....lybob Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Let's not forget Ms. Archer: She "deserves" $15 an hour (plus full benefits) for doing a job that a little-trained monkey can do? How about she find a second job if she's only working "very hard" 24 hours per week? maybe that 24 hours are you come in when we !@#$ing tell you 24 hours- if you want to back a law that forces employers to give set schedules I'm with you duckie
tomato can Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 The morning news was reporting that UPS is having trouble filling 55,000 seasonal jobs nationwide that pay $8.50 per hour! Amazon, GSI Commerce, an eBay subsidiary that has handled online retail sales for other companies such as Bath and Body Works, Burberry and Dick's Sporting Goods all struggling to find workers! Heavan forbid they have to pay a living wage! Nah I'm sure there is a line of trained monkey's waiting to be hired
/dev/null Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 The morning news was reporting that UPS is having trouble filling 55,000 seasonal jobs nationwide that pay $8.50 per hour! Amazon, GSI Commerce, an eBay subsidiary that has handled online retail sales for other companies such as Bath and Body Works, Burberry and Dick's Sporting Goods all struggling to find workers! Heavan forbid they have to pay a living wage! Nah I'm sure there is a line of trained monkey's waiting to be hired If only those greedy corporations would pay their workers as much as the government pays people for doing nothing. Why get a job and take a pay cut?
B-Man Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 If only those greedy corporations would pay their workers as much as the government pays people for doing nothing. Why get a job and take a pay cut? Collecting Disability Becomes A Career Choice For Men. But let's keep going in the same direction.................... .
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) If only those greedy corporations would pay their workers as much as the government pays people for doing nothing. Why get a job and take a pay cut? I may agree a little... But 9 bucks an hour for temps... I see, I see... Let's not always make it a one way street. Why not pay them 20-25 and then cut them lose? It is a give and take... The corp doesn't have to pay all the permanent bennys, why not pay them more so they can make ends meet and carry on a little past the temp period. Why does it always have to be win-win, best possible outcome for one side? This is a two-way street, people want permanent choices... You can pay them lower then... But temps? This is lose-lose... Pay them more to make up for what they (temps) are sacrificing. Edited December 1, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois
Just Jack Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 If only those greedy corporations would pay their workers as much as the government pays people for doing nothing. Why get a job and take a pay cut? That was my choice last year when I was unemployed, and I was considering UPS. Either take the lesser amount with no guarante of hours, or sit at home "making" $10 an hour guaranteed
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 That was my choice last year when I was unemployed, and I was considering UPS. Either take the lesser amount with no guarante of hours, or sit at home "making" $10 an hour guaranteed That is what I was thinking. How can UPS go win-win with this situation? I suppose they could just turn it on people as being lazy and say something like: "Look what people don't want to do with making money, they'd rather sit home." Like duh... No ****! UPS is offereing the jobs so low because the want the best of both worlds... Temps to dump... And a PR campaign against "the lazy worker." And... Suck ass to their real masters: The American consumer who they deliver too. It is not the gov't's fault... Why are things not a give and take? What should be done to stop boorish behavior by UPS? Maybe workers just say: "Thank you sir, may I have another." Time to "downgrade" the whole game... More **** delivered, that people really do not need, is not better...
3rdnlng Posted December 1, 2012 Author Posted December 1, 2012 That is what I was thinking. How can UPS go win-win with this situation? I suppose they could just turn it on people as being lazy and say something like: "Look what people don't want to do with making money, they'd rather sit home." Like duh... No ****! UPS is offereing the jobs so low because the want the best of both worlds... Temps to dump... And a PR campaign against "the lazy worker." And... Suck ass to their real masters: The American consumer who they deliver too. It is not the gov't's fault... Why are things not a give and take? What should be done to stop boorish behavior by UPS? Maybe workers just say: "Thank you sir, may I have another." Time to "downgrade" the whole game... More **** delivered, that people really do not need, is not better... You are deranged. Why would UPS have any desire to campaign against "lazy (non) workers"
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 You are deranged. Why would UPS have any desire to campaign against "lazy (non) workers" I mean... Isn't that how unchecked capitalism works. Maybe I am deranged for thinking that the company is looking out for its labor? You are right... It is a de facto policy this company seems to practice. So they can lower their bottom line. It is a union company... But they are pretty big douchebags. They want a win-win situation... Pay as low as possible... No benny's... Dump them when they are done... Perfect situation and sweetheart deal around the Christmas rush... And then throw it in the worker's face on top of it when they don't want to work for $8.50 an hour... At least give them a reach around and pay them 15+ dollars an hour... God knows their douchbag drivers (caused by douchebag company policy/culture) can't be driven any faster to produce...
