Why?
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.
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!
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.
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.
Not all compromises are fair. Not all compromises indicate relatively equal bargaining power. Not all compromises....
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.
That a compromise was made does not make it fair. The act of compromising in and of itself does not necessarily imply fairness.
I’m not being a pedant. I’m claiming the original reasoning for believing this part of the deal is fair because it involved compromises. I also claim that requiring people to drive all day in hot weather in an air conditionless vehicle is inherently unfair.
>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.
Well, no because if they had no bargaining power management could have told them to fuck off, or pay them even less. "Had bargaining power" =/= "had the upper hand"
> "We’ve hit every goal that UPS Teamster members wanted and asked for with this agreement. It’s a ‘yes’ vote for the most historic contract we’ve ever had.”
While the issue of fairness is subjective, it seems objectively good that the union was able to get what they wanted and asked for. Seems fair to me.
Also, I think its unfair to require people to drive air conditionless vehicles in hot weather.
My kid was job hunting. The local coffee shop offered him $5/hr + tips. Guess where he went?
As a result, the coffee shop is now closed, whereas the dominos has my orders waiting for me in under 8 minutes.
I’m shook.
What are you going to tell me next, that the sky is blue?
The sky isn’t always blue. Which is ironic given your response.
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.