evilleace;
First of all, management isn't paid on a per hour basis. And, on the basis of hours worked (or, more to the point, in terms of responsibility), they're probably already woefully underpaid in relation to the management of firms similar in size and scope. Second, you seem to forget that management - and past management - are the primary owners of the company; it quite literally is *THEIR* company. It's for them that the company exists, and it's on the basis of continued profitability TO THEM that it continues to exist. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) it doesn't exist for the employees who, to put it bluntly, are there only to serve the owners/managers. From that position, could you, for example, starve your children so that you could pay the guy that mowed your grass more than he was competitively worth? Or, if you're already paying the guy who cuts your grass more than the market rate, could you justify his complaints that you ought to take the food out of your childrens' mouths so you could pay him to provide a better "service" when you know, in your heart, that he's already overpaid in comparison with other similarly situated grass cutters? Personally, I doubt it.
Which brings us to a third point; management is COMPETIVELY compensated. There are no labor laws which protect them when they're inefficient of cost-ineffective, nor are they (by law) allowed to bargain collectively. What they make, they've competitively EARNED on the basis of their individual market value. Can union members generally say that? Think, for example, that UPS couldn't go on the open market and hire competent drivers cheaper than what the union wage demands? (personally, I've "been there, done that", and KNOW the answer to that one)
Which brings us back to your last claim; i.e. - "The union employees earn every dollar they make". Not trying to belittle UPS's union employees here, because I'm quite willing to concede that the VAST majority of them work hard and efficiently. But do you SERIOUSLY believe that UPS couldn't go out and hire NON-union labor and train it to do the job just as effectively at a fair MARKET wage? REALLY?!? Or that ALL "union employees" earn every dollar they make? By that do you mean to tell me that they're aren't sandbaggers out there? That there AREN'T those union "employees" that company feels it could do better WITHOUT? If so, why is the prospect of termination the topic of so many threads on this board? And do you really think that the company would want to get rid of employees who are EARNING their keep as EMPLOYEES (and remember what an employee is; someone who serves the will of his EMPLOYER, not his own!)
Lastly, let me reiterate that I fully understand where the union is coming from in demanding high compensation, etc.. But if members of the union are maintaining that their cost doesn't have anything - or even isn't the PRIMARY factor - in sustainable service levels, then they're simply out of touch with reality. It's THEIR decision that THEY made; not someone else's.
As a footnote; if you think management - or, more specifically, p/t supervisors "don't do a whole lot anyway", then why aren't you - and those like you - jumping at the chance to take those positions? And why do threads like current one about "Reasons why a driver would want to go into management" (or however it's titled) exist?
Food for thought.
