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
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
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: 544274" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Jimmy;</p><p> </p><p>Not all that "sentimental" about FDX workers jobs at all; simply stating the reasons they may think as they do. In that sense, it's worth recalling that, for a long measure of time, not all that long ago, FDX Express was NOT under the auspices of the Railway, but under the NLRB...until Fred was able to get Congress to provide him "cover" again. Even that was quite a few years after the Teamsters should have made a concerted effort to organize his company...something which they didn't do, and haven't done, up until this day.</p><p> </p><p>I sort of sympathize where you're coming from in terms of the trade issue...but then I'm reminded of what protectionism brought about in the late 20's and early 30's. As for demanding protectionism, have you forgotten what brought the foreign auto manufacturers to our shores? When I was a young adult, there really wasn't such a thing as a foreign-owned domestic auto factory....until Congress imposed import restrictions/tariffs based on domestically-produced content. Then, all of a sudden, Toyota, VW, Nissan, Kia, Benz - you name it - had simply moved production OVER HERE. That production was - notably NON-union, except for the co-owned plant in Fremont (?) California. They functioned under the same labor and safe regulations, etc....yet they STILL came out on top. Meanwhile, the protectionism that brought them here backfired in the sense that it limited OUR ability to export to the nations we set up barriers against. So what do "we" (i.e. - American capitalists) do? Move production overseas to capture some of their markets...but leaving the jobs behind. I maintain that protectionism like that is a vicious circle, in which essentially nobody wins...although the most competitive - over the long run - will almost invariably PREVAIL (if not actually "win" something).</p><p> </p><p>Finally, I guess my [unspoken] point regarding the law and FDX is that, at this point in time, I suspect there's a large body of FDX hourlies who realize that, regardless of the law, if it will mean jobs losses (and I believe most people realize that it would), it's not worth it for them to be "organized". And when companies see the burden imposed by the Teamster pension funds, I'm not too sure that firms even the size of FDX wouldn't fight to the bitter end (meaning perhaps even dissolution) in order to avoid being "organized".</p><p> </p><p>There's a nice little article hinting at this ("<a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/03/02/focus10.html" target="_blank">http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/03/02/focus10.html</a>") that I found. Take a look about half-way down, when it talks about the lumber company deciding to go out of business, even though it was still relatively a "going concern", because of the Teamster pension liability it saw going forward. And, again, I'd like you to remember that capital, much like water, seeks its own level, and follows the path of least resistance. And, like it or not, "capital" is what provides the jobs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 544274, member: 16651"] Jimmy; Not all that "sentimental" about FDX workers jobs at all; simply stating the reasons they may think as they do. In that sense, it's worth recalling that, for a long measure of time, not all that long ago, FDX Express was NOT under the auspices of the Railway, but under the NLRB...until Fred was able to get Congress to provide him "cover" again. Even that was quite a few years after the Teamsters should have made a concerted effort to organize his company...something which they didn't do, and haven't done, up until this day. I sort of sympathize where you're coming from in terms of the trade issue...but then I'm reminded of what protectionism brought about in the late 20's and early 30's. As for demanding protectionism, have you forgotten what brought the foreign auto manufacturers to our shores? When I was a young adult, there really wasn't such a thing as a foreign-owned domestic auto factory....until Congress imposed import restrictions/tariffs based on domestically-produced content. Then, all of a sudden, Toyota, VW, Nissan, Kia, Benz - you name it - had simply moved production OVER HERE. That production was - notably NON-union, except for the co-owned plant in Fremont (?) California. They functioned under the same labor and safe regulations, etc....yet they STILL came out on top. Meanwhile, the protectionism that brought them here backfired in the sense that it limited OUR ability to export to the nations we set up barriers against. So what do "we" (i.e. - American capitalists) do? Move production overseas to capture some of their markets...but leaving the jobs behind. I maintain that protectionism like that is a vicious circle, in which essentially nobody wins...although the most competitive - over the long run - will almost invariably PREVAIL (if not actually "win" something). Finally, I guess my [unspoken] point regarding the law and FDX is that, at this point in time, I suspect there's a large body of FDX hourlies who realize that, regardless of the law, if it will mean jobs losses (and I believe most people realize that it would), it's not worth it for them to be "organized". And when companies see the burden imposed by the Teamster pension funds, I'm not too sure that firms even the size of FDX wouldn't fight to the bitter end (meaning perhaps even dissolution) in order to avoid being "organized". There's a nice little article hinting at this ("[URL]http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/03/02/focus10.html[/URL]") that I found. Take a look about half-way down, when it talks about the lumber company deciding to go out of business, even though it was still relatively a "going concern", because of the Teamster pension liability it saw going forward. And, again, I'd like you to remember that capital, much like water, seeks its own level, and follows the path of least resistance. And, like it or not, "capital" is what provides the jobs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
Top