UPS’s tentative labor deal with the Teamsters hasn’t even taken effect yet. But it has already taken a bite out of its earnings and revenue, as both fell in the second quarter ahead of the deal being reached.
If you’re company isn’t profitable enough that it has to underpay its workers to profit then your company should fail. UPS is huge. Theres no way they cant afford it.
Pay your workers a decent wage you philistine.
How much do you think they’re paying them? I worked for UPS like 10 years ago and even then they were paying very high wages. “Decent” wage is a subjective term. These unions will keep coming after the company year after year to increase wages until they drive them out of business, which isn’t good for anyone.
Bootlicking like it’s an Olympic sport
Ah yeah because anyone in favor of sensible resolutions is a “bootlicker”. What a great conversation. Goodbye.
You’re literally saying that unions kill companies by negotiating for higher wages. You’re a grade A MAGGAT fighting for your corporate overlords. It’s crazy how delusional you are. Go lick a fucking boot on Twitter with the rest of your brainwashed brothers.
There’s nothing sensible about saying unions ruin companies. Bad decisions from executives have ruined far, far more companies than unions. America’s economy was strongest and most productive when union membership was at its highest. Spewing utter bullshit about how unions are bad is just something you’ve been trained like a good little dog to bark over and over for your masters.
Here’s a sensible resolution, profits should be zero and all workers get equity based on surplus value.
LOOOOOLOLOLOLOL
Mechanics make very good money with ups because of the union. This specific negotiation was for part time workers and drivers, negotiating higher base pay for all part timers and drivers, AC in drivers trucks, and better benefits.
The contract for mechanics and pilots will largely remain the same because again, these are some of the more lucrative jobs at ups.
The union ceases to exist without the companies that have unionized. What you are saying is antithetical to the idea and nature of a union.
The CEO of ups made $19 million last year. I think they can afford to pay her less and their actual workers more.
What you are saying is antithetical to the idea and nature of a union.
Yes that’s correct.
The CEO of ups made $19 million last year.
That’s because THEY’RE THE CEO. Skilled workers make more money than unskilled workers because they provide more value. That’s not wrong.
The CEO could not do what a package handler or driver does. That is also a fact.
Unskilled jobs still NEED to be done. They are NOT OPTIONAL. That is also a fact.
Do you believe that unskilled laborers do not deserve to be paid a living wage? Do you happen to know what the living wage in your nearest major city is? I ask because that’s where all of the ups part timers work. They are not able to live in low income towns and rural areas because that’s not where the hubs are.
“Unskilled” always seems like a slur - there’s a fair amount of skill that goes into loading trucks properly and efficiently, same as any job.
I absolutely agree, there’s skill in almost any job. But that’s a whole other argument I didn’t want to get into with this dude.
Tbh I imagine an actually unskilled job is being the CEO of a large corporation
The CEO could not do what a package handler or driver does.
Of-fucking-course they could. Any able-bodied person can. That’s what unskilled labor means.
Do you believe that unskilled laborers do not deserve to be paid a living wage?
Do you believe that unskilled laborers deserve to be paid $19M/year?
Do you happen to know what the living wage in your nearest major city is?
Of course not, because “living wage” isn’t a real number, it’s just a concept. Whatever it is, you could double or even triple it with what these workers are being paid.
They are not able to live in low income towns and rural areas because that’s not where the hubs are.
…so you think small towns don’t get packages? This is the argument you want to go with?
I think the idea is more that the CEO is not really worth 19m a year. A pay gap makes sense, but it has ballooned to ridiculous levels
And yet the separation between rich and poor has grown exponentially over the past few decades. I don’t understand how this position is defensible. Fairness is needed not the continued exploitation of those not lucky enough to fall into wealth. And that’s all it is with millionaires, gambling, exploiting and a little luck. Every single one of them.
Skilled workers make more money than unskilled workers because they provide more value.
Is a CEO 1000x more skilled than an engineer?
The amount of skill is not important. What’s important is the value they bring to the company. If they didn’t bring $19M in value, rest assured they would absolutely not be paid $19M. There is no law requiring these businesses to pay their CEOs absurd amounts of money.
[…]Skilled worker make more money than unskilled worker because they provide more value […]
In what way exactly ? Now I ask you:
What if the head of the company, who hired someone to hire someone to hire a staff full of engineers, was hit by a bus tomorrow, could a a random bystander successfully hire someone to hire someone to hire some engineers? Maybe someone will argue that there is deep expertise involved in knowing how to know who to hire, but data doesn’t really support that conclusion, and I think the much more credible argument is that most anyone can become a half-reasonable HR hack in a few days of reading sample interview scripts and LinkedIn articles. The added value seems pretty low.
