Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?

[PobreCarlos]

JonFrum;

Let me ask you; are you maintain with your comment of....

"You claim "excess payments not credited to them personally before that withdrawal" were lost. What are you talking about? Everyone's account was current through the day of withdrawal."

...that ALL the payments that UPS made went to UPS EMPLOYEES PENSIONS? Remember, we're not talking about "ERISA regulations" here...but rather Teamster culpability in destroying the members employers, and thus their pension plans. You know, your "some truth" premise. Seems to me that those payments which were made in the UPS pensioners' names but for which they will NOT be given credit should be considered "excess" under any reasonable use of the word. Another term for it might be "funds that the Teamsters pissed away". That suit you better?

Again, READ THE DOCUMENTS! I know you're not a stupid guy. I'm also very aware by now that you feel you have a duty to defend the union's actions at all costs. But all the rehashing of the same ol' Teamsters saws in the world is going to change the fact that the Teamsters pension funds (or at least a large part of them) are on the ropes because THE TEAMSTERS PUT THE EMPLOYERS THAT SUPPORTED THOSE PENSIONS OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!

Lastly, before you get too uppity about Western States with me, you might want to recall that Western States (unlike Central States) is receiving - and has received - a rather heavy subsidy from UPS in the form of monthly pension payments on behalf of p/t'ers....the bulk of whom will NEVER RECEIVE A PENSION FROM THE FUND!! (call it another "shakedown", if you will). Those funds - which very well could go into direct wages for the affected p/t'ers, who otherwise will be completely crapped-on - or being used to prop-up the Western States pensioners of companies that, again, the IBT PUT OUT OF BUSINESS! I know that it apparently is too much to ask, but again, READ THE LYNCH TESTIMONY (or, more likely, admit that you HAVE by this point in time)

While you may not consider the consent decree to not having put the IBT in "trusteeship", the fact is that, effectively it has and is. Or do you deny the intervention rights of the court? Or the control which the Internal Review Board swings? Sorry...I deal in reality. You want to argue the point, then I suggest you take a look at the decree itself before presenting with another line of * in denial that there's an element of trustee-type control there..

I loved your spiel of...

"If the IBT does business with an investment house, or any business for that matter, it can threaten to take its business elsewhere anytime. It's a free country. But pension plans are a separate entity from the IBT and their Trustees can only legally do by majority vote what is in the best interest of the participants"

You DID notice, didn't you, that the officers of the pension funds soliciting the investment firms were ALSO officers IN THE IBT! And do you think their pressuring the firms for political purposes of the UNION advanced the effectiveness of their FIDUCIARY responsibility toward the fund's member PENSIONERS? I mean does it take very much of stretch to figure out that EFCA is going to HURT investments, and thus DIMINISH the pensioners investment as well?

And, again, I have to ask "since when has the IBT felt constrained by legalities"? YOU'VE got the link there. Since YOU are the one who is maintaining that there is such a separation, then why don't YOU report it to the authorities? Or is integrity something that comes hard for you?

Lastly, do you REALLY want to maintain that the IBT trustees were working in the UPS members best interests in terms of their pensions back in '97 when those same trustees - functioning as TEAMSTER officials as well - deprived them of the pension security that they KNEW was available to them? Security available OUTSIDE of CSPF?! Remember, per Sprague, the fund admitted that without UPS, it would be in a world of hurt; withdrawal, however, would NOT have adversely affected those members employed at UPS. Why? Because, even at that early time, UPS was making well more than 20% of the total contributions, while it's pensioners were receiving considerably less than that in return...and all that "excess" money would have been available to substantially ENHANCE UPSer's pension prospects. Now, however, it's been shot to Hell. And on what? I'd submit on the altar of Teamster intransigence and stupidity.

Sorry, "Jon"....but I deal in reality here. And the reality is that the Teamsters have destroyed the employers that supported them and their members jobs. And, in the process, they've gone a long ways toward destroying their pensions as well. No amount of dissembly is going to change that fact.

There was a time when the Teamsters could have "made a difference". They could have been acting in a collegial manner with employers and worked to PRESERVE their members' employers rather than handicapping them with almost every conceivable burden. They also could have made a concerted effort to organize the new firms that were coming in to take the place of those they destroyed .(again, I was told more than 30 years ago now by a Teamster honcho that FedEx would be organized "in a matter of months")...but no dice; the Teamsters haven't made a organizing effort worthy of the name - a RATIONAL organizing effort, that is - since before FedEx's coming into existence. And "yes", I'm aware of OVNT; note that I said "RATIONAL").

