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
Scabs complaining about the steward not representing them
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: 978272" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Techgrrl;</p><p></p><p>H.m.m.m.....seems to me that if so many FedEx people see themselves as "getting screwed", then they can simply WALK OUT! Screwing stopped! No "ifs", "ands", or "buts". Given that relatively extremely few seem to be doing so, I think I'll stick with my premise, thank you! </p><p></p><p>In truth, I heard Teamsters claim more than more than thirty years ago that they'd have FedEx (which, at the time, was NOT a "contractor" company by any means) organized within a "matter of months". The fact that, a third of a century later, they're no closer to getting FedEx "organized" than they were way back when speaks volumes as to just what Fred's employees/contractors want from my perspective. They know which side their bread is buttered on, and seem to be willing to do what it takes to MAINTAIN THEIR EMPLOYMENT. UPSers have done relatively well along those lines, too...but as for Teamsters generally over that period of time? Nope; the defining characterisitic of a Teamster job over the last 35 years is that it most likely no longer exists. The majority of jobs Teamsters once held at that time have been lost...to be only partially replaced by (adjusted) lower paying positions. That, again, is simply reality.</p><p></p><p>Beyond that, I think you're redrawing the actual slope (and composition) of the "graph". What has gone DOWN over the last 30 years are TOTAL wages earned by union members, simply because those union members DROVE AWAY THEIR JOBS!!!! Did that affect the "median wage"? No doubt; any time an entity forces employers to seek labor elsewhere (and please don't claim that unions haven't performed that function; one look at the Mexican maquiladoras, or the vast number of items imported into this country from locales such as China should convince even the most left-leaning "techgrrl" of that reality), wages are going to be affected. As a rule, THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE JOBS ARE GOING TO "EARN" LESS THAN THOSE THAT DO!!!!</p><p></p><p>As for your discriminatory drivel about the South, and how much currency it has in relation to the current economic situation...well, I'm sorry, but from this perspective, it sounds more like sour grapes from an individual who resents the fact that a group of more competitive states are GAINING jobs (and income), while those states which have mired themselves in the same type of attitude that you have are LOSING theirs, to say nothing of floundering economically. Seen a vast migration of individuals from the RTW states going to non-RTW climes like Michigan seeking employment over the last few years, have ya'? Or what about the company we both seem to have worked for? When I begain, it was headquarted in NYC, and then some time later moved to more leafy Greenwich. But eventually it moved to one of those "Confederate" states, where it remains today. Why, one wonders? </p><p></p><p>Consider something for a moment; what are the CURRENT adjusted TOTAL wages of ALL Teamsters today compared to that figure 40 years ago? What about that of the union auto workers - the UAW? Or the USW? Or that of the UFCW? Or the IAM? See a problem there? What's happening is that you're trying to blame a problem people like YOU created and which people like YOU have maintained on those who actually provide jobs. The economic reality is that, if people like you figuratively kick those jobs providers in the teeth, then they're simply going to take their jobs elsewhere. And, ultimately, there's not a single thing people like you can do about the situation except to make yourself more attractive to those employers by becoming competitive yourself.</p><p></p><p>A few days ago, I got back from a short trip to Spain. Over there, as you can imagine, all the talk is about the economic crisis...and, most specifically, the vast amount of capital that is leaving the country. Capital flight - and we've seen it to some degree over here as well - is a terrible thing. Capital supports jobs and is the basis of economies generally. Without it, countries suffer. But why does it leave? Essentially because too many people such as yourself buy into the idea that corporate interests, or whatever, OWE them something, simply because they exist....that, somehow, the big, bad "corporations" need to be your sugar daddy on the basis of what you WANT instead of what you have to PROVIDE.</p><p></p><p>Good luck with that. If you want to deny reality, then you go right ahead. Just remember, however, that it IS reality.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 978272, member: 16651"] Techgrrl; H.m.m.m.....seems to me that if so many FedEx people see themselves as "getting screwed", then they can simply WALK OUT! Screwing stopped! No "ifs", "ands", or "buts". Given that relatively extremely few seem to be doing so, I think I'll stick with my premise, thank you! In truth, I heard Teamsters claim more than more than thirty years ago that they'd have FedEx (which, at the time, was NOT a "contractor" company by any means) organized within a "matter of months". The fact that, a third of a century later, they're no closer to getting FedEx "organized" than they were way back when speaks volumes as to just what Fred's employees/contractors want from my perspective. They know which side their bread is buttered on, and seem to be willing to do what it takes to MAINTAIN THEIR EMPLOYMENT. UPSers have done relatively well along those lines, too...but as for Teamsters generally over that period of time? Nope; the defining characterisitic of a Teamster job over the last 35 years is that it most likely no longer exists. The majority of jobs Teamsters once held at that time have been lost...to be only partially replaced by (adjusted) lower paying positions. That, again, is simply reality. Beyond that, I think you're redrawing the actual slope (and composition) of the "graph". What has gone DOWN over the last 30 years are TOTAL wages earned by union members, simply because those union members DROVE AWAY THEIR JOBS!!!! Did that affect the "median wage"? No doubt; any time an entity forces employers to seek labor elsewhere (and please don't claim that unions haven't performed that function; one look at the Mexican maquiladoras, or the vast number of items imported into this country from locales such as China should convince even the most left-leaning "techgrrl" of that reality), wages are going to be affected. As a rule, THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE JOBS ARE GOING TO "EARN" LESS THAN THOSE THAT DO!!!! As for your discriminatory drivel about the South, and how much currency it has in relation to the current economic situation...well, I'm sorry, but from this perspective, it sounds more like sour grapes from an individual who resents the fact that a group of more competitive states are GAINING jobs (and income), while those states which have mired themselves in the same type of attitude that you have are LOSING theirs, to say nothing of floundering economically. Seen a vast migration of individuals from the RTW states going to non-RTW climes like Michigan seeking employment over the last few years, have ya'? Or what about the company we both seem to have worked for? When I begain, it was headquarted in NYC, and then some time later moved to more leafy Greenwich. But eventually it moved to one of those "Confederate" states, where it remains today. Why, one wonders? Consider something for a moment; what are the CURRENT adjusted TOTAL wages of ALL Teamsters today compared to that figure 40 years ago? What about that of the union auto workers - the UAW? Or the USW? Or that of the UFCW? Or the IAM? See a problem there? What's happening is that you're trying to blame a problem people like YOU created and which people like YOU have maintained on those who actually provide jobs. The economic reality is that, if people like you figuratively kick those jobs providers in the teeth, then they're simply going to take their jobs elsewhere. And, ultimately, there's not a single thing people like you can do about the situation except to make yourself more attractive to those employers by becoming competitive yourself. A few days ago, I got back from a short trip to Spain. Over there, as you can imagine, all the talk is about the economic crisis...and, most specifically, the vast amount of capital that is leaving the country. Capital flight - and we've seen it to some degree over here as well - is a terrible thing. Capital supports jobs and is the basis of economies generally. Without it, countries suffer. But why does it leave? Essentially because too many people such as yourself buy into the idea that corporate interests, or whatever, OWE them something, simply because they exist....that, somehow, the big, bad "corporations" need to be your sugar daddy on the basis of what you WANT instead of what you have to PROVIDE. Good luck with that. If you want to deny reality, then you go right ahead. Just remember, however, that it IS reality. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Scabs complaining about the steward not representing them
Top