getting paid for supervisors working?

[PobreCarlos]

altstewie;

Ddidn't mean to pick on your personally, or to imply that you weren't working. Actually, what I was trying to get at had more to do with your last point; i.e. - your comment of...

"The debate over supervisors working is one that will always be had between management and union employees and employees who dont care about supervisors working."

...in that, if things go on the same way, I think that there will NOT always be that debate, if only because there won't be any "management" (or, more to the point, employers) around to deal with union employees anymore.

Surely it hasn't been lost on you that MOST Teamster members over the last few decades have lost their jobs, primarily because they WERE Teamsters (i.e. - refused to be competitive). In the Teamsters core transportation industry of a few short decades back, the likelikhood of members having lost their jobs is far worse. What is left of NMF, for example? 20%? 10%? My point is that's what happens to an organization that gets too nit-picky; i.e. - it wins "the battle"...but loses the war.

I would suggest that the organized labor movement is where it's at today just because of the attitudes expressed here; i.e. - those represented by filing for each minute "lost", etc. If it's done on the basis of "it's union work", then I think you'll find rather quickly (as so many hundreds of thousands of union members have already found out) that it's not "union work" at all, but rather work provided by those who have taken the risk and made the investment behind it.

In the end, there's nothing "fair" about the labor environment today; it's heavily (and I mean VERY heavily!) weighted toward "the employee's" perspective. And, while on the surface that may sound good, the fact is that the lack of TRUE fairness is driving jobs to points where the labor environment actually *IS* more "fair" (ask UPSguy72, for example, just what's happening with aircraft maintainance in today's ienvironment). Being sticklers for detail, having "balls", etc. may SOUND all good and well under such circumstances...but it would be my contention that it's just such contrariness that has brought the so-called "union movement" to the deplorable condition that it's at today.

Employers don't want problems, period. If they've got 'em, then they're working to get rid of 'em. And all too often that's going to mean getting rid of the jobs as well.

Again, not trying to pick on you personally, nor do I mean to belittle you as an employee. The fact is that by far most UPS employees are extremely hard (and capable) workers...and I'm well aware of that fact.

 

[Ptrunner]

altstewie;

Ddidn't mean to pick on your personally, or to imply that you weren't working. Actually, what I was trying to get at had more to do with your last point; i.e. - your comment of...

"The debate over supervisors working is one that will always be had between management and union employees and employees who dont care about supervisors working."

...in that, if things go on the same way, I think that there will NOT always be that debate, if only because there won't be any "management" (or, more to the point, employers) around to deal with union employees anymore.

Surely it hasn't been lost on you that MOST Teamster members over the last few decades have lost their jobs, primarily because they WERE Teamsters (i.e. - refused to be competitive). In the Teamsters core transportation industry of a few short decades back, the likelikhood of members having lost their jobs is far worse. What is left of NMF, for example? 20%? 10%? My point is that's what happens to an organization that gets too nit-picky; i.e. - it wins "the battle"...but loses the war.

I would suggest that the organized labor movement is where it's at today just because of the attitudes expressed here; i.e. - those represented by filing for each minute "lost", etc. If it's done on the basis of "it's union work", then I think you'll find rather quickly (as so many hundreds of thousands of union members have already found out) that it's not "union work" at all, but rather work provided by those who have taken the risk and made the investment behind it.

In the end, there's nothing "fair" about the labor environment today; it's heavily (and I mean VERY heavily!) weighted toward "the employee's" perspective. And, while on the surface that may sound good, the fact is that the lack of TRUE fairness is driving jobs to points where the labor environment actually *IS* more "fair" (ask UPSguy72, for example, just what's happening with aircraft maintainance in today's ienvironment). Being sticklers for detail, having "balls", etc. may SOUND all good and well under such circumstances...but it would be my contention that it's just such contrariness that has brought the so-called "union movement" to the deplorable condition that it's at today.

Employers don't want problems, period. If they've got 'em, then they're working to get rid of 'em. And all too often that's going to mean getting rid of the jobs as well.