Too many Teamsters are like you in that they want to "blow" and paper the place with excuses instead of accepting responsibility and actually going about BETTERING things. And that's unfortunate. Because, you see, all the dilly-dallying rehash of crappola is not going to bring members jobs back, nor is it going to restore their pensions. Rather, people like you are actually going to have to do something POSITIVE for that to happen.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

please, please stop feeding the troll

Sorry Pobre Carlos but I have to agree with iowa boy, you are a troll. Anybody who posts on a website, that has as it's primary members those who are Teamsters (or those who depend on the Teamsters labor), essentially anti-union propaganda (I know, I know you are not anti-union and what you say is not propaganda) is begging for a fight.

It's akin to a Chevy guy posting on a Ford forum that Ford stands for "Found On Road Dead". Or calling Mustangs "Disgustangs" or "Rustangs".

And even if there is occasionally a shred of truth in your ramblings you are not going to get through by beating people over the head with your opinions (again, I know, you call them facts) or insulting them.

That being said, and though I have found you to be the most exasperating poster I have ever encountered at the Brown Cafe, you do serve a useful purpose. You allow those of us who fundamentally disagree with you a sounding board to bounce our ideas off of. Though, and not to be insulting, you have not won me over in the slightest, I have read some very interesting posts by other posters that have further reassured my own beliefs.

And for that I thank you.

So you see, no matter what your goal is here on these fine forums, if it might have been (which I highly doubt) to further unite my fellow union brothers and sisters, you are indeed accomplishing your goal.

I await an interesting, and snide, remark .

 

[JonFrum]

PobreCarlos,

If you believe UPS made excess contributions to Central States and that UPSers didn't get credit for them, first, report it to the authorities, and second, ask UPS why they didn't get the contributions properly credited originally, and later when they negotiated the mass withdrawal of UPSers. My view is that when UPS contributes money on a UPSer's behalf, it covers not only his future pension, but Plan expenses (building rent, employee wages and benefits, utilities, etc.), and unfunded liability insurance. As I said before, it's also an insurance plan. It could have been UPS that went bankrupt. It just so happens it was other companies that failed instead. That's actually good for us UPSers. But the down side of us surviving is we have to pick up the slack left by the other unfortunates who failed. That's life. That's how the plan is set up. That's what UPS agreed to. It's unbecoming to wait until you see you're among the survivors (and not in need of the insurance feature), and then try to avoid your responsibility by complaining and trying to change the rules.

Part-timers are covered in the Western Conference Fund, as they are in my New England Fund, and some others. In my Fund, part-timers get the same hourly contributions as full-timers, but, obviously, for fewer hours per year. They accumulate pension credits just as full-timers do, but obviously, at a slower rate. Once upon a time UPS part-timers got lots of hours, but UPS has now reduced them to just 17.5 hours a week or so. That's UPS' doing, not the pension funds'. Just as it was UPS' doing to make so many jobs part-time in the first place. In the New England Fund there's also a special part-time scale that lets part-timers get pension credits easier. It's not a great deal, but it's certainly not just a subsidy to the Fund, or a waste of contribution money.

When I said the IBT was not put into trusteeship as the Central States Fund was, I made it clear that it was nevertheless closely supervised by the IRB, and I even linked to the IRB website. I said, "The IBT 1989 Consent Decree gave the government sweeping powers to rid the Teamsters of crime and corruption, but did not put the IBT into trusteeship." The point was that both the IBT and Central States were and are under their seperate Court Orders. Central States even more so because investment decisions in particular are made by Named Fiduciaries, not Teamster thugs wearing pinky rings and chomping cigars in smoke filled rooms in Vegas hotels as you may imagine.

If you think the Teamsters are so evil, why do you repeatedly demand that they organize Fedex, and all the non-union trucking companies? You sound like a father who's daughter has been raped and now he wishes every other daughter in the neighborhood to be raped as well to level the playing field. Misery loves company. That's a sick attitude on your part. And what would happen if the teamsters uionized all the more companies? According to your view, wouldn't this destroy more companies and bring further ruin to the pension plans? You think the way many in the Soviet Union thought: They would rather pull everyone down to the lowest common level rather than suffer seeing anyone rise to a higher standard of living or escape a bad situation.

