But in all seriousness, Tony Q, what points do you have against the following that make a strike so unlikely it's on a par with (who am I kidding, it's probably MORE unlikely than all of the following happening at once) the chances of hitting the Powerball jackpot right before getting struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark after falling into the ocean from a plane that failed while flying overseas because the pilot was pass-out drunk the day of the flight and he managed to get past all the safeguards keeping drunk pilots from operating airplanes?
1. UPS is now a public company beholden to it's shareholders who will be...unhappy, to say the least, about a strike.
2. Donald Trump is a Republican president, and although he hates Bezos the damage a strike would do to the economy would do harm to his reputation as president (and come on, it's Trump. He cares a lot about his image).
3. It's the first offer, not the "LAST, BEST, AND FINAL" offer.
4. Clearly what with the push from BOTH sides to vote yes as if this is the greatest contract since sliced bread (where the union and the company are both essentially pissing on the members and telling them it's raining), there is collusion afoot. Seeing as how there is collusion afoot, do you really think that if we reject the offer that the union will strike the company it's colluding with? That's called killing the golden goose. So what's the only option other than a strike or something scandalous like imposing the contract in violation of the constitutional language that allows it in specific circumstances? MAKING IT BETTER!
Really, answer these points. You should be great at debating, no? And, assuming you two are different people, which isn't likely, LagunaBrown can join in and answer me as well...oh, and that FitBitApp bipolar
can join in too.