Again, not trying to pick on you personally, nor do I mean to belittle you as an employee. The fact is that by far most UPS employees are extremely hard (and capable) workers...and I'm well aware of that fact.

I understand what youre saying. Were on different sides of the spectrum on this one too. Im not sure you can entirely blame teamsters for losing power but more on the corporate greed of America. They can ship jobs overseas and make more money and get more shareholders when they tell people, look our profits are going up because we cut our operating cost. UPS can't ship our jobs overseas, but I've always wondered this though, when technology is there, we will be eliminated someday by robotic workers. There wont be anyone stopping this either. What it comes down to is money and its always down to money. As ive stated before I wasnt a union guy when i started this job. Having that viewpoint before and now having the one i have now. Ive had a chance to look at both sides in a way and i understand now why theyre unions but also why management is the way it is. It comes down to money and power and were always gonna have problems on both sides because there are employees who take advantage of the job and are dishonest and do that job the way theyre suppose to but then there is management who is unethical, unmoral, corrupt. Its gonna take both sides for us to come together. But its never gonna happend because then someone is going to lose money and power and no one wants to lose that.

 

[Dark_Team_135]

altstewie, like so many others I have talked to on this board, and at work, you don't get it.

Now, I have been known to take a long lunch, and to chat with other supervisors, sometimes not about work, while at work. Here is the key difference - I am not on the clock. There is no clock. How can I be stealing time when I am not on the clock?

Well Mr. IE...what about the part-time supervisors that this poster is likely referring to? Aren't they basically paid hourly now? I know if they work over a certain amount of hours they get "overtime" so I am betting they are. So when they are "stealing time" by you definition, it is the same as when we do it, right?


Either way, I get paid the same. And if my boss ever decides I am not pulling my weight, am not working hard enough, if I am as you say, "stealing time", he does not need to go through a bunch of hoops, call in a steward, or any of that mess. He can just call up HR and say this dude is fired, gone history, off the payroll please.

What about the mediation procedure brochure I read that is given to management? Does that not apply if you are fired?


In reality, they should be treated differently than you are in both situations, because they have a different role in the organization and under the contract.

Again this is NOT true for part-time sups that the poster is talking about...

Also, in my experience, many times when employees are chatting and not working it is when there are breaks in the flow. If not, then it is a problem with their supervisor not supervising them which in your opinion could get the sup fired! Works both ways...

 

[PobreCarlos]

altstewie;

One thing in your comment (which overall I appreciated!) I'd dispute would be that "UPS can't ship our jobs overseas" in that, in a way, I think, starting more than 30 years ago now, they already have shipped quite a few. In my career, UPS went from being solely a domestic corporation to one that had an appreciable overseas presence. Since then, the overseas operations have grown exponentially, while domestic operations have essentially treaded water. Today, UPS would be a giant corporation (still one of the biggest) MINUS any Teamster and/or domestic participation at all. Meanwhile, following the '97 strike, many of the (potential, at least) domestic jobs HAVE been passed over to a non-union workforce...both within and without (note FDX Ground). And I'm convinced that if domestic delivery operations become a financial burden, then the company would have no problem "pulling a DHL" and dropping them. Companies simply aren't going to stay in business if they're losing money...nor, for that matter, are they going to even stay in an AREA of business if greater profits are available elsewhere.

Corporations exist for one reason only; to make money for those the corporation consist of (i.e. - shareholders). Call that "greed" if you want....but you're not going to get a corporation, which really knows no country boundaries (UPS, for example, is far from an "American company" today), to act primarily out of single-nation humantiarian concerns, either. So "yes", it DOES come down to money...with the point being that the provider of the jobs HAS to make money in order to pay workers. Beyond that, it's possible for companies/corporations/firms/whatever to make money without employees...but it's pretty much impossible for those that labor for hire to make money without employers.

Unions can bemoan that fact (i.e. - "money" is so important, "greed" exists, etc), but it's like complaining about gravity. The simple fact is that such is the way the world works. Now one can stick one's head in the sand and try to deny that fact and get burned in the process, or one can recognize it as a fact and deal with it POSITIVELY. Far, far too often over the last few decades, unions have tried to deny it..and thus deny economic reality. And look at the results.

