such as company/union negotiations are; a company is not COMPELLED to negotiate with those you determine to be "thieves".</p><p> </p><p>As for your comment of...</p><p> </p><p>"I've seen what non union employers do, fire people to hire new employees at a lesser wage."</p><p> </p><p>....and I have to ask "so what"? Are employers supposed to pay equal amounts for UN-equal labor? Are you willing to do so? As for "age discrimination laws", as I understand it, they were designed to protect on the basis of "age" alone; not productivity. If an older person is not able to produce as much as a younger person because of lesser abilities, should it be required that he be paid the same? Personally, I don't see it. That, to me, is what would lead to "age discrimination"; i.e. - if an employer is forced to pay more than what a person's labor is worth, then it's inevitable that he (1) will find an excuse not to hire that person to begin with, or (2) find a way to get rid of him as soon as possible. Either way is NOT a function of the persons age, but rather to his cost/benefit ratio.</p><p> </p><p>As for what you see "non union employers doing" in terms of firing, etc.....let me ask you; which segment of the general working population has had more job security over the last 30 years? Those that belong to unions, or those that don't? Take a look at the Teamsters union that's involved with UPS....it's lost over HALF of it's membership during that time. And, terms of the jobs that existed 30 years or so ago, it's lost well MORE than half of it's members jobs...and even more than that in the unions core transportation industry. And this during a time in which the transportation industry was BOOMING.</p><p> </p><p>Fact is, statistically, about the worst thing you could do over the last 30 years in terms of job security was join the Teamsters. Forget non-union employers "firing"; they're mere pikers in comparison to the Teamsters union, which pisses it's member jobs away to the tune of hundreds of thousands and millions.</p><p> </p><p>Not trying to be hyperbolic here; simply pointing out the facts. My main concern today it that companies are so fed-up with unions like the Teamsters, the Autoworkers, the Steelworkers, etc, that they're simply not going to put up with it anymore; that they'll do an "end run", as you called it. In fact, that's EXACTLY what many are already doing. UPS, heavily involved internationally, is less than 50% Teamster today. We've seen what's happened with domestic-owned auto production, and where steel production has migrated to. Do you think legislation is going to stop such "end runs"? Sorry, but that's like a barb wire fence being set-up to stop a tidal flow....just doesn't do the job.</p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, job after job is being placed out of reach by efforts of those who seem to think that having a job is a "right", and wages/wealth should be distributed on the basis of an arbitrary "fairness" standard as opposed to market demands. At what time are those people going to see just what they're doing? How many jobs have to be pissed away before people see the light? </p><p> </p><p>Escapes me....</p><p> </p><p>On to direct responses to some of your comments;</p><p> </p><p>"Yes", the Japanese have been ACCUSED of many things, including subsidization. But, in terms of such subsidies, why do you think that the Japanese began building auto plants over here? Remember U.S. "content" laws? Think that OUR protectionism (read "subsidy") wasn't just as great as Japan's?</p><p> </p><p>"Yes", I remember that many pension plans are shareholders. I'm also aware that many pension plans operated by labor do NOT primarily have the interests of those covered by them in mind. If that were the case, for example, the Teamsters - in order to benefit their UPS members - would have left them withdraw from CSPF years before they did. And what do you think of the Teamsters having holdings in FDX (which they signify by posing vote issues at nearly every yearly meeting). Think they want FDX to prosper so the value of those holdings PROSPER? REALLY?!?</p><p> </p><p>In response to your ...</p><p> </p><p>"I don't believe organized labor is intent on "destroying" American business. In a sense your killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs."</p><p> </p><p>...then, pray tell, just what do you think they ARE intent on doing? You see, after I've seen organized labor essentially destroy the steel industry, the domestically owned auto industry and (numerically, at least) virtually every one of it's employers in the transportation industry, I can tell you that, from my perspective, it sure as Hell LOOKS like they're intent on such destruction! Maybe they AREN'T aware that they're killing the goose that lays the golden egg (although certain statements made by union spokesmen indicate that they are), but the facts remain what they are. </p><p> </p><p>As for your claim that "organized labor built this country", I suggest you climb down from the rarefied atmosphere of your ivory tower and look at history. All "organized labor" did was "organize labor" in seeking remuneration of one type or another....period. And even that it did at a rather late stage of the game. It didn't "build" the country! Entrepreneurs did that. Did they hire labor? Sure! They also purchased machines, rented property, bought leases, etc., and exercised capital in numerous other fashions. And that capital was created by THEIR labor; not that of unions. What "organized labor" *DID* do, however, is virtually destroy the industries that employed it's members. There's a reason that less than 8% of the workers in the private sector today belong to unions, and it's *NOT* because unions helped their employer to prosper! So, while you maintain "that cannot be blamed entirely on unions", it sure as the Devil looks like it can be blamed PRIMARILY on unions.