Risk of major disruption as UPS strike looms in US
Risk of major disruption as UPS strike looms in US
"I'd like to strike just to teach them a lesson," says long-time UPS worker Antonio Rosario.
You're viewing a single thread.
USPS looking at this to finally be profitable!
... Unless you actually work there cuz that'll suck
Edit: It's a joke guys
"United States Postal Service"
It's not meant to be profitable. It is a service. As in: not a product. A service performed by your government. Subsidized by taxes because that's how it works. That's why it's (almost) always the cheapest option when you need to ship or deliver.
Also, it WAS profitable, for the vast majority of its history. It only stopped being profitable something like 8-10 years ago, when Congress mandated that (IIRC) pensions had to be funded 70 years in advance.
It sometimes seems like there's nothing good in this country congress won't eventually destroy. The USPS was, and is, mostly an excellent organization. Only sabotage will bring it down.
Republicans are doing most of the destruction, not Congress as a whole.
I mean, it would be nice if ALL government pensions had to be funded decades in advance. Singling out the USPS was some blatant bullshit though.
Why? It would mean a massive pool of money just begging for some cockroach from Goldman Sachs to come around and dump it into mortgage backed securities.
More people are retiring than are replacing them in the work force for one thing. Having pensions paid decades in advance means (in my mind) it smooths out somewhat instead of crashing.
More people are retiring than are replacing them in the work force for one thing.
I find it more useful to solve problems vs trying to solve secondary effects. If the workforce of the USPS is not expanding then pay the remaining workers more. If you take the same percentage out of their pay you should be able to balance out the retirees. Why shouldn't it be that way? If a worker today can get ten times as much done as a worker of some point in the past then pay that worker ten times as more.
Now you don't have to worry about government money empires that lead to the crazy market conditions that caused the 08 crash.
It took me a while to figure out what you were saying. I think that could work up to a point where automation becomes affordable and replaces workers. To continue the thought, I suppose then we would have to pay the remaining workers ever-increasing wages until the only workers left are ones we can’t yet afford to automate.
I like that idea but I doubt anyone has the appetite to take that to the natural conclusion, i.e. the CEOs and decision makers would also be automated at some point (my guess is near the beginning).
It already is. Look I am an automation engineer.
A generation ago I would have my own draftsman, a secretary, and three techs. The draftsman is gone, because you can train an engineer how to CAD. The secretary is gone because of email, and the techs are gone because you can order the parts now. I am the one engineer in my department who has a tech report to him and we will see how long that lasts. Basically doing the work that 5 people used to do. Did I get paid their salary?
But it gets worse. We have new software at work. Used to be there were two engineers plus a consultant part time doing my sub branch. Because of the new software when they retired they weren't replaced. I am now doing the work that used to take 2.5 engineers to do. What about their associated secs and drafts people and techs? All me now. I should be pulling a million a year and if you look at what I am making my employer that number adds up.
Oh and on top of all this business has expanded. So now little all me, software enhanced, is doing the work that it took about 20 people to do. Don't believe me? 5 years ago my company produced a baseline model twice a week. In 2022 we produced one on average every 6 working hours.
Where did all the money go? Because I sure as hell aren't seeing it in my pay. Meanwhile I am replacing workers for a living. Making better and better processes that can do more with less human effort. Again, where is the cost savings going?
Go to any chemical plant these days. With the exception of places that are always about to explode (power plants) or ones with new chemical process constantly (some of the newer biotechs) plant operators are gone. The only ones left are maintenance, engineering, management, and business operations. If you have ever drinken a glass of OJ on the eastern seaboard of the US chances are overwhelming that I was in the plant that made it and can assure you the operators are gone.
Sorry for the rant but it's starting to piss me off. I like my job. I am destroying horrible dehumanizing jobs. The fucking beancounters are soring me on my work.
This article is about UPS(United Parcel Service) and not the USPS(United States Postal Service). UPS is a publically traded company.
The implication is that the disruption to UPS's service will drive business to the USPS.
USPS usually handles the last mile. Guess what big company handles the other miles for them.
Guess what big company has no obligation to deliver to anyone ever? You know who does have that obligation? No matter where in the country you live? The U.S. Postal Service.
What I'm saying is the strike will not be a boon for USPS as much as people seem to think. On the one hand they have government officials trying to get rid of it, on the other, to cut costs, they've offloaded a lot of their shipping to other companies like UPS, FedEx, etc. They're going to feel the effects of the strike in a negative way. I agree with the guy quoted in the article that the other shipping companies like FedEx and DHL will be the ones getting the increased business. and they don't have a union.
DHL = 🤡
The USPS would be profitable if they didn't have to beg Congress to raise the price of stamps and weren't forced to fund pension liabilities for people who won't retire for 30 years.
I consider myself a news junkie, and I'd never even heard of this until right now. God, do I wish good news like this actually got the airtime it deserved!
I think a part of it comes from who Biden is. When I voted for Biden I hoped for three things
-
Clown show to be over
-
Small problems in government getting fixed
-
At least one big improvement.
So far he has given us two. His administration has been quitely making things run better in government and doing it in such a way as to not attract attention. You can't really expect the news to dedicate a segment to pension reform when they have been at the all you can eat fest of blood in the water and -gates of 2016-2020. Even now Google news in private browsing mode shows me more results about the two frontrunners of the GOP nomination (16 months before the election) then it does of the man literally in the White House.
It's a bit sad that he doesn't have the best odds of winning relection, mostly because of the total lack of showmanship. I wanted a dedicated civil servant and I got one, but only for 4 years.
It’s a bit sad that he doesn’t have the best odds of winning relection
Agreed with the rest of your comment, but gotta disagree with this line. All signs seem to indicate that the general election will be a Biden / former guy rematch. And Biden's already beaten him once.
To be clear, not saying victory is guaranteed or even likely, it's going to be a long, hard slog between here and election day. But I wouldn't count Biden out just yet, not by any means.
-