When you say UPS "made contributions at levels many times higher than the next largest contributing employer," you do understand that UPS had more covered employees and so was buying proportionally more coverage for more of its people? Further, there are published contribution scales where a given dollar amount of hourly contribution rate buys you a given future pension accrual rate. Both sides of the scale go up in value proportionally. Every employer contributing at a given rate earns its employees the same accrual rate. Thus if UPS and Roadway contribute the same amount per hour, their employees earn the same benefit. If Roadway contributes, say, 10-cents per hour less, their employees earn slightly less towards their future pension. Each company's actual contribution rate is agreed to by Management and Labor in contract negotiations.

Ever think that the US (and world) economy is going through a severe recession and maybe this has caused some of the problems in the Central States Pension Fund, (and all funds for that matter, including ones run exclusively by UPS)? Hasn't your personal IRA and 401(k) suffered? And what about the current price of UPS stock a decade after it went public? Not to mention the previous recession in 2000-2002 which was considered bad at the time.

Why do you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong? For just one example, why repeatedly scold me for not reading the Lynch testimony when I read it years ago and even posted it on Browncafe?

Aren't you getting tired of throwing enough mud against the wall hopeing something will stick?

 

[kingOFchester]

My eyes hurt.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Jon;

Again, you obviously refused to read (or are behaving in a more typical Teamster manner, as mentioned in a previous post, and outlined below!) the links I provided, or you wouldn't be making inane statements like....

"When you say UPS "made contributions at levels many times higher than the next largest contributing employer," you do understand that UPS had more covered employees and so was buying proportionally more coverage for more of its people?"

...otherwise you would know (or, if honest, would be willing to admit) that, in them, that topic was directly addressed. Tell me, are you prepared to state unequivocally that UPS was not paying "proportionally more" PER EMPLOYEE - more than for mere coverage - than the share paid by employers - both existent and extinct - of the other participants? If you are, then don't try to tell me that you've "read" Lynch and Sprague later on..or at least not with a straight face.

Beyond that, actually, I think I've made quite a lot "stick". What has happened is that I'm speaking with an individual who is quite capable of denying the reality of that "sticking" You blame it on the economy (Central States was in the crapper well before the economy went south), the previous down-tick in the economy, and despite the MASSIVE loss of contributing employers, allow that there may be only "some truth" the idea that the Teamsters let the pensions down by not refraining from putting those businesses that contributed to the plans out of business. Typical Teamster; deny, deny, deny....and NEVER, under ANY circumstances, accept RESPOSIBILITY for what they've done.

Always "someone else's fault, isn't it Jon? I mean the fact that those 47 of 50 once-largest trucking companies listed in Lynch which were Teamster-organized are out of business today is pure coincidence, isn't it? And if the fact that those companies went out of business (which, again, the Teamsters are in no way responsible for - at least according to the party line), is, in turn, in no way responsible for the state the pension funds are in. Yep, that "won't stick", will it? S.h.e.e.s.s.s.h!!!!!

Which brings us to FDX. Contrary to your assumption that I'm like a father who's daughter has been raped, what I am is one who actually DOES want a "level playing field". As to "WHY" i would want it? Well, beyond selfish reasons, isn't it OBVIOUS? I.E. - to PROTECT those that UPS employ who, in case you hadn't noticed it, ARE TEAMSTER PENSION FUND PARTICIPANTS!!! As for the "evil" part, "yes", I do think that the union is somewhat "evil" - at least in terms of it's membership- when it parasitically feeds off of one entity while giving a competitive entity a complete "bye". In case you hadn't noticed, that's EXACTLY the form of EVIL (and yes, it *IS* evil) that has ALREADY cost well over a million Teamster members their jobs.

Which brings us to your....

"Why do you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong? For just one example, why repeatedly scold me for not reading the Lynch testimony when I read it years ago and even posted it on Browncafe?"