Now, what if the brilliant, innovating engineers were hit by a bus instead? Could the business still exist then? Could a randomly chosen bystander take their place? Not so easy to answer this one without recourse to the specifics of the business.
And what if the “unskilled workers” that runs the company business hit by the bus as well ? Could anything be produced ? Could the engineers find people with enough practical skilled to implement their ideas ? Same goes as for the engineers.
Considering this, is it normal that essential elements of a business are not paid a fair share for the actual value they bring through their work ?
(btw, have you noticed you’re on a socialism community ? ‘Cause most people will argue against you here)
Maybe someone will argue that there is deep expertise involved in knowing how to know who to hire, but data doesn’t really support that conclusion
My mind is being blown right now by this statement.
Why do you think they pay these people so much money? Do you think they just have too much of it and don’t know what to do with it? So they just start giving it away to random people on their staff? If a less-qualified person could do the same job just as well for significantly less money, why wouldn’t they just hire that person? Or give the current person a massive cut in pay? Do you think all of these these insanely profitable businesses are just unanimously too stupid to understand basic business concepts?
(btw, have you noticed you’re on a socialism community ? ‘Cause most people will argue against you here)
I’m fully aware. Unlike some people I don’t sequester myself to circle-jerk communities.
Can’t tell if bot or just raging asshole.
What was your position at UPS?
I was a mechanic.
Were you a truck mechanic?
Yes
For you personally at that time, what would UPS have to pay you to make the switch to be a truck driver?
Hard to put a number on that, but “a lot”. Those jobs suuuuck.
deleted by creator
I heard with the new deal they will be paid $170k including benefits. That’s a lot of money.
That’s a fuckton of money for unskilled labor
Fuck it! I don’t give a shit. Let its profit fall. Its already making a shit ton of money per year. How about forcing the CEO to take a goddamned pay cut!
If treating your employees correctly causes you to lose money, then your profits weren’t real and you were just playing Jenga with your company’s assets to line your own pockets.
makes me wonder if this profit thing might be linked to exploiting workers?
…
And?
And stocks fall so people get big mad. Crazy how speculative markets basically rule policy and public opinion.
The headline makes it sound like it was because of the Teamsters deal. Typical liberal ploy. The article summarily points out two factors for lower revenue. 1) Customers that went with competitors to mitigate risk in case of a strike and 2) lower volume of sales due to shift in consumer spending habits toward “travel, movies, eating out and live events”
And if you thought there was any reason to be nervous about anything, no. It’s truly business as usual.
Despite the lower revenue and earnings guidance, the company said it expects to stick with its plan to pay $5.4 billion in dividends and repurchases of $3 billion in shares.
🙄
What makes it a liberal ploy exactly? Like I agree with everything you said, but I’m not sure what context the word “liberal” in your sentence means or is referring to.
Liberal in this context refers to economic liberalism. Ostensibly for free market competition, (but in practice just a political deference to capitalists in opposition to labor or other social goods) it is the ideological backbone of capitalism.
In the US, while “liberal” is colloquially used to describe the Democratic Party for its relative social progressivism, both major political parties follow economic liberalism to justify their policies which favor the rich.
A liberal will side with capital over labor. Therefore, in this context, a liberal will use language that frames the shift in surplus value from corporate profits to labor as a total loss to the economy rather than just to the company.
Makes sense, and you are right about where my brain went to. I was thinking this just sounds like capitalist bull shit, lol.
deleted by creator
Literally the 2nd to last sentence of the article. Talk about burying the damn lede.
I mean, even without revenue decreasing, profits are going to “decrease” because money that will go to increased pay and benefits to workers would otherwise go to greater profits. So even leaving out the fearmongering about lost revenue, the title and significant parts of the article (about profits and margins) is taking the liberal path of calling it a bad thing due to sympathy with capitalists instead of workers.
So yeah: how about a fuck you UPS, and a fuck you CNN. Nothing new, but always bears repeating.
stealing surplus value from workers is [checks-notes] more difficult when the workers organize
Yeah, good. OK.
Boo friggen hoo
You mean a company that’s seen wild growth in the Amazon era is passing some growth onto the workers??? Boo fucking hoo cry me a river.
deleted by creator
Yes.
With this sort of insight, it’s obvious that management doesn’t deserve the money it earns.
What they are not saying is that in the long term UPS profits will rise. Their workers will be secure in their jobs. They will be excited about helping UPS succeed. They will innovate. Shareholders should be celebrating, but they are just as dim as UPS management and only understand success as making more money every quarter even if that means ruining labor and hollowing out the company.
Penny Smart Dollar dumb.
The union agreement actually helps profit, because the union would strike if the terms were worse. You can’t claim that your bad offer that got rejected is lost profit.
Good.
