SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports
The Teamsters union represents the 280,000 UPS employees who voted overwhelmingly in favor of going on strike[paywall] if a deal is not reached before the current labor contract expires on August 1. More than 90 percent voted for a strike.
Issuing a strike authorization vote does not necessarily mean UPS workers will order a work stoppage, but it does give the union leverage over management to win their negotiations.
[...] Since UPS began offering regular Saturday delivery service just a year ago, [demands on its labor force] have increased. While the company hasn't announced plans for Sunday service, the union claims UPS has made several proposals to expand weekend deliveries.
[...] The shipments [which] UPS transports comprise an estimated 6 percent of the United States GDP. A labor strike among the company's workers would have a sizable effect on the economy and would be the largest U.S. labor strike in decades. Three bargaining sessions ago, in 1997, UPS workers went on strike for 16 days, and there were 180,000 Teamsters at UPS at that time. There hasn't been a bigger strike since.
Coverage by the World Socialist Web Site is skeptical about the union's efforts and what will be the outcome. Not surprisingly, that article closes with:
There is no progressive answer to the continual lowering of living standards outside of the transformation of industry, communications, and transportation monopolies into publicly owned utilities under the democratic control of the working class.
Also covered at Fortune in UPS Has 260,000 Union Workers and They've Just Authorized a Strike:
The labor talks are proceeding amid discussions on pay and work schedules, as UPS looks to increase warehouse automation to keep up with surging demand from e-commerce shipments. The union has proposed increasing the part-time starting wage as well as improving the overall pay structure, according to a statement on its website. It's also pushing the courier to increase contributions to health and welfare and pension funds.
A previous "big" thing (39,000 workers): Largest Labor Action in 5 Years Slated for Wednesday, April 13 Against Verizon
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @07:20PM (9 children)
Glad to known that you're so satisfied with your awesome privately-owned ISP's service.
If you go spouting your anti-public ownership nonsense in Chattanooga or Wilson, NC or Sandy, OR or Longmont, CO or several hundred other places, [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [broadbandnow.com] expect to be cussed out or even punched in your stupid mouth.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 09 2018, @12:35AM (8 children)
Because violence is the first refuge of the irrational.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 12 2018, @05:02AM (7 children)
There are other kinds of violence than the direct sort. Of course, you're too much of a moral nullity to figure that out, but it needs said.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday June 12 2018, @05:49AM (6 children)
No. The definitions [oxforddictionaries.com] preclude that.
Once again, words have meaning. In particular, it's complete bullshit to claim that merely expressing an unpopular opinion is in any way violence. But "cussed out or even punched in your stupid mouth" for having an opinion is violence. You bankrupted the word into "moral nullity". It's not just you, but I find that it's very common for people to do with reckless abandon the very things that they accuse others of. It's a sign of severe immaturity, but we all go through that phase.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 12 2018, @06:24PM (5 children)
Look, I realize I'm talking to someone with no morals and by definition won't get anywhere...but, again, it's not for you, it's for other people looking.
Let me ask you: if instead of punching you in the face, I pickpocket your wallet without you knowing, is that or is that not a type of violence? Explain your reasoning, whichever way you answer.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 12 2018, @07:03PM (4 children)
You are simply wrong here. Just because you don't understand my morals, doesn't mean I don't have them.
No, it's not violence by definition. It can very easily escalate into violence and such would traditionally be considered the fault of the pickpocket. But how's that supposed to work in my case? Am I attempting to steal the ignorance of the people in the places mentioned earlier? Do you really believe physical violence a legitimate response to helping someone with their ignorance? Somehow I think not.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 13 2018, @03:26AM (3 children)
Your idea of "helping people with their ignorance" is one short step away from that snuff-porn troll's idea of "helping little children understand mens' rights." One symptom of not having morals is you're not morally competent to KNOW you haven't got any. Believe me, I see this all the time with actual religious fanatics who subscribe to theological voluntarism, AKA divine command theory. You may be a case of a secular fanatic rather than a religious one, but fanatic you are nonetheless.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 13 2018, @04:58AM (2 children)
How? It just looks like a more elaborate than usual ad hominem, attacking the messenger on an irrelevant (and I might add erroneous!) basis rather than a legitimate and ethical discussion of any points they bring up. I'm willing to engage you respectfully when you argue honestly and thoughtfully. That's not happening here.
You got that moral incompetence in spades. So what? Does that mean you don't have morals too?
There's that little religious saying about such things. Take the beam out of your own eye so that you may see clearly enough to remove the mote from your brother's eye.
Here, there's a huge problem that is glossed over. Consequences. Morals are fine until they start hurting others. Then they become immoral. The consequence of throwing employers under the bus to placate the greed of employees, is that you get less employment and poorer quality employment. There's this fantasy that if we pay the employees enough, somehow the jobs will follow. That's never been how it's worked in the past. The benefits follow the empowerment of labor not the other way around.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 13 2018, @05:40PM (1 child)
Why in the name of Cthulhu's eldritch betentacled asshole did it take you THIS LONG to make your point, and even then, only in the last couple sentences of your last post?!
You're missing the point entirely, as usual: the entire system is fucked. A fair minimum wage would be a start, but ONLY a start, and possibly a dead-end one at that. We need to overhaul, fundamentally, the entire nation's ideas and values about money and the role of companies and production. Because right now they're Moloch-idols, massive burning meatgrinders into which we throw everyone and everything we have in the name of shareholder value. This can't continue, and it won't much longer. So if you really give a shit about the "empowerment of labor," instead of sitting here bitching, suggest something to do about it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 15 2018, @12:19PM
Because you weren't interested. I kept hearing how I was a doodie-head instead.
No system is perfect. Everything is and will be fucked in some way. Let's use an analogy. You have a car. You drive it over some berm and it gets stuck. Now your car is fucked. Do you abandon it and go back to the horse and buggy (which incidentally isn't so hot at going over berms either)? Do you buy a monster truck with massive tires so that no berm will ever get you again? Or do you get a $50 tow and stop driving your car over large berms in the future? All I know is that if you embrace one of those other solutions without consideration of the drawbacks, then you're going to end up in a mess. A lot of systems work well enough that you can solve the problems of the system from within the system rather than scrapping everything and starting over.
The same goes for calls to abandon capitalism for some untried, nebulous approach. If you're looking for a great way to kill people, that probably would be your thing. But if you're trying to improve on capitalism plus whatever for the world as a whole, you really need something that you know works better beforehand rather than half-ass and confidently hope your way out of the problems you create. Meanwhile you're ignoring that one can merely patch over a lot of these problems with regulation or even removal of regulation.
Moving on, I suggest here waiting about thirty years. At that point, China will reach developed world status and India will be close behind. Most of the global disparity in wages that exists today will be gone. There will still be a large number of poor people willing to work for low wages, but they'll be a relatively small part of the world's population. That in turn is what drove most of the stress on developed world labor for the past 50 years.
Even if the US merely encourages business creation and growth at the same rate as of the past thirty years, it'll still probably be in an enviable situation with respect to the power of its labor.