...in what way am I making a assumptions that are wrong. First, I'd be willing to be that if you "posted it on Browncafe" "years ago", you first retrieved it by virtue of a link I posted elsewhere. Secondly, I haven't made the SOLE assumption that you haven't read "Lynch"; if you'll notice, in a post above, I think I mentioned that it was likely that you HAD read them, but simply chose to ignore - or not admit - that you had. In any case, to be completely forthright, I really don't doubt that you HAVE read it, because, from what little I've learned about you from your posts (and here I AM "assuming"...but I think I'm on pretty safe ground) I think it's a case of you not having the integrity to deal with such documents honestly; i.e. - since they don't conform to that little Teamster universe that you will only allow yourself to function in, then you think they can't have validity. In short, I was trying to avoid calling you a liar to your face. Happy?

In any case, given your comments, I think it's pretty obvious to even a casual observer (who has read Lynch) that, if you, yourself, had read it, your comprehension of what you read is very, very minimal.

Lastly, I know that it must really piss you off to have a guy come on here and make you realize that, in spite of your rantin' 'n' raving, your tossing excuses around like they were orange slices, etc., and with almost all the tilting in their favor an organization could hope for, you and your compadres STILL can't make a go of it in terms of constituting a constructive labor union...and STILL can't point to something substantial and positive that you've accomplished for the membership (past and present) as whole. Nope...only a half century of failure. Leader leader after leader being indicted and/or convicted of crimes. Lost jobs, lost pensions, and lost membership. You find yourselves in a position where you can't get enough workers to vote for you of their own free will, so you push for a legislation that allows you to intimidate them into publicly "signing off" on your failed program.

In that vein, I got a kick out of your little ditty about FDX above; if something like that isn't indicative of the state of the moral bankruptcy that the Teamsters union is in today, I don't know what is. What's your purpose, "Jon"? To deprive ANOTHER million decent individuals of their means of making a living? You must feel SO proud!

Anyway, you have fun. Eventually, breaking the pattern of all the evidence found so far, maybe you'll find something that DOESN'T "stick". One can hope, 'eh? [smile]

 

[PobreCarlos]

JimJimmy;

I'm sorry! I thought I read somewhere that Browncafe existed not only for the benefit of Teamsters, but of management, shareholders, and employees generally as well. Was I mistaken?

That said, I appreciate your word of "thanks". I like to think that I'm "exasperating" because I bring a degree of logic and factuality to the environment, along with a touchstone of reality. Far, FAR too often on "Teamsters only" sites, those are elements that come close to being completely missing.

As for the rest, I can only say that I think I've already established a pretty fair (and extensive) record of being "right" in terms of what subsequently became "history". In light of what became "history", I don't mind being judged on that record at all....and I'd appreciate it if YOU judged me in light of that record as well.

Anyway, thanks again. And might I suggest that you revise your idea of what a "troll" is, in that now it seems to be simply one of an individual who doesn't "go along with the crowd" in terms of his expression.

P.S. - Here's the expected snide remark (hate to disappoint, and can only hope you find it interesting!) In re-reading your post, I noticed your "...who DEPEND on Teamster labor" comment...which set me to musing. To wit; I wonder just who at UPS - beyond Teamsters themselves - really feel that they "depend" on Teamster labor? Or feel that they couldn't do equally well with (and "depend" on) labor that was not associated with the Teamsters? Something to keep in mind in that regard is that well less than half of UPS hourly employees are members of the Teamsters today.

 

[dannyboy]

Something to keep in mind in that regard is that well less than half of UPS hourly employees are members of the Teamsters today.

The majority of which are part timers, who as the point of this thread, make less than the wage at Wendy's. Why should they belong? There is no point in belonging when you really make nothing, but yet work harder than most jobs for more money.

Of course you take great pride in distortion of the facts to suit your particular need.

Troll maybe not, but far less that the diamond honesty you try to portray.

d

 

[PobreCarlos]

DannyBoy;

Somewhat agreed...although of the 450,000 or so individuals employed world-wide by UPS, I've heard no authority that convinces me that "a majority" of them "are part timers". But, in any case, you DO realize what you're saying with your...

"The majority of which are part timers, who as the point of this thread, make less than the wage at Wendy's.

