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
getting paid for supervisors working?
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: 622656" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>upsguy72;</p><p> </p><p>Nobody is ever going to accuse you of not being the sharpest arrow in the quiver, are they? [smile] After all, it's not like *YOU* would CONTINUE to jump to conclusions, is it? ['nother "smile"]</p><p> </p><p>Sorry, Sport, but I would be just fine if UPS wasn't union, as would most of it's management and hourly employees...or at least that majority of them who are confident of their personal market worth and DON'T feel the need to have their existence subsidized by others. </p><p> </p><p>As for "security" and "pensions".....well, have you actually LOOKED at vaunted Teamster "job security" lately"? Or the security of their pensions? As I mentioned in another post, the prime aspect of being "Teamster" over the last few decades was that you were likely to LOSE "your" job on the basis of that membership; not have it secured! As for Teamster pension security at UPS; well, I can't help but think that UPSers pensions (those of ALL stripes) would be much better off if the company hadn't had to subsidize other NON-UPS Teamsters to the tune of billions and billions of dollars (and make no mistake; the $6 billion withdrawal liability was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of that subsidy!).</p><p> </p><p>This may be a bit presumptuous of my part, but given the personal history you related, I can't help but think of the topics once discussed on the AMFANUTS forum (among other places) before and during the NWA mechanics strike by people who apparently had the same outlook and work ethic as you. You do remember what happened to them, don't you? And do you recall the horror they seemed to recoil with when it finally dawned on them as to what, in the end, "the union" actually "provided" them?</p><p> </p><p>Now I can understand how you might not be particularly happy with the prospect of having your labor valued on the basis of what it's worth on the open market. But surely you realize that I and my associates aren't going to be content subsidizing welfare queens forever, don't you?</p><p> </p><p>Again, "union" attitudes like yours (and they would NOT have to be representative of "union" attitudes generally...even though they often seem to be now) have driven untold numbers of jobs from our shores...and have damn near destroyed wide areas of the economy in the process. It's my contention that this country just can't afford to artificially subsidize those who don't intend to fully EARN their way on the basis of their market worth. Moreover, if we continue to try, I can't help but believe that investors simply will move more and more of their capital overseas, where it's more fairly valued...and take the jobs that capital provides with them.</p><p> </p><p>Unions don't HAVE to be economically "bad" for their members and the country as a whole. It's just that many unions - as they operate today - seem to exist simply (1) preserve an inbred bureaucracy and (2) to piss away the job opportunities of both their members and the labor force at large. And I suspect that as long as they keep their heads buried in the sand, they will continue to function that way throughout their self-imposed short existence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 622656, member: 16651"] upsguy72; Nobody is ever going to accuse you of not being the sharpest arrow in the quiver, are they? [smile] After all, it's not like *YOU* would CONTINUE to jump to conclusions, is it? ['nother "smile"] Sorry, Sport, but I would be just fine if UPS wasn't union, as would most of it's management and hourly employees...or at least that majority of them who are confident of their personal market worth and DON'T feel the need to have their existence subsidized by others. As for "security" and "pensions".....well, have you actually LOOKED at vaunted Teamster "job security" lately"? Or the security of their pensions? As I mentioned in another post, the prime aspect of being "Teamster" over the last few decades was that you were likely to LOSE "your" job on the basis of that membership; not have it secured! As for Teamster pension security at UPS; well, I can't help but think that UPSers pensions (those of ALL stripes) would be much better off if the company hadn't had to subsidize other NON-UPS Teamsters to the tune of billions and billions of dollars (and make no mistake; the $6 billion withdrawal liability was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of that subsidy!). This may be a bit presumptuous of my part, but given the personal history you related, I can't help but think of the topics once discussed on the AMFANUTS forum (among other places) before and during the NWA mechanics strike by people who apparently had the same outlook and work ethic as you. You do remember what happened to them, don't you? And do you recall the horror they seemed to recoil with when it finally dawned on them as to what, in the end, "the union" actually "provided" them? Now I can understand how you might not be particularly happy with the prospect of having your labor valued on the basis of what it's worth on the open market. But surely you realize that I and my associates aren't going to be content subsidizing welfare queens forever, don't you? Again, "union" attitudes like yours (and they would NOT have to be representative of "union" attitudes generally...even though they often seem to be now) have driven untold numbers of jobs from our shores...and have damn near destroyed wide areas of the economy in the process. It's my contention that this country just can't afford to artificially subsidize those who don't intend to fully EARN their way on the basis of their market worth. Moreover, if we continue to try, I can't help but believe that investors simply will move more and more of their capital overseas, where it's more fairly valued...and take the jobs that capital provides with them. Unions don't HAVE to be economically "bad" for their members and the country as a whole. It's just that many unions - as they operate today - seem to exist simply (1) preserve an inbred bureaucracy and (2) to piss away the job opportunities of both their members and the labor force at large. And I suspect that as long as they keep their heads buried in the sand, they will continue to function that way throughout their self-imposed short existence. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
getting paid for supervisors working?
Top