15 ms·

Buggy whip makers tell buggy mfgs "No motors, no batteries, no gasoline" Seriously, do the teamsters not realize that if they cripple UPS's ability to compete

Buggy whip makers tell buggy mfgs "No motors, no batteries, no gasoline" Seriously, do the teamsters not realize that if they cripple UPS's ability to compete that they'll just all be out of a job suddenly when UPS gets destroyed in the market? They need to figure out how humans can actually add value relative to the other options and implement those changes. They need to figure out how to long-term keep humans relevant to the delivery industry. These sorts of short-term hacks by the parasite will just kill the host.

tabtab 9y ago
Re: "Seriously, do the teamsters not realize that if they cripple UPS's ability to compete..." If and when competitors have it and start hurting UPS's business, the teamsters may relax the request. What UPS should do is make sure the contract allows them to still do R&D and small-scale trials. If and when a competitor comes along that is a serious threat to UPS's business, the teamsters will probably relax the production-based automation clauses. It's a compromise I think both sides would agree to. After all, they don't want to kill the hand that feeds them. The only actual thing UPS is sacrificing is being first-to-market with such automation. Just be ready to be 2nd.
- andrewjl 9y ago
  You're assuming that the coordination costs and timescales of such a Teamsters / UPS agreement match the timescale of such a disruptive innovation arriving and putting UPS out of business. Historically that assumption is inaccurate.
wpdev_63 9y ago
Weird to reference people who want to work a job where they can live a modest life a parasite. Can't really add 'value' when there's aren't any jobs that needs to be filled. Alot people are going to be displaced in the following years and we must remember these people are moms, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc. They are not just statistics to be discussed. It would be great if there were more tech news of giving people jobs instead of taking them away.
- natosaichek 9y ago
  I mentally struggled while making the choice to use that phrase. I don't think any of the individuals want to be a parasite. I think they want to be valuable and rewarded for the value they add. There's nothing wrong with wanting to live a normal modest life with a normal paycheck that lets you raise a family, buy a house, etc. I think that's all most people want. The only way that is possible, though, is if one adds value to the company or organization one works for. If you actively harm the company or organization, your value is negative, and you are actively killing the organization that is distributing paychecks. I blame the union for short-sighted thinking, not the individual workers for wanting job security. Maybe that's a bad biological analogy... can you think of a better one? It seems like if an individual or group of individuals in an organization are not useful, but want to keep receiving benefits... well, the closest analogy I could find is maybe a leech or tapeworm or something like that. Maybe an appendix or a whithered arm? Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but that won't change the reality of what happens when the business is outcompeted and everyone is out of a job. The union cannot create a company - only provide some protections against certain classes of management decisions. Once there is no management because there's no company, the union will die. :-/
  - wpdev_63 9y ago
    They are not parasites. And I am now questioning where's your humanity. Would you be saying the same thing if your mom or dad was in the said union? I don't expect you to see eye to eye but I want to say progress at the expense of people's lives isn't something to be proud of. You know what would be great?! If we could make poverty obsolete or even just hunger. There's going to be alot of people in that situation because of this. Maybe your too high in your ivory tower to see it.
    - natosaichek 9y ago
      I don't want anyone to suffer. I'm pointing out that if people kill their company, they'll be out of a job. If you think the analogy is inaccurate, I invite you to explain how what the union is doing is _not_ parasitic, rather than making emotional appeals. I think that progress at the expense of people's lives _isn't_ progress. I think progress is the improvement of people's lives. I think that the union policies will harm people's lives, which is why I'm opposed to it.

tabtab 9y ago

Re: "Seriously, do the teamsters not realize that if they cripple UPS's ability to compete..." If and when competitors have it and start hurting UPS's business, the teamsters may relax the request. What UPS should do is make sure the contract allows them to still do R&D and small-scale trials. If and when a competitor comes along that is a serious threat to UPS's business, the teamsters will probably relax the production-based automation clauses. It's a compromise I think both sides would agree to. After all, they don't want to kill the hand that feeds them. The only actual thing UPS is sacrificing is being first-to-market with such automation. Just be ready to be 2nd.

andrewjl 9y ago
You're assuming that the coordination costs and timescales of such a Teamsters / UPS agreement match the timescale of such a disruptive innovation arriving and putting UPS out of business. Historically that assumption is inaccurate.

wpdev_63 9y ago

Weird to reference people who want to work a job where they can live a modest life a parasite. Can't really add 'value' when there's aren't any jobs that needs to be filled. Alot people are going to be displaced in the following years and we must remember these people are moms, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc. They are not just statistics to be discussed. It would be great if there were more tech news of giving people jobs instead of taking them away.

natosaichek 9y ago
I mentally struggled while making the choice to use that phrase. I don't think any of the individuals want to be a parasite. I think they want to be valuable and rewarded for the value they add. There's nothing wrong with wanting to live a normal modest life with a normal paycheck that lets you raise a family, buy a house, etc. I think that's all most people want. The only way that is possible, though, is if one adds value to the company or organization one works for. If you actively harm the company or organization, your value is negative, and you are actively killing the organization that is distributing paychecks. I blame the union for short-sighted thinking, not the individual workers for wanting job security. Maybe that's a bad biological analogy... can you think of a better one? It seems like if an individual or group of individuals in an organization are not useful, but want to keep receiving benefits... well, the closest analogy I could find is maybe a leech or tapeworm or something like that. Maybe an appendix or a whithered arm? Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but that won't change the reality of what happens when the business is outcompeted and everyone is out of a job. The union cannot create a company - only provide some protections against certain classes of management decisions. Once there is no management because there's no company, the union will die. :-/
- wpdev_63 9y ago
  They are not parasites. And I am now questioning where's your humanity. Would you be saying the same thing if your mom or dad was in the said union? I don't expect you to see eye to eye but I want to say progress at the expense of people's lives isn't something to be proud of. You know what would be great?! If we could make poverty obsolete or even just hunger. There's going to be alot of people in that situation because of this. Maybe your too high in your ivory tower to see it.
  - natosaichek 9y ago
    I don't want anyone to suffer. I'm pointing out that if people kill their company, they'll be out of a job. If you think the analogy is inaccurate, I invite you to explain how what the union is doing is _not_ parasitic, rather than making emotional appeals. I think that progress at the expense of people's lives _isn't_ progress. I think progress is the improvement of people's lives. I think that the union policies will harm people's lives, which is why I'm opposed to it.