I guess one thing I need to emphasize here is that, while it might take two sides to "come together", from managements/shareholders perspective, there's no absolute reason to "come together" at all - especially if the other side is being overly belligerant. By that I mean that companies don't always need their present work force, and could quite handily look elsewhere, or even simply go out of business, without the slightest ethical hindrance whatsoever.

 

[07960]

I understand what youre saying. Were on different sides of the spectrum on this one too. Im not sure you can entirely blame teamsters for losing power but more on the corporate greed of America. They can ship jobs overseas and make more money and get more shareholders when they tell people, look our profits are going up because we cut our operating cost. UPS can't ship our jobs overseas, but I've always wondered this though, when technology is there, we will be eliminated someday by robotic workers. There wont be anyone stopping this either. What it comes down to is money and its always down to money. As ive stated before I wasnt a union guy when i started this job. Having that viewpoint before and now having the one i have now. Ive had a chance to look at both sides in a way and i understand now why theyre unions but also why management is the way it is. It comes down to money and power and were always gonna have problems on both sides because there are employees who take advantage of the job and are dishonest and do that job the way theyre suppose to but then there is management who is unethical, unmoral, corrupt. Its gonna take both sides for us to come together. But its never gonna happend because then someone is going to lose money and power and no one wants to lose that.

Broken English aside, this is the crux of our problem.

 

[Dark_Team_135]

altstewie;

I guess one thing I need to emphasize here is that, while it might take two sides to "come together", from managements/shareholders perspective, there's no absolute reason to "come together" at all - especially if the other side is being overly belligerant. By that I mean that companies don't always need their present work force, and could quite handily look elsewhere, or even simply go out of business, without the slightest ethical hindrance whatsoever.

God you sound like a poster called "SCB" that was on TeamsterNet that took shots at unions in almost every post even when they weren't the subject of the discussion...I HOPE you are not him or not like him. I think he finally got banned for hijacking threads...

 

[brownIEman]

Well Mr. IE...what about the part-time supervisors that this poster is likely referring to? Aren't they basically paid hourly now? I know if they work over a certain amount of hours they get "overtime" so I am betting they are. So when they are "stealing time" by you definition, it is the same as when we do it, right?

good point. My post more fit the full time supervisors. The part timers are now on a clock so to speak. They do have different roles than the hourlies, however, and it is a double standard to think they should be working every minute, and then get upset when they start working, know what I mean?

What about the mediation procedure brochure I read that is given to management? Does that not apply if you are fired?

That is an option I can choose to go to if I want, but if my boss has already talked to HR and laid out a case for me to be gone, my odds are slim and it won't take very long

Again this is NOT true for part-time sups that the poster is talking about...

yes it is true for part time sups, they have a different role. Altstewie wants them to be held to the same standards he is when it comes talking, yet be held to a different standard when it comes to picking up a package.

Also, in my experience, many times when employees are chatting and not working it is when there are breaks in the flow. If not, then it is a problem with their supervisor not supervising them which in your opinion could get the sup fired! Works both ways..

I work in a slide to car operation. On the slide, if there is work piled up on the slide, there is no such thing as a break in the work flow, and yet I constantly see employees chatting or going into a car to make phone calls and send texts.

So, are you saying if a union employee decides to sit down on the job and stop working, any time he steals is the fault of the supervisor who did not come up to him every minute and get him back to work? The hourly has none, zip, zero personal responsibility to keep working unless someone is telling him to do so? Really? I would suggest even the contract disagrees with you on that.

 

[Jones]

God you sound like a poster called "SCB" that was on TeamsterNet that took shots at unions in almost every post even when they weren't the subject of the discussion...I HOPE you are not him or not like him. I think he finally got banned for hijacking threads...

If you were down at the firehouse, someone would have yelled "Bingo!".

