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
This saves money?
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: 625145" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>klein;</p><p> </p><p>H.m.m.m.....so the "unofficial" (I might add VERY "unofficial"!...as in "ludicrous" -grin!) unemployment rate is around 18%, 'eh? With closer to "50 million" (which, I note, you later edited-out after I started my response to "20 million") out of work? Well, in case you hadn't noticed, that would STILL result in a WORKFORCE figure that is greater than the ENTIRE population of the country...man, woman, child, nursing home inhabitant, congenital idiot, etc. And, of course, even "20 million" at the rate of unemployment that you stated would be far higher than the TOTAL workforce the country ever had.</p><p> </p><p>Keep backing up, son. Maybe sometime you'll actually get in the ballpark.!</p><p> </p><p>Sorry, "klein", but you're rapidly losing any credibility you might have had with me. You're bullsh_tting figures out there like there's no tomorrow...and like there aren't people out there who have a modicum of reasoning ability.</p><p> </p><p>As for your other assumptions ("you as a sup", etc.); sorry, Sport, but they're just that....assumptions. And pretty poor ones at that.</p><p> </p><p>I do agree, however, that there should be a fair days pay for a fair days work. But I also understand that the only way that "fair" can be calculated is on the basis of market value. Anything else is just opinion...or, in your case, more likely "assumption" (I think you can take it to the bank that I don't highly value the opinions OR assumptions of someone who pitches numbers like "60 million" or "50 million" unemployed at me...nor do I think any other reasonable person would either)</p><p> </p><p>Lastly, I don't recall saying that UPS workers, per se, deserved a "pay cut". But, as for a "strike", you might be advised that, given the attitude of the Teamsters throughout the last few decades - particularly their almost total dependence upon UPS, and their absolute failure to make any effort worthy of the name in organizing UPS's competition - I and many of my associates would actually look forward to a strike, if that's what it comes to.</p><p> </p><p>Perhaps you're too young to remember, but UPS isn't above simply pulling out of a situation if economic circumstances recommend it; witness Philly in the late 60's (or early '70's...been a long time, and I'll admit that I'm not sure). And note that, minus it's domestic operations, UPS would *STILL* be a much larger and more profitable (in absolute terms) company today than it was minus the Philly metro area 40 years ago. Yep, the company would take a "hit", but I've explained in other venues just how it could absorb that hit and go on to prosper quite well - and probably better - in the long run. Could the same be said of the Teamsters?</p><p> </p><p>Side note: do you think over the long term that the stock market values companies that are "union" HIGHER? REALLY!?</p><p> </p><p>Furthermore, I don't determine "fair" wages based on what people think it takes "to live on". Rather, I think wages should be based ON WHAT THE LABOR PROVIDED IS WORTH! Sometimes that's next to nothing. And, in many cases, it's LESS than nothing (I've known several employees over the years at UPS who the company would gladly have paid to get rid of)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 625145, member: 16651"] klein; H.m.m.m.....so the "unofficial" (I might add VERY "unofficial"!...as in "ludicrous" -grin!) unemployment rate is around 18%, 'eh? With closer to "50 million" (which, I note, you later edited-out after I started my response to "20 million") out of work? Well, in case you hadn't noticed, that would STILL result in a WORKFORCE figure that is greater than the ENTIRE population of the country...man, woman, child, nursing home inhabitant, congenital idiot, etc. And, of course, even "20 million" at the rate of unemployment that you stated would be far higher than the TOTAL workforce the country ever had. Keep backing up, son. Maybe sometime you'll actually get in the ballpark.! Sorry, "klein", but you're rapidly losing any credibility you might have had with me. You're bullsh_tting figures out there like there's no tomorrow...and like there aren't people out there who have a modicum of reasoning ability. As for your other assumptions ("you as a sup", etc.); sorry, Sport, but they're just that....assumptions. And pretty poor ones at that. I do agree, however, that there should be a fair days pay for a fair days work. But I also understand that the only way that "fair" can be calculated is on the basis of market value. Anything else is just opinion...or, in your case, more likely "assumption" (I think you can take it to the bank that I don't highly value the opinions OR assumptions of someone who pitches numbers like "60 million" or "50 million" unemployed at me...nor do I think any other reasonable person would either) Lastly, I don't recall saying that UPS workers, per se, deserved a "pay cut". But, as for a "strike", you might be advised that, given the attitude of the Teamsters throughout the last few decades - particularly their almost total dependence upon UPS, and their absolute failure to make any effort worthy of the name in organizing UPS's competition - I and many of my associates would actually look forward to a strike, if that's what it comes to. Perhaps you're too young to remember, but UPS isn't above simply pulling out of a situation if economic circumstances recommend it; witness Philly in the late 60's (or early '70's...been a long time, and I'll admit that I'm not sure). And note that, minus it's domestic operations, UPS would *STILL* be a much larger and more profitable (in absolute terms) company today than it was minus the Philly metro area 40 years ago. Yep, the company would take a "hit", but I've explained in other venues just how it could absorb that hit and go on to prosper quite well - and probably better - in the long run. Could the same be said of the Teamsters? Side note: do you think over the long term that the stock market values companies that are "union" HIGHER? REALLY!? Furthermore, I don't determine "fair" wages based on what people think it takes "to live on". Rather, I think wages should be based ON WHAT THE LABOR PROVIDED IS WORTH! Sometimes that's next to nothing. And, in many cases, it's LESS than nothing (I've known several employees over the years at UPS who the company would gladly have paid to get rid of) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
This saves money?
Top