I can tell that this is a very labor friendly thread. So much respect for anyone who gets their hands dirty for a living. Now, apparently, these workers make too much and don't deserve even what they make now.
I wouldn't pay someone $50,000 to drive a truck. Then again, I might not be able to find someone to drive for me either. In that case the free market would tell me I was wrong.
What I would like to know is why is this pension fund so important to UPS? Its not THEIR pension money, its their employees', right? So why can't the employees decide who should hold and invest THEIR money?
I totally agree that the Union Members should be able to decide who controls the pension. The Union Bosses don't, otherwise they'd ask the members by taking a vote on the contract. Instead they want to decide. Right?
Isn't this just a thinly veiled attempt by business to put the knife to the Teamsters - by crippling their pension fund (UPS's share is 15% and up, right?). God knows UPS management is not looking out for the pension fund for the employees' sake.
In your own words it's the employees' money, not the Teamsters'. Why would it cripple the Teamsters if someone else managed it? Are you implying that the Union Bosses may be managing the money for some reason other than maximum return to the employees? Wouldn't this be misappropriation of funds?
I guess we don't have to worry about that because the Union has a spotless record with saints like Jimmy Hoffa looking out for the workers. Isn't this just a thinly-veiled attempt by Teamsters President Ron Carey to shore up his own support by causing a crisis? Isn't your message just a thinly-veiled attempt to disrupt this thread by lobbing rhetoric and inflammatory statements, hoping to cause tempers to flare and rational discussion to disappear?
It's clear that pension funds that should be used for the benefit of UPS employees are being used to subsidize other pensioneers. You said the money belongs to the UPS employees, so why are you and the Union Bosses arguing so hard that part of it belongs to someone else?
Clearly this strike has little to do with UPS and UPS workers, otherwise it would not be frustrating so many of you. I have heard none of you mention that you are shareholders. Rather, it is Big business versus Labor and a showdown to see who flinches. What happens here will impact labor's role everywhere.
If UPS ever goes public then I'll buy some. You don't even know that the company you're attacking so strongly is privately held. What else do you not know?
So lets get to the root of it. Admit it. Most of you, like Gerald, think these slack-jawed unskilled laborers make too much as it is and when they decide to exert their influence and make a fuss, they need to be nipped in the bud lest other workers get ideas. God knows we can't have wage inflation - some of this hard earned wealth (hardearned by shareholders - shareholding is hard work!)may trickle down to those overpaid morons who make up 95% of the company - a company that seems to do pretty well even though its workers are clearly greatly overpaid for the useless contribution they make to the company and the economy.
You sure do have a chip on your shoulder. You also seem really hung up over my statement that $50,000 is in my opinion an unrealistically high salary for a truck driver. From this you get the rant quoted above. Why? What do you think a UPS delivery truck driver should make? Surely if you know I'm wrong you must know the right answer. How about a software engineer? How about a guy who stands at the road construction site and turns the Stop/Slow sign around and around all day? How about a heart surgeon? How about a janitor? (An interesting aside: the union that represents the janitors uses non-union janitors in its headquarters. This was reported in a national newspaper story a few weeks back.)
So let's put it out on the table for all to see. We all hate these damned blue collar schmucks rabble rousing for control of THEIR pension and more full time work. We hate that they are willing to go on strike so that more of their fellow workers can get full time jobs ($20 vs $11 an hour, I believe.) We all would love them to make even less to squeeze out a higher EPS and reward us for the hard work (and great risk) of investing in the company. IF they want to make money honestly they should invest, right? (Someone tell me how someone making $11 an hour can find spare change to invest?)
Again, the Union Bosses aren't letting their members say who should control their pension. They won't let them vote on it. Do the Union Bosses think their members are too stupid to decide it for themselves?
A nationwide poll shows that 4 out of every 5 part-time workers want to be part time. Coincidently, this is exactly the same ratio as an internal poll by UPS. The highest desire for part-time work was in the younger workers (students), the older workers (who have to worry about soak-the-rich Social Security means-testing taxes), and women. (Both of the previous polls were reported in a newspaper story last week.)
So let's not pretend anymore that this discussion is about what's fair or equitable for either party in this strike. Its about keeping wages down unversally - and thereby inflation, right? We have all been watching holding our breaths as the economy roars ahead and wages have stagnated (except for executives who EARN their living). Now we all whine when it looks like the little dream is over and workers are clamoring for higher wages. Didn't you think it was going to happen eventually?
I'm not an executive. I WORK for a living. I invest with MONEY I SAVED. What do you do?
By the way, in your ranting reply to my previous message you bad-mouthed blue collar workers, calling them schmucks, rabble rousers and slack-jawed morons. I'd appreciate it if you would cease this as my father was in the Laborer's Union for over 20 years and I take offense at your insulting him.
That is my Union connection. What connection do you have to a Union?
Pilots should not have Unions. Janitors should. Engineers should not have Unions. Laborers should. Skilled workers should not have Unions. Unskilled workers should. |