 

[UPSGUY72]

altstewie;

One thing in your comment (which overall I appreciated!) I'd dispute would be that "UPS can't ship our jobs overseas" in that, in a way, I think, starting more than 30 years ago now, they already have shipped quite a few. In my career, UPS went from being solely a domestic corporation to one that had an appreciable overseas presence. Since then, the overseas operations have grown exponentially, while domestic operations have essentially treaded water. Today, UPS would be a giant corporation (still one of the biggest) MINUS any Teamster and/or domestic participation at all. Meanwhile, following the '97 strike, many of the (potential, at least) domestic jobs HAVE been passed over to a non-union workforce...both within and without (note FDX Ground). And I'm convinced that if domestic delivery operations become a financial burden, then the company would have no problem "pulling a DHL" and dropping them. Companies simply aren't going to stay in business if they're losing money...nor, for that matter, are they going to even stay in an AREA of business if greater profits are available elsewhere.

DHL came to the US to try to get into the North America ground package deliver business by buying Airborne and failed. UPS is a US based company that delivers world wide ground air and freight. DHL got excatly what they deserved they try to under cut the competition by pay there delivery drives hardly anything and got terrible results.

Corporations exist for one reason only; to make money for those the corporation consist of (i.e. - shareholders). Call that "greed" if you want....but you're not going to get a corporation, which really knows no country boundaries (UPS, for example, is far from an "American company" today), to act primarily out of single-nation humantiarian concerns, either. So "yes", it DOES come down to money...with the point being that the provider of the jobs HAS to make money in order to pay workers. Beyond that, it's possible for companies/corporations/firms/whatever to make money without employees...but it's pretty much impossible for those that labor for hire to make money without employers.

IF it wasn't for the employees then the people in management wouldn't have a job thus the company wouldn't exist.

Unions can bemoan that fact (i.e. - "money" is so important, "greed" exists, etc), but it's like complaining about gravity. The simple fact is that such is the way the world works. Now one can stick one's head in the sand and try to deny that fact and get burned in the process, or one can recognize it as a fact and deal with it POSITIVELY. Far, far too often over the last few decades, unions have tried to deny it..and thus deny economic reality. And look at the results.

Maybe the people in management need to take a pay cut. The Union is what gives people a fair living wage.

I guess one thing I need to emphasize here is that, while it might take two sides to "come together", from managements/shareholders perspective, there's no absolute reason to "come together" at all - especially if the other side is being overly belligerant. By that I mean that companies don't always need their present work force, and could quite handily look elsewhere, or even simply go out of business, without the slightest ethical hindrance whatsoever.

UPS isn't going out of business there are Three primary package delivery companies in the US and USPS, UPS and FED. To imply that UPS will go out of business because of labor cost is totally ridiculous I mean you would have to be a totally idiot to even bring that up.

 

[705red]

i dont know what planet you all live on but if i filed a grievance for a supervisor working for 1 minute, id be called into the office and disciplined for all sorts of things they will drag out

file grievance = put you on the radar

and the union does nothing for us.......our stewards are a joke

So because you do not have any stones you jump on one of our part timers that does not allow the company to take advantage of him?

Stewie keep up the great work! If city wants to open his wallet and allow UPS to take money out of it thats his call!

Sups should never work, call in full timers on the preload or ask them to stay later, but them doing the work is not going to happen!.

 

[City Driver]

So because you do not have any stones you jump on one of our part timers that does not allow the company to take advantage of him?

Stewie keep up the great work! If city wants to open his wallet and allow UPS to take money out of it thats his call!

Sups should never work, call in full timers on the preload or ask them to stay later, but them doing the work is not going to happen!.

i still get my 10 hours a day, why should i ask for more work i dont want?

 

[UPSGUY72]

upsguy72;

Who said I wanted to be in the union? As for those things you say the union brought me....sorry, but I don't see it. Nor can I see where unions - or the Teamsters in particular - overall brought this country and/or its economy anything but a hard time. Subsidized parasites? Sure. Helped the country as a whole? Nope, no way. If it did, then - again - why wouldn't employers simply be rushing all over themselves to hire union labor? See that happening, do you? I suspect that the answer is "no"...and what you see, instead, is the millions of jobs that unions have chased from our shores. Or, like the Teamsters, have pissed-away to more efficient, cost-effective domestic labor alternatives.

