Good on the pilots. But seems they wouldn’t have a reason to fly anyway if their planes aren’t loaded up by the ground crews.
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
121 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7211 readers
588 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
It's really just a PR way to say the pilots are on the same page, as far as I see it at least.
Still suspect Biden to force an end to the strike. UPS is part of American infrastructure
The economy isn't teetering on the edge like it was in December. Also, rail is a behind-the-scenes transport mode; it gets some press, but very few people get deliveries directly by train. A rail strike in early December would destroy infrastructure deliveries right before the Christmas holiday but - unless you're in rail shipping, the average American wouldn't notice for a couple of weeks.
UPS, otoh, is very public facing operation and 11 million people receive at least one UPS package a day. That's not packages - that's individual business and personal recipients. Enough deliveries to cover every household in the US in under two weeks (that's just a reference volume: there's substantial overlap for daily business deliveries, and the delivery figure is worldwide). Every Tom, Dick, and Harriet is going lose their everloving mind if their important paperwork or Amazon packages aren't delivered. And Biden can then point to the UPS Corporation and say "hey, fellas, that's a pretty angry mob; you should do something about it," and "Republicans cut taxes on corporations so that corporations like UPS could hire more people and run more efficiently, but it looks like they're just keeping all that money for themselves." And those are much better talking points than "I'm sorry I made inflation worse and tanked the economy. Merry Christmas."
We'll see! I'm not optimistic, because this will definitely hurt the economy too - though admittedly, not as much as railroads right before Christmas.
I'm afraid he will do this. And this will cost him the election.
I won't vote for him if he interferes, btw.
Same. If he intervenes he will reveal himself as an enemy of labor.
You'll vote for trump/desantis then? Or will you kid yourself by saying "not voting isn't the same as voting for trump"?
No, it is entirely voting for Trump/DeSantis if I stay home. And it will be the consequence. My patience for the Dems to fix things, as impossible as it is, is running out. I am ready to let the accelerationsists have their fun and leave us a burning husk of a world. Let the heavens fall.
...I may change my mind on this when the time comes.
I'm just frustrated that i've been above the board in every possible way, empathetic, nice, and compassionate, just like I was raised to be; and the world has become jaded and bitter, and a few rich fucks have doomed our future. I can't keep doing this forever. My desire for revenge grows.
There are two options.
Option 1: You get 60% of the things you want.
Option 2: You get nothing.
You pick... Option 2?
Edited to add: This attitude is very peculiar and seems to be specific to whiny liberals. You almost never see conservatives make such statements. They'll complain about how RINOs aren't what they want but would never even consider voting for the other party as a result.
There are other options. The Constitution affords us numerous rights, including protest, among others.
They said they're mad that nothing changes for the better and you said, why not spend an hour a year doing something.
I think they're open to more. I'd like to see more doing more. THAT's how things change.
Your "other options" are not mutually exclusive with "voting for the least bad option".
I think this is why the older republicans win over young democrats. They realize that they need to compromise and pick something that is less "bad" to them. The kids in the democrat party whine and protest - but don't vote.
I'm not saying to do something other than voting. I'm saying you keep framing this like that's the only thing when they could do more.
Voting is not the only option. It's a good one, but we have more/additonal.
You made all that up. I never said nor implied it was the only thing you can do. But you should do it as it's the most effective thing you can do.
You've done it here, you're doing it in others threads.
Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.
It's an entire extra sentence that takes less time than calling them whiny.
You're boiling the options down to a suck ass, "eat your dinner" message and if you want to prevent rightward movement, I think calls to action are better.
We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn't working. Then voting for what we got when we must.
Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, "this is the best I can do." You can do more than that.
You’ve done it here, you’re doing it in others threads.
No - it's what you want me to be doing because that's what you have arguments against. But it's not what I'm doing.
Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.
So.. You're saying they should vote for somebody on the ballot even if they barely agree with them?
We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn’t working. Then voting for what we got when we must.
So you ARE saying they should vote for a candidate they barely support.
Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, “this is the best I can do.” You can do more than that.
So voting is the most effective thing people can do?
Do you fucking realize that you don't disagree with me and that I don't disagree with you?
EDIT: Here's the thing internet - if I say "eating broccoli is healthy!" I'm not saying "eat only broccoli!" or "eating other vegetables is NOT healthy!" So if I say "voting is the most important thing you can do" I'm NOT saying "only go to the polls and do nothing else!"
I provided a cogent reply explaining that getting more people to vote is more effective than simply voting alone.
All I was asking is why you're telling people they have to vote for "x" when it's clear they want options.
Tell them how to find/create them but, yes, like you I want their support in a general.
They could do other things:
- organize
- get out the vote
- run for office (even low/local helps)
- protest
Example: sometimes protest moves things further than voting. What I have above gives them a way to be involved and help move things in a positive direction.
If they cause 9 more people to vote, but miss the date themselves. Are we worse off?
Telling them that voting for someone they barely agree with is the most important thing... it's not the packaging that I think most find compelling.
