I wonder how UPS fits in the discussion of corporate greed. We know that full-timers are paid very well and new hires are not. UPS profits are up and all companies strive to make a profit, so this shouldn't be a dirty word. Workers themselves also want to be profitable, in that we want to have a little nest egg in the bank and have the resources to care for us when we reach our late stages.
Greed, like the charge of racism has become a rather meaningless term IMO. It's also like the charge of socialist as to be honest, we all are socialist in some manner, the society in which we live is built around a collective, shared model whether we like that fact or not.
The better question in the case of UPS would be how much of it's true operational costs are a form of state subsidy? For example, what would the cost be to ship a package overseas if UPS alone had to bare the costs of security of the transport lanes (sea or air)? How much does state regulation force entry costs up, a cost I might add UPS never had to pay in it's infancy, but it now acts as an entry barrier to new competition whose small scale makes them more market flexible and more price competitive that forces price down and benefits customers. I realize what I saying and suggesting would seem a bit sacrilege in this place because the otherside of that coin is that this would force UPS costs down or they would be out of the marketplace by free market forces. I would suspect I would have as many objections here from both blue and white collar equally but I recognize where the state apparatus and state or corp. capitalism (some just call it capitalism) have merged into one some might only see the corp. creed side of the equation. I don't see corp. power nor do I see state power operating in a vacuum from one another but rather as willing partners in a longstanding marriage. If there is a greed here, it's corp. power controlling the gun of the state. Yes, I see the state as nothing but the gun of a robber in my face and in many respects you could make an argument that so-called collective corp. power is the finger on the trigger. Like it or not, that's the way I see it.
I say divorce that relationship and that also means divorce the regulatory realm as well which is a weapon against the 99% and not for it's benefit. Yes, a true free market where if "out of work" Joe has a pickup truck and small business Sally has product to be shipped across town or to the next town and Joe can do that far cheaper than we UPSers, then by all means Sally should be free to hire Joe and Joe should be free to provide his services to Sally. And yes, even if Joe is from somewhere else and did not sign the register when he walked across an imaginary line in the sand from one gangs territory into the territory of another gang.
One of the biggest drivers of proverty and drivers of crime in low income areas is market regulatory control in legit business areas. Between zoning laws made to falsely inflate property values across town and regulatory cost burdens at business entry points to protect the established bigs from being threatened by small competitors and the hit to profits. This pushes people out of working what we might call white markets and into what we'd call black markets. This feeds the other industrial complex known as the prison industrial complex while depressing markets and shifting wealth created by labor (labor is the real wealth creator) upwards towards the 1%. It also creates a mechanism of fear in that workers are reminded they are one misstep away from " your out" ideal and you will be cast down while also using this underclass as criminal villians to increase the size of the security state that really protects the 1% for the most part.
Destroying or keeping suppressed a truly freed market is the mechanism that shifts wealth upward into the 1% strata if you will and it also helps to suppress real wages of labor by moving labor's ability to be it's own owners of business instead of working for the 1% just as you do as we all do. IMO, if there is greed in corp. structure, it's the suppression of the true free market but I recognize those who toss the term corp. greed around are not likely looking at it from the same angle I am.
Just read a good piece from The Freeman Online:
Why Not To Scorn Occupy Wall Street