But let's take your question of "If you don't like the union then why are you in it?" in a general sense; i.e. - why ARE people in the union if they don't like it?

In a word, it what I mentioned in my previous post...coercion. That is, in non-RTW states, they essentially are FORCED to be part of the union at UPS. They really don't have any option. As can be seen by the example of what's happening in RTW states, if they HAD that option, great numbers of employees would NOT be members of the union. There's a reason why the unions are pushing the "Employee Free Choice Act"...and it most certainly is NOT because they want employees to actually have "free choice", but rather because they realize that the only way they can "organize" today in most situations is by FORCING workers to join. God help them if they actually want to vote by secret ballot (and PLEASE spare me this crap that "they would be able to have a secret ballot if they wanted one" UNLESS you show how this "wanting one" is expressed by having a secret ballot as well, OK?)

Anyway, I realize that your jumping to conclusions is probably no worse than that of tens of thousands of other Teamsters who suffer from the same disease, but still it might be useful if you checked your propaganda-born assumptions at the door when considering asking similar questions.

You get right to the point in your replies you like the job becauce of the pay, benifits and everything else the union has help it members get and keep. But you prefer not to be a union member if it was possible. I wonder if you still work for UPS if it wasn't union you had to pay for benifit, you didn't get a pension and your pay was half of what you make now. And you had no job security.

Why don't you just go find another job that's not Union. Go work for FED EX. I see add for routes that need drivers all the time. They'll pay you $700.00 a week and you work untill your done.

 

[UPSGUY72]

i still get my 10 hours a day, why should i ask for more work i dont want?

You don't have to ask I'm sure there alot of your brothers that would be happy too. I understand that there are people that don't want to work anymore than they have to (YOU).

But there are other that would be happy too add a little more to there pay check.

 

[City Driver]

You don't have to ask I'm sure there alot of your brothers that would be happy too. I understand that there are people that don't want to work anymore than they have to (YOU).

But there are other that would be happy too add a little more to there pay check.

then ill let them worry about it

 

[PobreCarlos]

upsguy72;

Nobody is ever going to accuse you of not being the sharpest arrow in the quiver, are they? [smile] After all, it's not like *YOU* would CONTINUE to jump to conclusions, is it? ['nother "smile"]

Sorry, Sport, but I would be just fine if UPS wasn't union, as would most of it's management and hourly employees...or at least that majority of them who are confident of their personal market worth and DON'T feel the need to have their existence subsidized by others.

As for "security" and "pensions".....well, have you actually LOOKED at vaunted Teamster "job security" lately"? Or the security of their pensions? As I mentioned in another post, the prime aspect of being "Teamster" over the last few decades was that you were likely to LOSE "your" job on the basis of that membership; not have it secured! As for Teamster pension security at UPS; well, I can't help but think that UPSers pensions (those of ALL stripes) would be much better off if the company hadn't had to subsidize other NON-UPS Teamsters to the tune of billions and billions of dollars (and make no mistake; the $6 billion withdrawal liability was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of that subsidy!).

This may be a bit presumptuous of my part, but given the personal history you related, I can't help but think of the topics once discussed on the AMFANUTS forum (among other places) before and during the NWA mechanics strike by people who apparently had the same outlook and work ethic as you. You do remember what happened to them, don't you? And do you recall the horror they seemed to recoil with when it finally dawned on them as to what, in the end, "the union" actually "provided" them?

Now I can understand how you might not be particularly happy with the prospect of having your labor valued on the basis of what it's worth on the open market. But surely you realize that I and my associates aren't going to be content subsidizing welfare queens forever, don't you?

Again, "union" attitudes like yours (and they would NOT have to be representative of "union" attitudes generally...even though they often seem to be now) have driven untold numbers of jobs from our shores...and have damn near destroyed wide areas of the economy in the process. It's my contention that this country just can't afford to artificially subsidize those who don't intend to fully EARN their way on the basis of their market worth. Moreover, if we continue to try, I can't help but believe that investors simply will move more and more of their capital overseas, where it's more fairly valued...and take the jobs that capital provides with them.