...comment, don't you? Far from "distort[ing] such facts, I relish pointing them out. In fact, they're part 'n' parcel of my argument. Why SHOULD employees belong to an organization that has, figuratively at least, sold them down the river? Don't think pension contributions to a union made in their names, but that they'll never realize the benefit of, isn't behavior that contributes [and contributes MIGHTILY!] to their low wages, for example? Do you think that they're not aware of the preference the union has shown over them when it comes to negotiations? Remember the union is presented with an economic basket...and how it chooses to dispense with the contents of that basket is pretty much at it's discretion. And sometime after I myself was a p/t'er, the union decided that, given the transient nature of part-time employees, it felt safe in screwing them over in favor of the full-timers...who could be depended upon to keep paying those dues which that maintains the union bureaucracy. It wasn't for no reason that the original wall-bangers of TDU precursor organization (like UPSurge, for example) were primarily p/t'ers. They saw that the union was screwing them over, and wanted to change it.

Sorry, "danny" but "diamond honesty" demands that you look at such facts objectively...and the fact "the majority" (using your term) "make less" says something about the union that is supposed to be representing them. Or don't you think so?

 

[Just Numbers]

Who is to blame? Read post #66. With the length of most posts it was easily skipped over. But before you do that realize one of the real culprits is not being mentioned, it is our goverment. While everyone bashes each other our leaders are taking more control over us and our capitalist society (what's left of it). Is it promote the general welfare or control the general welfare?

 

[PobreCarlos]

JustNumbers;

Not going to argue with you there. Happen to agree whole-heartedly. Whether it's to "promote the general welfare", as our legal foundations specify, or to "control the general welfare" as seems to be the desire of many, I'm not sure government today it doing either effectively.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

Far, FAR too often on "Teamsters only" sites, those are elements that come close to being completely missing.

So, are you telling us you go hopscotching around to different "Teamster" sites spreading your wisdom?

And you do not see that as troll like?

If I go around to different lakes in my area, with a fishing pole in my hand, would it be safe to assume that I am trying to catch fish? And would the fish not be at least a little upset with my activities.

Why don't you go to sites where you will be hailed as a hero?

And if your stake in all of this is that you are a shareholder, do you really think we are all of a sudden going to ditch our representation because of the "facts" you present? My suggestion would simply be for you to invest in companies you believe in.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Jimmy;

Heh, what's the fun in participating in sites that are all sweetness and light? Beyond that, I think I probably added quite a bit to those sites which I've participated in...and that a lapse in my participation on them is not generally considered a positive. After all, lightening needs [well, maybe not "needs", but you get the picture!] a lightening rod to ground itself on.

Actually, have you considered that I may be functioning as a form of drill sergeant, preparing Teamsters in a rather gentle way for the much more fierce blasts they may encounter outside in a not-so-sheltered environment? After all, I'm far from the brightest guy on earth; if Teamsters can't field the questions I lob at them, how can they hope to do well against those on the outside who REALLY have something on the ball?

As for your remarks about my investment, I seriously doubt that there are many posters here who's association with UPS pre-dates my investment (or my working as an hourly, or my being in management, or my being a retiree) in/at UPS. That being the case, wouldn't it be better, perhaps, if you turned the question around, and asked yourself why you are working for a company [which, as you are surely aware, is composed of its investors] that apparently you don't believe in?

By that I mean that I assumed that the "Brown" in "Brown Cafe" refers to UPS...and I think a very good case could be made that "UPS" consists of those that own it, while the hired help is - no more, and certainly no less - simply that; the hired help. Given that, why should I presume to put the cart before the horse?

All sort of "tongue in cheek", of course. But I think you'll find there's at least an ELEMENT of truth in it.

Lastly, while it may be presumptuous, and while it may not have been "all of a sudden", or a complete "ditching", I do think that I've already had an influence on your representation. More than once, I've seen the IBT react directly to some of the concerns I've expressed, and I've also seen a negotiating attitude change (on both sides) apparently because of the influence of myself in concert with other advocates. Anyway, "no", I don't expect a "sudden ditch", I do, however, expect my influence to engender a more-informed Teamster membership that is less likely to accept uncritically everything that is passed-down to them from the International.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

Beyond that, I think I probably added quite a bit to those sites which I've participated in...and that a lapse in my participation on them is not generally considered a positive.

In that vein, your tagline should be "I am not completely useless, I can be used as a bad example" .

 

[PobreCarlos]

In that vein, your tagline should be "I am not completely useless, I can be used as a bad example" .