....lybob Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 maybe my memory is a little impaired but I remember UPS paying about $11hr 20+ years ago for the holiday rush- you'd work 4am to whenever (3 to 5 hours)- $8.50 ? that's not much pay for what use to be pretty intense physical labor.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 maybe my memory is a little impaired but I remember UPS paying about $11hr 20+ years ago for the holiday rush- you'd work 4am to whenever (3 to 5 hours)- $8.50 ? that's not much pay for what use to be pretty intense physical labor. Has shipping charges gone down in 20 years? You know... The minute fuel goes up, a company like UPS will surely adjust their rates. What gives? That is part of my point... Why else are they doing it (paying so low)... Who do they mostly compete against? FedEx... And don't even make me laugh with the PO... Their on life support... Like I said... Given the nature of the job, the douchebaggery of the UPS culture... Why not give them a reach around and pay them 15+ and hour. I mean... The wackos whine about the lazy American worker? Lack of work ethic? LoL... $8.50 and hour? Huh... Gas is 4 bucks a gallon... How the heck would you get to work, if you had a car? You'd be a bigger fool to take it and put yourself in a hole.
Just Jack Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 maybe my memory is a little impaired but I remember UPS paying about $11hr 20+ years ago for the holiday rush- you'd work 4am to whenever (3 to 5 hours)- $8.50 ? that's not much pay for what use to be pretty intense physical labor. Maybe 20+ years ago, but I was looking just last year and neither position was at $10 or over. One was truck loader like you mentioned, the other was drivers helper. Both seasonal, so you knew going in it would only be for a few weeks. The loader was more steady work, but still did not equal unemployment. The driver helper was an on-call basis, and also did not equal unemployment. If either one would have matched or exceeded my unemployment, I would have taken it just to be out and active. But instead I kept the higher paying job, sitting on my ass watching Judge Judy and Maury. (note: at the time I had a job lined up that was to start about March/April, hence why I was not actively looking for work)
....lybob Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Maybe 20+ years ago, but I was looking just last year and neither position was at $10 or over. One was truck loader like you mentioned, the other was drivers helper. Both seasonal, so you knew going in it would only be for a few weeks. The loader was more steady work, but still did not equal unemployment. The driver helper was an on-call basis, and also did not equal unemployment. If either one would have matched or exceeded my unemployment, I would have taken it just to be out and active. But instead I kept the higher paying job, sitting on my ass watching Judge Judy and Maury. (note: at the time I had a job lined up that was to start about March/April, hence why I was not actively looking for work) correct me if I'm wrong but if you did take the job and it lasted a month when you reapplied for unemployment if you could get it you'd be getting it for part time work basis as opposed to full time.
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 UPS' opperating costs are through the roof between rising fuel prices and their union labor budget. They also have competitive reasons to shave costs and keep prices down. Remember that their main competition doesn't report to a bottom line because it's tax-payer funded and subsidized.