Unions don't HAVE to be economically "bad" for their members and the country as a whole. It's just that many unions - as they operate today - seem to exist simply (1) preserve an inbred bureaucracy and (2) to piss away the job opportunities of both their members and the labor force at large. And I suspect that as long as they keep their heads buried in the sand, they will continue to function that way throughout their self-imposed short existence.

 

[Ptrunner]

good point.

I work in a slide to car operation. On the slide, if there is work piled up on the slide, there is no such thing as a break in the work flow, and yet I constantly see employees chatting or going into a car to make phone calls and send texts.

So, are you saying if a union employee decides to sit down on the job and stop working, any time he steals is the fault of the supervisor who did not come up to him every minute and get him back to work? The hourly has none, zip, zero personal responsibility to keep working unless someone is telling him to do so? Really? I would suggest even the contract disagrees with you on that.

I hate my fellow co-workers doing that and get pissed off because its leaving me with more work. And youre the supervisor you go through the steps that it takes to get this fired and get someone here who wants to work. Its not that hard. Just follow the procedures as prescribes the contract says and presto you wont have people texting and chatting on the phone. I can't believe that goes on in your building. In our building if that happens, it a definitely a verbal warning and then written and then the suspensions. Im guessing since its a repeating occurence, youre not doing anything to prevent this from happening. Have a strong deterrence like in our building and youll see how fast people stop texting. But my thoughts are that youre probably in a building where the part-time rookie rate is only 8.50 and minimum wage is near that, you might have a population who doesnt want to work that hard for that small rate and also wait a year for paid holidays and benefits.

 

[705red]

i still get my 10 hours a day, why should i ask for more work i dont want?

Because allowing UPS sups to perform our work equals job loses in the long run! I understand that you work for our "sister" company Freight and really have no idea what we in the small package division go through. But let me ask you this, If you where told that you where being laid off today and on the way out you saw sups working would you than say something?

 

[PobreCarlos]

705red;

What "equals job loss in the long run" is union intransigence. Or do you think that the Teamsters lost 75% of the jobs they once held in their core industry because they "let supervisors work"? Get real!

In truth, it's pricks that nickel 'n' dime every little management action that cause effective businesses to avoid Teamsters like the plague...and with good reason; the Teamster cause the companies they organize to go out of business ("Oh no! That's not right! After all, Central States is thriving!...grin!). And, obviously (although the point seems to escape most Teamsters!) when the businesses go, the jobs they provided go with 'em.

One would think after the number of jobs the Teamsters (such as yourself) have pissed away in that fashion over the last few decades, that they would have learned by now. But apparently they haven't.

Suggest you do a daily "Google" news search on the search term "Teamsters" over a period of time, and compare the number of jobs lost by the Teamsters (as reported by the legitimate press) with those that are announced as "newly organized" or "gained" by glorious IBT press releases. Then come back with the information you gleaned and convince me that acting "hard-assed" has saved jobs.

Think that, in the face of reality, that's something you'll have one Hell of hard time doing.

 

[705red]

705red;

What "equals job loss in the long run" is union intransigence. Or do you think that the Teamsters lost 75% of the jobs they once held in their core industry because they "let supervisors work"? Get real!

In truth, it's pricks that nickel 'n' dime every little management action that cause effective businesses to avoid Teamsters like the plague...and with good reason; the Teamster cause the companies they organize to go out of business ("Oh no! That's not right! After all, Central States is thriving!...grin!). And, obviously (although the point seems to escape most Teamsters!) when the businesses go, the jobs they provided go with 'em.

One would think after the number of jobs the Teamsters (such as yourself) have pissed away in that fashion over the last few decades, that they would have learned by now. But apparently they haven't.

Suggest you do a daily "Google" news search on the search term "Teamsters" over a period of time, and compare the number of jobs lost by the Teamsters (as reported by the legitimate press) with those that are announced as "newly organized" or "gained" by glorious IBT press releases. Then come back with the information you gleaned and convince me that acting "hard-assed" has saved jobs.