</p><p> </p><p>Chrysler management "agreed" to not take bonuses back then? The union made substantial concessions? Funny, I don't remember it that way. What I recall is a union that demanded a seat on the board, and then their begging management to save their asses in the form of the jobs the company offered. Nor do I recall any "bonus agreement", although I've no doubt that somewhere in union circles it was floating around that "I heard..." that they reached such an agreement or whatever. As a young man, I actually bought a few shares of the "new Chrysler" at the time, and I think I would have paid attention if such a "bonus agreement" was announced, if only because failure to allow retention bonuses is usually a sign that the company is going down the tubes....and managers jumping ship would most assuredly have interested me. </p><p> </p><p>Again, GM sold GMAC BECAUSE IT HAD TO!!!! You can go back with 20/20 hindsight and say that they would have been better off if they hadn't...but that doesn't account for the fact that they had no choice. Might as well say that the company could have been better off it's management bought lottery tickets in the company's name and won big 102 weeks in a row. I.e. - moot point.</p><p> </p><p>Lastly, yes, I *DID * refer to at least SOME union members as "thugs". Here's some reasons why, particularly in reference to the Teamsters, which I'm most familiar with.</p><p> </p><p>(1) The Teamsters themselves have been designated a criminal organization, and have essentially admitted as much by virtue of the "consent decree" under which they are operating.</p><p> </p><p>(2) Someone might correct me here, but I believe EVERY excecutive president of the union except the current one (on which, figuratively at least, the jury is still out) over the last half century has either been indicted or convicted of a felony.</p><p> </p><p>(3) The union has a hero fixation (memorial scholarships, etc) for a convicted felon (one of the past presidents mentioned above) with recognized mob connections.</p><p> </p><p>(4) Documented instance after documented instance in which the Teamsters, on behalf of their union, have committed acts of violence. (currently reading a book titled "Devil's Pact", which I recommend to anyone who contends that the union is primarily sweetness and light!)</p><p> </p><p>(5) As a teenager, I was attacked by a Teamster thug - who was upset because I was unloading a few concrete blocks off of a flatbed truck at a small, private, non-union construction site without a card - myself. ("yes", he did jail time for the incident).</p><p> </p><p>(6) Once being a member of the Teamsters, and listening to other members brag about their thuggery myself</p><p> </p><p>Are all Teamsters "thugs"? Of course not. But far too high a proportion are. And there's no doubt that's the reputation they - and many unions in general - have in the minds of the public at large.</p><p> </p><p>That's it. Again, sorry for the length...but you raised some issues that I felt should be addressed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 543235, member: 16651"] bluehdmc; Think for a minute....if the union DIDN'T piss away those jobs, then what MOTIVATED Consolidated to make an "end run" around the union? That's the point! Companies are aware that they can't be profitable with the Teamsters, and they make an "end run". (BTW, in terms of the "end run" and all the other alleged nefarious stuff that Teamsters love to dream-up - CFWY buying CNWY's fuel, all the CFWY managers having jobs at CNWY, etc. - minus absolutely NO documentation to the contrary, I'm convinced it just didn't happen) As for the "Wall Street theives [sic]", perhaps you haven't noticed, but their bonuses ARE placed before the shareholders for approval. As a side example, one might notice that such compensation for UPS higher-ups just came up for shareholder approval as well. Bear in mind that those bonuses, as much as you may dislike them (and I'll admit that I find them distasteful as well,) are awarded COMPETIVELY, and are designed to retain personnel which that "market" sees as crucial to being maintained. After all, who pays these "astronomical salaries"? And *WHY* are they paying them? I'd submit that it's because market forces have determined their worth. If and when the market determines that they're NOT worth that amount, then they'll drop. In that sense, they're not the rotten fruit of a legal mandate, such as company/union negotiations are; a company is not COMPELLED to negotiate with those you determine to be "thieves". As for your comment of... "I've seen what non union employers do, fire people to hire new employees at a lesser wage." ....and I have to ask "so what"? Are employers supposed to pay equal amounts for UN-equal labor? Are you willing to do so? As for "age discrimination laws", as I understand it, they were designed to protect on the basis of "age" alone; not productivity. If an older person is not able to produce as much as a younger person because of lesser abilities, should it be required that he be paid the same? Personally, I don't see it. That, to me, is what would lead to "age discrimination"; i.e. - if an employer is forced to pay more than what a person's labor is worth, then it's inevitable that he (1) will find an excuse not to hire that person to begin with, or (2) find a way to get rid of him as soon as possible. Either way is NOT a function of the persons age, but rather to his cost/benefit ratio. As for what you see "non union employers doing" in terms of firing, etc.....let me ask you; which segment of the general working population has had more job security over the last 30 years? Those that belong to unions, or those that don't? Take a look at the Teamsters union that's involved with UPS....it's lost over HALF of it's membership during that time. And, terms of the jobs that existed 30 years or so ago, it's lost well MORE than half of it's members jobs...and even more than that in the unions core transportation industry. And this during a time in which the transportation industry was BOOMING. Fact is, statistically, about the worst thing you could do over the last 30 years in terms of job security was join the Teamsters. Forget non-union employers "firing"; they're mere pikers in comparison to the Teamsters union, which pisses it's member jobs away to the tune of hundreds of thousands and millions. Not trying to be hyperbolic here; simply pointing out the facts. My main concern today it that companies are so fed-up with unions like the Teamsters, the Autoworkers, the Steelworkers, etc, that they're simply not going to put up with it anymore; that they'll do an "end run", as you called it. In fact, that's EXACTLY what many