I am bereaved that the ironic tone of some of my post seems to have been lost on some of you. And Gerald, I resent your statement "The evil, good-for-nothing, greedy and hated business owner". My brother is a business owner for much of his life and I think he would take great umbrage to this aspersement to his character. Okay, as Gerald knows, using this kind of language is a quick and dirty, but efficient rhetorical device to get to the heart of the matter. It is unfortunate if some of you actually believe that the disparaging comments that I made about laborers were genuine. To you I recommend going back and reading that essay from your high school days - "A Modest Proposal"
Rather, what I hoped to accomplish was to draw a line in the sand and define the issue. Bring the matter to a head.
Is this about that whole pension fund thing? Isn't how negligently the fund is managed an issue between the Union and their members? Let them worry about it. I think they may have one Big Brother looking out for them already in the form of the Teamsters. God knows (Sorry! I keep pretending to know God's thoughts!!) that they don't need the UPS management pretending to look out for them.
Is it about the Teamsters not allowing a vote on a proposal? Well, lets see, do we have our ambassadors come back and poll the whole electorate every time we work out a treaty with a foreign country? That's why we Americans have representatives (both elected and appointed). And that's why Unions have representatives. The Union representatives can keep their focus on their goals instead of being swayed by slick proposals that please many but screw a few. Now, if the UPS workers feel they got screwed out of what they now got, they can vote out their union leaders or even their union. But the Teamsters cannot allow bargaining to be played in that way by management in the midst of a highly publicized labor dispute.
Is it because we are all concerned about how much money UPS drivers make - full and part time - and how many part time versus full time positions UPS creates? I don't think so - since as William so wisely explained - we, since none of us is a UPS employee - do not own UPS stock and therefore have little vested interest. - Now one of us may be a shareholder - but we would have to have been an employee at some time. As you pointed out, UPS is privately held. More precisely, it is PRIMARILY owned by the managers and employees of UPS (employees are not "the only shareholders"). But don't get me wrong, there ARE shareholders - there stock is simply not publicly traded.
I contend that the issue is not UPS v Teamsters, but about the economy in general and the sometime conflict of interests between shareholders and wage-earners. And yes, most or maybe even all of us contributing to this thread are both.
It has often been said on this thread "If you don't like the pay, go work somewhere else". Well, I suppose that is what often happens - and frankly, business often suffers for it. The turnover rate in the software/consulting business is astounding, for instance. Software engineers can almost always find better pay and treatment elsewhere. But before you ditch one employer for another, isn't it a nice courtesy to meet with your employer and see if they will match your offer? After all, can UPS afford to have 185,000 employees look elsewhere for work - or isn't the method chosen - collective bargaining - better for all parties involved? Or is it the fact that employees have joined together to work for their mutual interest that is so disturbing? What is the meat of the matter? Is the issue how much of a free market is our economy?
William, I am glad that you inferred that my point was that we are all a bunch of greedy stockholders. That was my point! We're not shareholders in UPS, silly!, but in the broader economy. And our future net worth is threatened by such things as wage inflation and diminished profits. And when the The Teamsters win big (as they did) they inspire more turmoil in the labor market. God knows (there I go again!) we can't be blamed for looking out for our interests, but can't we afford the same respect to workers who are also looking out for their interests. Let the market decide the wages for truck driving and sheet rocking. Charge what the market will bear, I say.
Now doesn't it feel good to have someone to get angry with? Nothing like a good spar on the net to get your blood pumping. By the way, I have no connection to organized labor, the lousy good for nothing freeloaders!! Just kidding! Apologize to your dad for me, will you Gerald?
Angry and bitter,
Jim |