Think that, in the face of reality, that's something you'll have one Hell of hard time doing.

Your attitude is what is wrong with the mentality of union employees today. You would over look the contract violations with the outlook that has been beaten into your head "your lucky to have a job"

I watch people go home every day because I.E says you cannot put in any extra routes while those of us that work are working work 10, 11 and 12 hours a day. Start times are pushed back for the part timers knowing that drivers will work for free and sups will help get the job done on time. These are violations that happen daily which cost us jobs and you know it.

You believe that calling UPS on these violations will result in UPS going out of business? And its the Teamsters fault? UPS agreed to this language and they agreed to the penalties for these violations so if it hurts their bottom line and earnings that is UPS's fault not the Teamsters nor the members that call UPS on these violations.

This topic is about already unionized shops enforcing the contract, not about organizing new companies. As a member its your responsibility to enforce the contract.

Keep enjoying all the perks you do as a UPSer that the UPSers fought hard to get for us. Also you might want to remember who invited the Teamsters in!

 

[PobreCarlos]

Red;

No, I believe people like *YOU* will "make UPS go out of business"...or at least out of the business that employs those who are as representative of unions today as you are. Doubt that it could happen? Look at Teamster history. Hell, look at UPS history! In case you hadn't noticed, UPS has gone from almost totally "Teamster" to having less than 50% of it's employees being members of the union in the last 30 years. You see that trend being discontinued, do you?

As for your comment of "UPS agreed to this language", see my prior references to so-called labor "contracts"...and consider just how much ethical credibility they have as "agreements". And consider, for a moment, just how much such "agreements" are worth when companies go out of business. Remember the weeping and gnashing of teeth the Teamsters gushed forth with when Consolidated closed down a few Labor Days back? And remember the wise-ass Teamsters who, right up to the weekend they closed the doors, were talking big about "enforcing the contract" in terms of nit-picky stuff just like you are now? How about Red Star? And how are those Stella 'd' Oro folks doing in the Bronx after their "win"? Heck, let's get closer to home...what are those 710 dudes accomplishing in the way of "saving jobs" with their YRCW recalcitrance? In other words, let's call a spade a spade here.

So, in a word, "yes", I *DO* consider it "the Teamsters fault". While you may consider it the responsibility of the member to "enforce the contract", I can't help but recall that UPS employees are employed by UPS, and *NOT* the Teamsters...and that their primary responsibility is to function AS EMPLOYEES, a responsibility that you, apparently, aren't aware of.

As for what is my "responsibility", I suggest that you, too, try to find a cure for that far-too-widespread Teamsters disease of "jumping to conclusions". Fuirthermore, in terms of the "perks" I enjoy that "the UPSers fought hard to get for us", I, indeed, think of them every day. But I enjoy on the basis of what *UPSers" fought for; not the EMPLOYEES of UPSers. And, in truth, I'm far MORE likely to "think" of the perks that I'm giving *YOU*, and what they're costing me. Big difference there. I understand that it's a difference you (if representative of most Teamsters) aren't quite prepared to deal with; big surprise! And I also understand that, for some reason, many like you feel it's your RIGHT to be subsidized by those of us who ARE the company.

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. You want THAT type of "enjoyment", then I suggest you leave to go form your OWN company...and leave ours alone.

I'm sure you'll be greatly missed! [smile]

P.S. - Guess you didn't choose to back up your contentions via the path I suggested in my previous post, 'eh? Wonder why? Could it be that a million Teamster jobs pissed away by attitudes like yours make coming up with evidence a little difficult? 'Nah...of course not! [last "grin"!]

P.P.S. - If the hours, conditions, etc. at UPS are bothering you, and/or you feel UPS is holding up to it's part of "the agreement", you could also just quit and have the Teamsters dig you up another Teamster-organized job. After all, they've just got tons of 'em to spread around, haven't they? It's all very representative of the type of job "security" Teamsters "enjoy", I'm sure.