are already doing. UPS, heavily involved internationally, is less than 50% Teamster today. We've seen what's happened with domestic-owned auto production, and where steel production has migrated to. Do you think legislation is going to stop such "end runs"? Sorry, but that's like a barb wire fence being set-up to stop a tidal flow....just doesn't do the job. Meanwhile, job after job is being placed out of reach by efforts of those who seem to think that having a job is a "right", and wages/wealth should be distributed on the basis of an arbitrary "fairness" standard as opposed to market demands. At what time are those people going to see just what they're doing? How many jobs have to be pissed away before people see the light? Escapes me.... On to direct responses to some of your comments; "Yes", the Japanese have been ACCUSED of many things, including subsidization. But, in terms of such subsidies, why do you think that the Japanese began building auto plants over here? Remember U.S. "content" laws? Think that OUR protectionism (read "subsidy") wasn't just as great as Japan's? "Yes", I remember that many pension plans are shareholders. I'm also aware that many pension plans operated by labor do NOT primarily have the interests of those covered by them in mind. If that were the case, for example, the Teamsters - in order to benefit their UPS members - would have left them withdraw from CSPF years before they did. And what do you think of the Teamsters having holdings in FDX (which they signify by posing vote issues at nearly every yearly meeting). Think they want FDX to prosper so the value of those holdings PROSPER? REALLY?!? In response to your ... "I don't believe organized labor is intent on "destroying" American business. In a sense your killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs." ...then, pray tell, just what do you think they ARE intent on doing? You see, after I've seen organized labor essentially destroy the steel industry, the domestically owned auto industry and (numerically, at least) virtually every one of it's employers in the transportation industry, I can tell you that, from my perspective, it sure as Hell LOOKS like they're intent on such destruction! Maybe they AREN'T aware that they're killing the goose that lays the golden egg (although certain statements made by union spokesmen indicate that they are), but the facts remain what they are. As for your claim that "organized labor built this country", I suggest you climb down from the rarefied atmosphere of your ivory tower and look at history. All "organized labor" did was "organize labor" in seeking remuneration of one type or another....period. And even that it did at a rather late stage of the game. It didn't "build" the country! Entrepreneurs did that. Did they hire labor? Sure! They also purchased machines, rented property, bought leases, etc., and exercised capital in numerous other fashions. And that capital was created by THEIR labor; not that of unions. What "organized labor" *DID* do, however, is virtually destroy the industries that employed it's members. There's a reason that less than 8% of the workers in the private sector today belong to unions, and it's *NOT* because unions helped their employer to prosper! So, while you maintain "that cannot be blamed entirely on unions", it sure as the Devil looks like it can be blamed PRIMARILY on unions. Chrysler management "agreed" to not take bonuses back then? The union made substantial concessions? Funny, I don't remember it that way. What I recall is a union that demanded a seat on the board, and then their begging management to save their asses in the form of the jobs the company offered. Nor do I recall any "bonus agreement", although I've no doubt that somewhere in union circles it was floating around that "I heard..." that they reached such an agreement or whatever. As a young man, I actually bought a few shares of the "new Chrysler" at the time, and I think I would have paid attention if such a "bonus agreement" was announced, if only because failure to allow retention bonuses is usually a sign that the company is going down the tubes....and managers jumping ship would most assuredly have interested me. Again, GM sold GMAC BECAUSE IT HAD TO!!!! You can go back with 20/20 hindsight and say that they would have been better off if they hadn't...but that doesn't account for the fact that they had no choice. Might as well say that the company could have been better off it's management bought lottery tickets in the company's name and won big 102 weeks in a row. I.e. - moot point. Lastly, yes, I *DID * refer to at least SOME union members as "thugs". Here's some reasons why, particularly in reference to the Teamsters, which I'm most familiar with. (1) The Teamsters themselves have been designated a criminal organization, and have essentially admitted as much by virtue of the "consent decree" under which they are operating. (2) Someone might correct me here, but I believe EVERY excecutive president of the union except the current one (on which, figuratively at least, the jury is still out) over the last half century has either been indicted or convicted of a felony. (3) The union has a hero fixation (memorial scholarships, etc) for a convicted felon (one of the past presidents mentioned above) with recognized mob connections. (4) Documented instance after documented instance in which the Teamsters, on behalf of their union, have committed acts of violence. (currently reading a book titled "Devil's Pact", which I recommend to anyone who contends that the union is primarily sweetness and light!) (5) As a teenager, I was attacked by a Teamster thug - who was upset because I was unloading a few concrete blocks off of a flatbed truck at a small, private, non-union construction site without a card - myself. ("yes", he did jail time for the incident). (6) Once being a member of the Teamsters, and listening to other members brag about their thuggery myself Are all Teamsters "thugs"? Of course not. But far too high a proportion are. And there's no doubt that's the reputation they - and many unions in general - have in the minds of the public at large. That's it. Again, sorry for the length...but you raised some issues that I felt should be addressed. [/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