Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bagels" data-source="post: 1090615" data-attributes="member: 43436">PT jobs are not meant to provide a living wage, since living wage standards are typically calculated as an hourly rate based on a 40-hour work week.&nbsp; Not that this would be a desirable model, anyway; living wage models calculate the lowest costs to cover basic needs, and assume both adults in a household work.&nbsp; Nationally, for a single person, this means $16K-$19K annually for all but a few high-rent communities; the second adult in the household would need only work PT to cover her expenses, or FT to cover a large family.&nbsp; (And in actuality, we have several Preload married couples who&#039;ve worked here long-term, clear those figures PT &amp; yet still collect government assistance.)&nbsp; BTW, on an hourly basis, this translate into $8.50-$10/hour (based on a 40-hour work week) -- and most employees earn more than that per hour after 90-days.&nbsp; Don&#039;t get me wrong -- I fully agree PT wages should increase, as well as the guarantee to 4 hours per day.&nbsp; I also feel the union should negotiate additional full-time jobs, and force the company to fill the jobs previously agreed to a decade ago.&nbsp; That said, as a country we should be ashamed that we&#039;ve come to accept mediocrity.&nbsp; Over the past decade, the wage pool has soared but nearly all gains have gone to executive management -- we lead the developed world in wage discrepancy (between management &amp; hourly), now we dominate it.&nbsp; We need to say &quot;enough&quot; and ensure that each worker is appropriately compensated.&nbsp; But we certainly can&#039;t force UPS on a course to financial disaster, since any huge short-term gains would be huge and long-term give-backs (wages, benefits, pension) disastrous, particularly for those of us with many years of work ahead.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bagels, post: 1090615, member: 43436"] PT jobs are not meant to provide a living wage, since living wage standards are typically calculated as an hourly rate based on a 40-hour work week. Not that this would be a desirable model, anyway; living wage models calculate the lowest costs to cover basic needs, and assume both adults in a household work. Nationally, for a single person, this means $16K-$19K annually for all but a few high-rent communities; the second adult in the household would need only work PT to cover her expenses, or FT to cover a large family. (And in actuality, we have several Preload married couples who've worked here long-term, clear those figures PT & yet still collect government assistance.) BTW, on an hourly basis, this translate into $8.50-$10/hour (based on a 40-hour work week) -- and most employees earn more than that per hour after 90-days. Don't get me wrong -- I fully agree PT wages should increase, as well as the guarantee to 4 hours per day. I also feel the union should negotiate additional full-time jobs, and force the company to fill the jobs previously agreed to a decade ago. That said, as a country we should be ashamed that we've come to accept mediocrity. Over the past decade, the wage pool has soared but nearly all gains have gone to executive management -- we lead the developed world in wage discrepancy (between management & hourly), now we dominate it. We need to say "enough" and ensure that each worker is appropriately compensated. But we certainly can't force UPS on a course to financial disaster, since any huge short-term gains would be huge and long-term give-backs (wages, benefits, pension) disastrous, particularly for those of us with many years of work ahead. [/QUOTE]

Verification