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
Occupy Wall Street
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: 936112" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>bbsam;</p><p></p><p>OK, I'll concede that; the question then arises as to "if they're NEGOTIATING, then what are they negotiating WITH?" In other words, what do they (the "occupiers") have to offer? I'd contend that acts of intimidation and violence, or threats of economic destruction aren't elements of "negotiation", but rather of intimidation and extortion. </p><p></p><p>So again...what does the "occupy" class have to OFFER that would make "the other side" want to NEGOTIATE with them to obtain it? What would the "other side" want from them? I think it goes without saying what "the other side" has to offer; i.e. - that which has been the object of so much "gimme, gimme" yelling....wages, benefits, social standing, etc., etc. . But what about the "occupiers"?</p><p></p><p>To put it in a more "local" frame, consider this (and this is for illustrative purposes only...I'm not saying that it could or would happen). Say UPS perhaps *DID* decide to "not give drivers the free medical insurance anymore"....and had a set of OTHER drivers standing on the sidelines, just waiting to be brought into play.. Say that they were reasonably skilled and willing to work for UPS WITHOUT being the beneficiaries of such insurance as well. Now that's not as an outlandish a possibility at many might think. Witness what happened to the NWA mechanics (a group much more highly skilled in a technical sense than UPS drivers) a few years back. Or what's happening to the Electro-Motive employees up in Ontario literally TODAY, as they're seeing "their" plant shuttered and their jobs being shipped-off to (of all places!) Muncie, Indiana. I'd submit that, in such situations, the basis of "negotiation" is changed. Then those who wish to "negotiate" have to consider what they have to "negotiate" with...and adjust their demands accordingly. On that basis, what can the "occupy" crowd demand? </p><p></p><p> As I see it, there's no moral obligation to pretend-"negotiate" with those who don't have (or no longer have) anything one particularly wants. Oh, you may do it out of sense of Christian charity or what-not (and I'm far from against that!)....but it's not a "negotiation" in any realistic sense of the word.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 936112, member: 16651"] bbsam; OK, I'll concede that; the question then arises as to "if they're NEGOTIATING, then what are they negotiating WITH?" In other words, what do they (the "occupiers") have to offer? I'd contend that acts of intimidation and violence, or threats of economic destruction aren't elements of "negotiation", but rather of intimidation and extortion. So again...what does the "occupy" class have to OFFER that would make "the other side" want to NEGOTIATE with them to obtain it? What would the "other side" want from them? I think it goes without saying what "the other side" has to offer; i.e. - that which has been the object of so much "gimme, gimme" yelling....wages, benefits, social standing, etc., etc. . But what about the "occupiers"? To put it in a more "local" frame, consider this (and this is for illustrative purposes only...I'm not saying that it could or would happen). Say UPS perhaps *DID* decide to "not give drivers the free medical insurance anymore"....and had a set of OTHER drivers standing on the sidelines, just waiting to be brought into play.. Say that they were reasonably skilled and willing to work for UPS WITHOUT being the beneficiaries of such insurance as well. Now that's not as an outlandish a possibility at many might think. Witness what happened to the NWA mechanics (a group much more highly skilled in a technical sense than UPS drivers) a few years back. Or what's happening to the Electro-Motive employees up in Ontario literally TODAY, as they're seeing "their" plant shuttered and their jobs being shipped-off to (of all places!) Muncie, Indiana. I'd submit that, in such situations, the basis of "negotiation" is changed. Then those who wish to "negotiate" have to consider what they have to "negotiate" with...and adjust their demands accordingly. On that basis, what can the "occupy" crowd demand? As I see it, there's no moral obligation to pretend-"negotiate" with those who don't have (or no longer have) anything one particularly wants. Oh, you may do it out of sense of Christian charity or what-not (and I'm far from against that!)....but it's not a "negotiation" in any realistic sense of the word. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Occupy Wall Street
Top