4 ms·

I disagree. What would make it fair is that they put air conditioning in vehicles that service areas that have a high probability of being very hot during the

I disagree. What would make it fair is that they put air conditioning in vehicles that service areas that have a high probability of being very hot during the summer. UPS should pay a price for neglecting the welfare of its workers for so many years and pay up to put air conditioning in its vehicles. Give and take does not always mean a fair deal. Some negotiating positions are just plain wrong. If it is infeasible to retrofit vehicles then one has to accept that but this doesn't make it fair.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> What would make it fair is that they put air conditioning in vehicles that service areas that have a high probability of being very hot during the summer Or pause delivery by ambient-temperature vehicles during the hottest parts of the day. There are a number of solutions which, while not suited to Twitter, can be worked out between adults not drawing red lines for the public's consumption. Note that we don't have the NMA. We're going off highlights, one bullet point among which reads "safety and health protections, including..." This entire thread is a brilliant illustration of why compromise cannot be made in public anymore.
- synetic 3y ago
  I think you didn't read carefully what I wrote. I will state the last sentence again. If it is infeasible to add air conditioning then that is a reality but the compromise is not fair. My overall point though was that the act of compromising does not make a deal fair. Some compromises are still unfair. It is not fair in this day and age to require people to drive air conditionless vehicles in hot weather. There may be no other feasible alternative but let's not declare this part of the outcome fair.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > It is not fair in this day and age to require people to drive air conditionless vehicles in hot weather Why? (Honestly.) This reminds me of the windowless-apartment debate in New York. Community board members in rent-controlled units complain it's not fair for the poor to have no windows. As a result, the cheapest (legal) apartment was a bells-and-whistles deal. Meanwhile, I (illegally) subletted a windowless room in a full-floor loft for $900/month; even when (years later) I had a window, I put blackout curtains over it. The loft was a fair deal for me. Even if it offended another's sensibilities. Give and take doesn't make a deal fair. But it indicates both sides have bargaining power. Given a trade-off between more hours, higher pay, a faster roll-out of electric vehicles, and/or more hires, on one hand, and A/C retrofitting, on the other hand, there are valid--even fair--tradeoffs the parties could have made that differ from yours or mine.
    - synetic 3y ago
      > It is not fair in this day and age to require people to drive air conditionless vehicles in hot weather Why? Because my sense of what was is fair tells me this is not fair. To you it is fair. So be it. But it indicates both sides had bargaining power. It does not indicate this. Consider an extreme example. Labor: We need a $5 an hour raise. Management: We will give you $0.01 raise. Labor takes deal because they, in reality, had very little relative bargaining power. But a compromise was made! The act of compromising does not, in and of itself, indicate anything other than that a compromise was agreed upon. It does not indicate fairness, relative bargaining power, or anything else without further information. My point was to object to original characterization of this being fair since it was a compromise. I don't know what the tradeoffs were in the UPS bargaining. I do know that requiring someone to drive in an airconditionless vehicle in hot weather is not fair.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Labor: We need a $5 an hour raise. Management: We will give you $0.01 raise. Labor takes deal because they, in reality, had very little relative bargaining power. But a compromise was made! Except this doesn't reflect the reality of the deal. Real pay bumps, hiring commitments, a new paid holiday--these aren't minor concessions. There was palpable uncertainty around whether there would be a strike. Teamsters estimates the value of concessions around $30bn; that's 20% of UPS's market cap, delivered to drivers over five years.
        synetic 3y ago
        Clearly you are not reading what is being written. As stated several times. My objection is your original characterization that the issue of air conditioning was fair because it was a compromise. Not all compromises are fair. Not all compromises indicate relatively equal bargaining power. Not all compromises....
        antisthenes 3y ago
        The point is, you don't know whether it was fair either and you have no idea about the relative negotiating powers of the parties. Maybe the AC portion of the deal translated directly into wage dollars on the negotiating table. Maybe it was a "pick 3 out of 4 deal". Your posts are just pointless pedantry about an article where we (as the public) have very incomplete information about the preferences and the negotiating powers of the involved parties.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> What would make it fair is that they put air conditioning in vehicles that service areas that have a high probability of being very hot during the summer Or pause delivery by ambient-temperature vehicles during the hottest parts of the day. There are a number of solutions which, while not suited to Twitter, can be worked out between adults not drawing red lines for the public's consumption. Note that we don't have the NMA. We're going off highlights, one bullet point among which reads "safety and health protections, including..." This entire thread is a brilliant illustration of why compromise cannot be made in public anymore.

synetic 3y ago
I think you didn't read carefully what I wrote. I will state the last sentence again. If it is infeasible to add air conditioning then that is a reality but the compromise is not fair. My overall point though was that the act of compromising does not make a deal fair. Some compromises are still unfair. It is not fair in this day and age to require people to drive air conditionless vehicles in hot weather. There may be no other feasible alternative but let's not declare this part of the outcome fair.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > It is not fair in this day and age to require people to drive air conditionless vehicles in hot weather Why? (Honestly.) This reminds me of the windowless-apartment debate in New York. Community board members in rent-controlled units complain it's not fair for the poor to have no windows. As a result, the cheapest (legal) apartment was a bells-and-whistles deal. Meanwhile, I (illegally) subletted a windowless room in a full-floor loft for $900/month; even when (years later) I had a window, I put blackout curtains over it. The loft was a fair deal for me. Even if it offended another's sensibilities. Give and take doesn't make a deal fair. But it indicates both sides have bargaining power. Given a trade-off between more hours, higher pay, a faster roll-out of electric vehicles, and/or more hires, on one hand, and A/C retrofitting, on the other hand, there are valid--even fair--tradeoffs the parties could have made that differ from yours or mine.
  - synetic 3y ago
    > It is not fair in this day and age to require people to drive air conditionless vehicles in hot weather Why? Because my sense of what was is fair tells me this is not fair. To you it is fair. So be it. But it indicates both sides had bargaining power. It does not indicate this. Consider an extreme example. Labor: We need a $5 an hour raise. Management: We will give you $0.01 raise. Labor takes deal because they, in reality, had very little relative bargaining power. But a compromise was made! The act of compromising does not, in and of itself, indicate anything other than that a compromise was agreed upon. It does not indicate fairness, relative bargaining power, or anything else without further information. My point was to object to original characterization of this being fair since it was a compromise. I don't know what the tradeoffs were in the UPS bargaining. I do know that requiring someone to drive in an airconditionless vehicle in hot weather is not fair.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Labor: We need a $5 an hour raise. Management: We will give you $0.01 raise. Labor takes deal because they, in reality, had very little relative bargaining power. But a compromise was made! Except this doesn't reflect the reality of the deal. Real pay bumps, hiring commitments, a new paid holiday--these aren't minor concessions. There was palpable uncertainty around whether there would be a strike. Teamsters estimates the value of concessions around $30bn; that's 20% of UPS's market cap, delivered to drivers over five years.
      - synetic 3y ago
        Clearly you are not reading what is being written. As stated several times. My objection is your original characterization that the issue of air conditioning was fair because it was a compromise. Not all compromises are fair. Not all compromises indicate relatively equal bargaining power. Not all compromises....
        antisthenes 3y ago
        The point is, you don't know whether it was fair either and you have no idea about the relative negotiating powers of the parties. Maybe the AC portion of the deal translated directly into wage dollars on the negotiating table. Maybe it was a "pick 3 out of 4 deal". Your posts are just pointless pedantry about an article where we (as the public) have very incomplete information about the preferences and the negotiating powers of the involved parties.