If that's your perspective, then so be it. Like I've said many times before, "You can lead a Teamster to [put whatever forum's name here], but you can't make him think"

 

[Slack Adjuster]

During contract negotiations there is a "pot of money".
The part-timer compensation comes out of that pot of money and the rest is left for full-timers or vice-versa.
It's really as simple as that.
UPS is already the high-cost provider in small package.

Let's also dont forget these timeless classics; 1." The volume is down " 2."We'd let you have today off, but we dont have anyone to run your route"3."If we made an exception for you, we'd have to make 'em for everyone". And finally, 4. "Last ,best, and final offer."

 

[dannyboy]

PC

I have many times been a target for those union supporters who tell everyone that without the union, you would not be making near what you make, and you would not have a good a job as you do.

I dont believe that one bit. As a self starter, I, like a lot of other posters on this site have always given extra effort to whom ever it is we are working for. It just happens to be UPS in this case. And the pay we get reflects the work we do. Nobody but nobody hustles like we do. After 33 years, I can repeat that again, Nobody hustles like we do.

And if at this job I did not make what I felt was a decent wage to reflect the work done, I would have moved on many years ago. There are a lot of places that compensate very well besides UPS. And many are non union.

Criminal activity in the teamsters is nothing new. After all, in every Teamster mag is three or four pages of legal activity against those that have been caught dealing first hand with organized crime. And without a doubt it was organized crime that put Hoffa 1 God knows where. And that lesson is not lost on the H Jr.

But for the rank and file, or the majority of the Teamsters at UPS, they are not thugs or intimidaters like you want to portray. They are the guys and gals next door. The backbone of what makes this country good.

Have the unions outlived their usefulness? Could be.

When the unions first came into play, there was no OSHA, no work place safety concern, no limits on hours that can be worked before paying overtime and the list goes on and on.

Now all those issues are taken care of for every employee union and no.

You bring up a lot of interesting parallels between our country and overseas, where a lot of manufacturing jobs have gone. Some of the issues did involve unions trying to get the best contract for the employees, nothing wrong with that.

Problem is that when you are dealing with companies that deal with labor that makes less than a dollar an hour somewhere else, true labor costs can not compare. It is cheaper to take your labor intensive business overseas. Walmart has taught us that well.

But it is interesting to see, with the case of Briggs and Stratton for instance that when you figure the cost of quality issues into the labor costs, then add shipping, they have found that making it here in the USA does make a lot of sense.

As for the auto makers, the restrictions, laws and other misc goodies imposed by our federal gooberment had more to do with the failure than most any other single item.

Yes I know, keeping workers in a pool to draw from in case you need them while paying them full wages for doing nothing never did make sense, but the companies agreed to that in the contract.

And like so many things in our contract, it was to be a benefit for the company as well as the union member.

It is interesting that the very lines that the gooberment forced GM to sell off have been snapped up by other countries, leaving us with cars the gooberment wants GM to produce.

So the bottom line is this, the gooberment is in charge as far as what the automakers will produce. And with the gooberment in charge of what gas prices are doing right now, you can only imagine what types of crap will be produced next.

d

 

[Meliorate]

Originally Posted by Hoaxster
During contract negotiations there is a "pot of money".
The part-timer compensation comes out of that pot of money and the rest is left for full-timers or vice-versa.
It's really as simple as that.
UPS is already the high-cost provider in small package.

Let's also dont forget these timeless classics; 1." The volume is down " 2."We'd let you have today off, but we dont have anyone to run your route"3."If we made an exception for you, we'd have to make 'em for everyone". And finally, 4. "Last ,best, and final offer."

I take it you don't have a budget and if you do, you don't stick to it.
If you buy it, you have to pay for it.

 

[PobreCarlos]

DannyBoy;

Instead of quibbling over much, I'm just going to say "well spoken", and make a comment which isn't exactly contrary, I believe, to anything you've said.

One thing to remember is that this country can't exist as an island...or place itself behind a Chinese Wall, so-to-speak. There are certain commodities, goods, and possibly services as well that we HAVE to import. Right now, oil is obviously the first one that comes to mind. But others, such as rarer metals, gems (for industrial needs), and other raw materials we simply have to have if we're going to exist as a modern, industrial society. Beyond that, there are a ton of goods that we need to import to satisfy what may not be "have to have" needs, but very strongly felt desires. Things such as coffee, chocolate, and organic materials needed to produce drugs. But, over the long run, to import those things, we have to export products and/or services of equal value. Oh, over the short term, perhaps we can just inflate the currency, or borrow from foreign lenders (as we've been doing to a far to great extent)...and maybe we could just militarily expropriate the resources we need (although that gets rather expensive and cost-ineffective as well).

