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
Should union membership be optional?
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: 541860" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Jim;</p><p> </p><p>Sorry, I can't buy even that. "Regulation" was essentially a welfare program that favored a union and a few privileged companies...and was an abomination in the way it suppressed competition and royally screwed-over the American consumer. It simply couldn't exist much longer than it did....and that it existed as LONG as it did is surprising in retrospect.</p><p> </p><p>That said, the union-organized companies actually had an advantage with the onslaught of "de-reg"; their capital was already in place. All the had to do was be somewhat competitive with all the "new" companies that needed to get their ducks in a row before beginning operations. The union, however, kept them from doing that...again, with the solid exception of UPS. UPS, BTW, was the one "union" company which had the most to lose under de-regulation, in that it had the widest operating authorities/tariff rights - rights that much blood, sweat, and tears went into obtaining - of any company then in existence. The value of those operating authorities went to nothing the instant regulation went by the wayside.</p><p> </p><p>As for your assertion that....</p><p> </p><p>"Can we at least be honest with ourselves and agree that if you are represented by a union, you will probably make more and have better benefits than your non-union counterpart?"</p><p> </p><p>....I have to say that one would be completely DIS-honest in making such an assertion....unless you're limiting it to that minority who are represented and who still RETAIN a job. Bear in mind, the majority of "represented by the Teamsters" individuals LOST their jobs...and thus make nothing and receive no benefits - besides a POSSIBLE pension payout (and even that is looking a little remote) from that representation. whatsoever,</p><p> </p><p>Not trying to go hyperbolic here; just stating the facts as they are. The point is that, if you were a Teamster over the last three decades, it was likely that you would lose your job....at a time when employment in the industry the Teamsters primarily concerned themselves with was growing by leaps and bounds.</p><p> </p><p>Lastly, I have nothing against workers joining unions; I think their freedom to do so should be unlimited. However, I do NOT think they should be absolved of the consequences of such membership....meaning that they shouldn't be insulated from employer reactions to their joining. Too many unions - and union members - today seem to expect an organizational "free lunch", in which they are absolved from the consequences of any actions they care to take. Unfortunately - as we've seen with the steelworkers, autoworkers, grocers, and transportation unions (and what they've done to job opportunities in this country), life just doesn't work that way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 541860, member: 16651"] Jim; Sorry, I can't buy even that. "Regulation" was essentially a welfare program that favored a union and a few privileged companies...and was an abomination in the way it suppressed competition and royally screwed-over the American consumer. It simply couldn't exist much longer than it did....and that it existed as LONG as it did is surprising in retrospect. That said, the union-organized companies actually had an advantage with the onslaught of "de-reg"; their capital was already in place. All the had to do was be somewhat competitive with all the "new" companies that needed to get their ducks in a row before beginning operations. The union, however, kept them from doing that...again, with the solid exception of UPS. UPS, BTW, was the one "union" company which had the most to lose under de-regulation, in that it had the widest operating authorities/tariff rights - rights that much blood, sweat, and tears went into obtaining - of any company then in existence. The value of those operating authorities went to nothing the instant regulation went by the wayside. As for your assertion that.... "Can we at least be honest with ourselves and agree that if you are represented by a union, you will probably make more and have better benefits than your non-union counterpart?" ....I have to say that one would be completely DIS-honest in making such an assertion....unless you're limiting it to that minority who are represented and who still RETAIN a job. Bear in mind, the majority of "represented by the Teamsters" individuals LOST their jobs...and thus make nothing and receive no benefits - besides a POSSIBLE pension payout (and even that is looking a little remote) from that representation. whatsoever, Not trying to go hyperbolic here; just stating the facts as they are. The point is that, if you were a Teamster over the last three decades, it was likely that you would lose your job....at a time when employment in the industry the Teamsters primarily concerned themselves with was growing by leaps and bounds. Lastly, I have nothing against workers joining unions; I think their freedom to do so should be unlimited. However, I do NOT think they should be absolved of the consequences of such membership....meaning that they shouldn't be insulated from employer reactions to their joining. Too many unions - and union members - today seem to expect an organizational "free lunch", in which they are absolved from the consequences of any actions they care to take. Unfortunately - as we've seen with the steelworkers, autoworkers, grocers, and transportation unions (and what they've done to job opportunities in this country), life just doesn't work that way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Should union membership be optional?
Top