8 ms·
I will pay more for items to be shipped to me and wait longer for them to arrive if it means the UPS drivers are treated fairly.
by isykt 3y ago
I will pay more for items to be shipped to me and wait longer for them to arrive if it means the UPS drivers are treated fairly.
- johngladtj 3y agoI won't.
- mydriasis 3y agoI will. Two to one. So ha! :)
- jhgfjhgfjhfgjhg 3y agoThat's great but why are you forcing others to subsidize these jobs too, especially the poor?
- unethical_ban 3y agoIt's not subsidizing, it's paying. I don't subsidize a roofer when I hire them, I pay them. So your question is "why should poor people have to pay UPS drivers a decent wage?" Which I predict you would argue that you think this is too much money/healthcare/retirement for a delivery driver.
- jhgfjhgfjhfgjhg 3y agoThe market determines the "fair" wage of a delivery driver and it is not $175,000.
- hnaccount141 3y agoThe fun thing about markets is that there's one for labor too, and apparently the labor market has decided otherwise.
- Kye 3y agoIt's the result of decades of union busting and pro-capital class propaganda. Everyone forgot labor is sold, and its price has only ever increased outside rare boom times by collective bargaining.
- pixelatedindex 3y agoWhy do you say it is not 175K? How much should it be? Is it because you don’t want to pay that much?
- nemo8551 3y agoIt looks like ups have decided that they want to pay their drivers something in the region of $175,000 in order to do their business though. If they didn’t want to pay that then they could pay less but then those drivers might not think that’s fair and then go work for someone else, it might not be for $175k but it’s their choice at that point.
- unethical_ban 3y agoIt's worth noting the parent to this comment rarely if ever provides an original comment (always replying with a short quip) and doesn't seem to engage in debate.
- mclion 3y agoThat's what people who have underpayed workers normally say. A pay upgrade for employees firsts lowers the income of the company and that's bad for owners and investitors, not the users. Users get higher prices way later in that game.
- jhgfjhgfjhfgjhg 3y agoUPS will have to increase shipping costs which directly hurts the poor with their Amazon purchases.
- consp 3y agoCounter argument: Which is good for local stores as they can compete more which will increase their profit so they can hire more people etc. It will also take a while to filter down like mentioned elsewhere. I'm not saying these things are the case but due to the oversimplification you get these kind of responses.
- dffdsa432 3y agoLocal stores also use UPS for their shipping. This hurts them too.
- mclion 3y agoYour understanding of poor is really different from mine. Here (Europe) poor people don't buy online, they go to the store for food, it's cheaper. Amazon is a luxury, not an essential provider.
- atraac 3y agoThis depends on the country. In Poland most people buy online these days, but we all use postage boxes(company called InPost). They have 'boxes' everywhere, in every city, even small villages at this point have at least one, big cities have them everywhere within walking distance. They batch deliver packages to those boxes which is also more efficient and environment friendly, you get a code and can pick it up within 48hrs. They revolutionized online deliveries in Poland, noone wants to use a regular courier or postal services anymore. Having to sit at home, often not knowing when the courier will really come is tiresome. People just pick the package up along the way to/from work, groceries etc.
- cykotic 3y agoWould that people like you think as much about the poor when it comes time for the government to make its budget. We’d be a better country if it this happened.
- culi 3y agonobody's forcing anyone to do anything. It's just the free market, right?
- thrill 3y agoThere's nothing free about this.
- pixelatedindex 3y agoWhat does that mean? Employers are raising wages in the free market. Unionized or not, the market is free - nobody is forcing companies to not unionize, and if that means more employee retention then the others better follow suit if they are keen enough. There’s no monopoly on who can have a union.
- mylons 3y agowhy would you be willing to when companies can easily allocate the record profits they have to wages?
- isykt 3y agoThree reasons. (1) I can afford it. (2) The increase in price and latency will probably result in my ordering less stuff. (3) I doubt that any company is going to allocate a substantial portion of their profits without raising prices. If it’s between raising prices, which I can afford, and people who do difficult jobs I depend on not having an easier, fairer life, then I’ll choose the raised prices.
- brvsft 3y ago> The increase in price and latency will probably result in my ordering less stuff. No, you just stated your generous intent. You have to order the same amount in order to properly support the UPS driver. Ordering less stuff will reduce the demand for UPS drivers, causing some to be fired. You have now harmed UPS drivers, treating them unfairly.
- isykt 3y agoI’m not so self centered as to think my personal consumption has any particular impact on the demand for UPS drivers.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- frumper 3y agoUPS has a lot of fixed costs and doing less business could hurt them more than making less profits. They have to start paying higher wages now because of the deal they made. Their customers likely can't absorb higher prices as quickly and like you point out will cause a decrease in business as people ship less. It's a balance for UPS and it very likely isn't "just raise prices to match".
- brvsft 3y agoWow, that's incredibly generous of you. If I start listing out thousands of other professions that are not well paid, do you promise to loudly state your intention of generosity on an internet comment? It's the least you could do, after all.
- pixelatedindex 3y agoNot OP, but yeah most definitely. And I have also started actively seeking out providers who pay a fair wage - for example I only get groceries at farmers markets. I sincerely wish they would do the same for clothing but that’s harder to find. It’s not my fault that capitalism makes it incredibly hard for me to do this by restricting the number of businesses that pay a fair wage, but I genuinely do my part. I don’t buy from Amazon anymore unless I have no choice. I’ve paid double the price at times just to avoid Amazon.
- kylehotchkiss 3y agoI wish I had the option to! Everybody keeps shipping things with Ontrac