However, if we don't produce something that the outside world wants, at the price it's willing to pay, then we CAN'T export domestically produced goods and services to pay for externally-produced commodities that we basically HAVE to have. Which means that, like it or not, if we want to maintain even a modicum of our standard of living, WE HAVE TO BE COMPETITIVE!

Does that mean selling out the ranch? Working for 50 cents an hour? No, of course not. As the British learned more than a century and a half ago, the cheapest labor in a cost-per-hour basis is not necessarily the most cost-effective; rather it's that which has the best cost/efficiency ratio.

Then there's the fact that, unless we assume a socialist state (and given the track record of socialist states so far, that's not an assumption I would presume would work out), the country needs capital to engage the workers that help produce the goods and services. If the workers price themselves out of the market, then that capital simply moves....as has happened in country after country which has imposed price controls, or began expropriating private property, etc. They'll go to climes where their capital is appreciated (as they're doing today; note the number of jobs that have gone overseas). Sure, it's easy to say that we'll legislate against such action. For example, we'll install protectionist tariffs, to make importing products more expensive. But, when that's done, it also makes domestically-produced goods more expensive, which means other countries aren't willing to buy them. Result? There's not only the loss of market here, but there's a greater market grown abroad, since the production - and the wealth it creates - has moved there as well. What follows? More production moves overseas to expand into those developing markets.

We're seeing exactly that happening today in the auto industry, by way of example. We've priced ourselves out of the market internationally. In doing so, we let other nations price themselves IN the market...and now THEY are earning the wealth that we once thought of as our own. Because of that, citizens of nations such as China, which we think of as being extremely low wage paying, are suddenly finding themselves considerably wealthier; able to buy the cars that WE once produced and WE once consumed.

I can't help but think it's highly revealing that last year (2008), China became the largest auto consuming (in number) nation on the Earth. Think of that; here's a nation in which the market for cars is larger than our own, yet we have no domestic production which can compete for that market. What's that say about our prospects? Should we just lie down and give in?

Should we give up on safety concerns, fairness in employment, etc? No, of course not! But somehow there HAS to be a realization that we're in a fight for our economic lives, and that if we're not competitive, we're going to end-up with 3rd world economic status. And, right now, in our basic industries, I can't help but feel that unions - AS THEY'RE ARE STRUCTURED NOW (which is a FAR cry from how they're structured in OTHER - even more "union" - parts of the world) are the biggest obstruction to being competitive.

Remember a few short months ago when there was pressure on the UAW to accept compensation no greater than what was being given workers at foreign-owned domestic auto plants? Remember the stink the UAW raised, in that it thought it shouldn't be classed with the employees of such plants; that they deserved more? Well, the truth is, they SHOULDN'T have been classed with those employees, because those employees were more PRODUCTIVE and COST EFFECTIVE..and they were helping their employers "make it" at a time when UAW employees were tearing their employers down (sorry, I once again have to bring into play the Malibu and Am. Axle strikes). Nope, they shouldn't have been classed with the foreign-owned plant workers; they should have been compensated at a LOWER level, simply because THEIR LABOR WAS WORTH LESS.

Again, I'm all for responsible unionism. But when a mutated form of destructive "unionism" takes hold like it has in this country, and destroys industry after industry (as it has), then I think it's time to take a hard look.

Sorry for attaching my dissertation to your post because, again, I appreciated your comments and the thought that went into them. In addition, for the most part, I was in complete agreement with them.

 

[Catatonic]

Let's also dont forget these timeless classics; 1." The volume is down " 2."We'd let you have today off, but we dont have anyone to run your route"3."If we made an exception for you, we'd have to make 'em for everyone". And finally, 4. "Last ,best, and final offer."

I heard those before but #2 has been a long, long time.

 

[Catatonic]

I take it you don't have a budget and if you do, you don't stick to it.
If you buy it, you have to pay for it.

You mean UPS doesn't have a credit card to buy things they can't pay for?