Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Voting Starts Next Week! How will you vote and why.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 3736789" data-attributes="member: 63706"><p>There's just too much bugging me about that video, I have to say some more.</p><p></p><p>She suggests that any rank and file member who is voting no is being manipulated by political activists. While this may be the case for some, suggesting that all of us are being manipulated is an insult. It implies that we didn't draw our own conclusions, and our arguments are invalid simply because of guilt by association, which is a logical fallacy.</p><p></p><p>We have valid concerns that are being completely dismissed. If the union wants to argue that 22.4 is necessary for UPS to stay competitive, which is a dubious point at best, they can, but they still need to remember that they represent us and not UPS.</p><p></p><p>She's a financial analyst, but completely side steps the fact that total compensation will likely fall short of keeping up with inflation by the end of the contract. She also fails to share the fact that if you compare total compensation now vs 5 years from now, if the master passes and you adjust for inflation, you will see only a negligible increase, and only if inflation isn't higher than normal. </p><p></p><p>You will also see that our compensation structure will shift slightly, wages will be a slightly smaller percentage of total compensation, while benefits will be a larger percentage. These increases are not a selling point, they are trying to hide the fact that we <em>will</em> pay for some of our benefits by diverting some of our compensation away from wages and towards benefits. As a financial analyst, she must be aware of this.</p><p></p><p>The other "improvements" she mentions are subject to interpretation as to whether they are actually improvements. If you have to present something in the most positive light possible, then it really isn't very good. And if you are actively hiding the bad parts, you are not being very trustworthy.</p><p></p><p>A strike is meant to scare the company, not the members. We voted for the strike authorization. A strike could happen, we're ready for it, end of conversation. If the company tries to lock us out or replace us with scabs, then we need to be ready to put the squeeze on them and make them see the error of their ways. </p><p></p><p>We are Teamsters, we are strong, we do not cower in the corner and weep at the mere mention of a strike. She needs to stop embarassing herself and the rest of us with all these signs of weakness. </p><p></p><p>That's about it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 3736789, member: 63706"] There's just too much bugging me about that video, I have to say some more. She suggests that any rank and file member who is voting no is being manipulated by political activists. While this may be the case for some, suggesting that all of us are being manipulated is an insult. It implies that we didn't draw our own conclusions, and our arguments are invalid simply because of guilt by association, which is a logical fallacy. We have valid concerns that are being completely dismissed. If the union wants to argue that 22.4 is necessary for UPS to stay competitive, which is a dubious point at best, they can, but they still need to remember that they represent us and not UPS. She's a financial analyst, but completely side steps the fact that total compensation will likely fall short of keeping up with inflation by the end of the contract. She also fails to share the fact that if you compare total compensation now vs 5 years from now, if the master passes and you adjust for inflation, you will see only a negligible increase, and only if inflation isn't higher than normal. You will also see that our compensation structure will shift slightly, wages will be a slightly smaller percentage of total compensation, while benefits will be a larger percentage. These increases are not a selling point, they are trying to hide the fact that we [I]will[/I] pay for some of our benefits by diverting some of our compensation away from wages and towards benefits. As a financial analyst, she must be aware of this. The other "improvements" she mentions are subject to interpretation as to whether they are actually improvements. If you have to present something in the most positive light possible, then it really isn't very good. And if you are actively hiding the bad parts, you are not being very trustworthy. A strike is meant to scare the company, not the members. We voted for the strike authorization. A strike could happen, we're ready for it, end of conversation. If the company tries to lock us out or replace us with scabs, then we need to be ready to put the squeeze on them and make them see the error of their ways. We are Teamsters, we are strong, we do not cower in the corner and weep at the mere mention of a strike. She needs to stop embarassing herself and the rest of us with all these signs of weakness. That's about it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Voting Starts Next Week! How will you vote and why.
Top