unbillievable Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) correct me if I'm wrong but if you did take the job and it lasted a month when you reapplied for unemployment if you could get it you'd be getting it for part time work basis as opposed to full time. Maybe 20+ years ago, but I was looking just last year and neither position was at $10 or over. One was truck loader like you mentioned, the other was drivers helper. Both seasonal, so you knew going in it would only be for a few weeks. The loader was more steady work, but still did not equal unemployment. The driver helper was an on-call basis, and also did not equal unemployment. If either one would have matched or exceeded my unemployment, I would have taken it just to be out and active. But instead I kept the higher paying job, sitting on my ass watching Judge Judy and Maury. (note: at the time I had a job lined up that was to start about March/April, hence why I was not actively looking for work) Seems like the best way to solve the economic crisis and skyrocketing debt is to make it more "profitable" for people to accept a job rather than stay at home instead of forcing a company to increase their wages (and long-term sustainability) competing with government handouts. Government: stay at home at take this money Private sector: work for us but take less money so we can pay to support those guys at home. Me: is this a trick question? Edited December 1, 2012 by unbillievable
3rdnlng Posted December 1, 2012 Author Posted December 1, 2012 UPS's corporate goal is showing up the lazy American worker, not to make a profit.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 UPS' opperating costs are through the roof between rising fuel prices and their union labor budget. They also have competitive reasons to shave costs and keep prices down. Remember that their main competition doesn't report to a bottom line because it's tax-payer funded and subsidized. You're a right-wing kook... You're a nut to want to villify the PO. UPS is not in the 1st class mail business. The PO has NOT bee subsidized w/tax dollars since the 1980's... Anyway the USPS, it is directly mandated in the USC... http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times_news/opinion/guest/postal-service-is-not-bankrupt-and-it-is-not-funded/article_89407887-2ccb-502d-81d6-4748e94460c7.html "The United States Postal Service has been vilified by the private sector of our country. Deficit reduction is the order of the day and some politicians are misinforming the citizens of the country into thinking the Postal Service is bankrupt and contributing to our deficit. House Resolution 2309 “The Postal Reform Act” introduced by Rep. Issa, R-Cal., and co-sponsored by Rep. Ross, D-Fla., is a point in question. It is important to know these gentlemen chair the Oversight Committee and determine what is placed on the floor of the House for debate. House Bill 1351 is co-sponsored by 202 Republicans and Democrats alike; Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, R-8, is a co-sponsor as well as a co-sponsor of HR137. The problem arises when two gentlemen can disregard the feelings of 202 of their colleagues. They alone establish what comes out of committee for debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Postal Service is older than the Constitution; it is the only government agency whose duties are described in the Constitution." UPS's corporate goal is showing up the lazy American worker, not to make a profit. I said de facto. If they can show it up they will... Kill two birds with one PR stone. You are right, bottom line takes priority over PR. Igf they could get away with stiffing interns, they would! Seems like the best way to solve the economic crisis and skyrocketing debt is to make it more "profitable" for people to accept a job rather than stay at home instead of forcing a company to increase their wages (and long-term sustainability) competing with government handouts. Government: stay at home at take this money Private sector: work for us but take less money so we can pay to support those guys at home. Me: is this a trick question? Work for Walmart... They will part time a person... Pay them little and then steer them to the gov't tit. Go figure...
3rdnlng Posted December 1, 2012 Author Posted December 1, 2012 You're a right-wing kook... You're a nut to want to villify the PO. UPS is not in the 1st class mail business. The PO has NOT bee subsidized w/tax dollars since the 1980's... Anyway the USPS, it is directly mandated in the USC... http://www.phillybur...48e94460c7.html "The United States Postal Service has been vilified by the private sector of our country. Deficit reduction is the order of the day and some politicians are misinforming the citizens of the country into thinking the Postal Service is bankrupt and contributing to our deficit. House Resolution 2309 “The Postal Reform Act” introduced by Rep. Issa, R-Cal., and co-sponsored by Rep. Ross, D-Fla., is a point in question. It is important to know these gentlemen chair the Oversight Committee and determine what is placed on the floor of the House for debate. House Bill 1351 is co-sponsored by 202 Republicans and Democrats alike; Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, R-8, is a co-sponsor as well as a co-sponsor of HR137. The problem arises when two gentlemen can disregard the feelings of 202 of their colleagues. They alone establish what comes out of committee for debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Postal Service is older than the Constitution; it is the only government agency whose duties are described in the Constitution." I said de facto. If they can show it up they will... Kill two birds with one PR stone. You are right, bottom line takes priority over PR. Igf they could get away with stiffing interns, they would! Work for Walmart... They will part time a person... Pay them little and then steer them to the gov't tit. Go figure... Why in the world would UPS want to denigrate American workers? What good would it do them to alienate customers? I think you've been breathing in too many fumes trapped in your toll booth.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Why in the world would UPS want to denigrate American workers? What good would it do them to alienate customers? I think you've been breathing in too many fumes trapped in your toll booth. You got me! Maybe look into the work culture of that place... You might find the answer...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 ExiledInIllinois: Apparently the definition of vilify has been expanded to include "indirectly referencing in a non-disparaging manner". First of all, the USPS is both indirectly and directly subsidized with federal tax dollars for specific portions of it's business opperations. Secondly, the stamps you pay for when sending a letter are a tax. Third, I believe the postal service to be an intregal part of the our national defense. Beyond that it has a clear Constitutional mandate. However, none of that, in response to your silliness, has anything to do with my original post about UPS.
Recommended Posts