I believe the safety of Union members is maybe the most important issue that should be addressed in Collective bargaining.
I don't think "maybe," I think it "should" be the most important issue.
I do not agree that the company should be allowed to have lesser safety standards than States or the Federal Government.
I don't think they should either, and they do not. New equipment comes with all the new safety features mandated by State or the Federal Government, and any options negotiated in the collective bargaining process.
And every time a new safety feature comes out, the State of Federal Government does not retro-fit all their vehicles with the new features.
They also do not mandate that the current vehicles be replaced with new ones with the new safety features.
They wait until the current vehicles need replacing and then replace them with new ones with all the new safety features.
The same thing that UPS does.
I also do not agree that providing safer equipment would bankrupt the company.
Do you even have a clue how much it would cost, or if it is even feasible, to retro-fit anti-lock brakes, air bags, collision avoidance, etc, onto vehicles without these? Billions.
Or do you propose that UPS gets rid of all the vehicles without the newest safety features and just buys new ones? Tens of billions.
Our company spends Millions of dollars on big brother technology. I think the least they could do, would be to provide the safest equipment possible.
They do provide the safest vehicles possible, when they purchase new vehicles. Every vehicle they purchase, at the time, meets the governments standards for safety.
Again, it sounds like you want UPS to replace every vehicle every time a new safety feature comes out. This will lead to bankruptcy.
People before dollars like it was before we went public.
I agree. But there is also a line somewhere. This started because of the 2 point seatbelts still left in the fleet. My "line" is to replace all these with 3 point seatbelts and wait until the useful life of any other vehicles ends and then replace it with a new one with all the new safety features. My line is that the only thing retro-fitted should be the seatbelts, because any of the other features are either cost prohibitive or unfeasible.
And in collective bargaining, there has never been, to my knowledge, any bargaining to retro-fit vehicles for safety. It has always been "new equipment shall have." ie cab venting, power steering, ac for tractors, etc.
Safety first, but a company also has to stay in business, make money, or safety won't matter. They will be out of business if they cannot balance safety cost and profit.
And there is a balance between safety cost and profit.