Telling them that voting for someone they barely agree with is the most important thing… it’s not the packaging that I think most find compelling.
Remember that this entire thread began because I was replying to somebody who literally said they would NOT vote for Biden because they were mad about his Union support.
They then doubled down and said they'd be fine if that supported Trump as a result.
From your replies I would infer that you would also support my position of "just go vote anyway". You can do all the other things if you want. Fine - I don't see why you're even arguing with me.
Do we live in a democracy or not? How come not voting for biden is the same as voting for trump, but not voting for trump isn't the same as voting for biden? So how about if our democratically elected representatives don't represent our interests, we DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM? Is that too much to ask for in a supposed democracy?
It lowers the bar for Trump/DeSantis to take a "likely democratic voter" and have them not vote. It's like playing a sport and purposefully NOT taking a free shot on goal. It's not quite the same as scoring for the other team, but it's also not "nothing" since it makes it easier for the other team than it would have been.
Sure but this "sport" has more than 2 teams, and also 100million more participants then who you are focusing on. I'd say that participating in the minor distraction of the two teams competing to see who can get the most money from lobbyists is probably the worst thing you can do.
Sure but this “sport” has more than 2 teams
No. No it does not.
In first past the post there will only be two teams, but fortunately you do not need to vote for the Capitalists. You should not vote for the Capitalist, and if you do vote for them you are a bad person.
If you choose not to participate or not to vote you deserve the government you get.
Agreed. Vote for the solution, and that means never voting for R or D.
Vote for any of the options on the ballot. You won't find anyone but R and D though. But pick one - and stop the petulant whining. Change comes through voting - not by bitching.
He needs to be primaried, tradition or not.
He's done an assortment of good things. He's also older and sympathetic to economic "centrism."
I'd like to see a credible democratic challenger primary him and force him to maintain a more left leaning posture. If done correctly, he'd re-message and it would help him in the general.
We need to pull people out of their culture war mindset and get them voting for their own best interests. Fanciful notions of "the wrong gender" in a restroom aren't going to matter as much as domestic economic health, global climate change, or a changing geo-economic outlook. We need people voting real-worl issues and someone who can message to that.
I'll add: everyone deserves certain fundamental rights. So when I say culture war, I'm referring to DeSantis types. I have no quarrel with treating LGBTQ+ with respect and decency.
What will he do? Arrest them? Then they can't work
Probably sack them and replace them with military pilots like when the air traffic controllers went on strike in the 1980's.
They shouldn't do that. These people just want a better life.
Do you think Biden cares about that?
If he was a good person he would.
Good people don't get elected president of an evil country 😉
So he's a bad person. Why did anyone vote for a bad person?
To stop the worse person. American presidents can only ever be the lesser evil - but they're all evil lol
I thought that was possible only because trains were involved? I know RR employees get weird carve outs on their taxes.
Taft-Hartley gives the president the authority to intervene in strikes if they could present a national emergency. Thanks to privatization, UPS is vital enough that it might qualify.
While I am not disagreeing with you, were that to happen, it would be definitive proof of the need to nationalize the industry. If we’re so reliant on a private corporation that its poor labor practice can effect a national emergency, then that corporation needs to be nationalized for the good of national security. Now, would they? Definitively not.
It is entirely logical to nationalize package deliver! We should have an organization that follows regular routes all across America and delivers whatever packages, etc. people need! We could call it something like UPS; maybe USPS?!
I get about as many deliveries by parcel post as by UPS. Nothing can stop the US Mail
<3 I love the USPS. Even with the DeJoy sabotage (why the fuck is that guy still in office?), they’re still the cheapest and most reliable carrier in my experience.
Even FedEx, UPS, etc will hand over packages to USPS if they think after a certain point it's unprofitable for them to deliver to that address.
I agree, and furthermore, it would be proof that Biden is an enemy of the working class.
I guess we'll see.
I heard a similar thing happening with Asiana, pilots unable to go on strike, since they're declared as essential industry. So instead they are doing a lazy strike. Refusing to accept small technical issues that are otherwise OK to dispatch with. Not giving voluntary extensions on their duty hours.
Of course the government friendly media is riling up public opinion against them, how they're causing losses with their difficult behaviour.
But that's just an awful argument to make. An essential industry, relying so much on safety, starts losing money the moment the employees start being a little less lenient.
To be clear, we are talking about safe to fly airplanes. Almost everything on an airplane is redundant, and the manufacturers provide clear instructions what can be inoperative and under what conditions.
Still, the captain can decide to spend a lot of time on this; do a very extended safety briefing before departure, delaying the flight. Requesting extra fuel over safety concerns. Requesting a different route, because let's say the weather radar is not working and there's a small chance of bad weather along the route.
They also have their own federal pension plan.
That is union power flexing it's muscles!
Keep that brown line strong! (as long as it's not in your underwear).
That particular brown line is reserved for the C-Suite
Nice!!!! It's time to cripple UPS.
view more: next ›