…for unions, not the American people. Not only have unions become majority owners of Chrysler in a deal that calls into question the integrity of contracts after the Obama Administration is finished with them, but now Teamsters’ and UPS are teaming up to harm FedEx, UPS’s primary competitor. As George F. Will writes:
Nevertheless, today’s Democratic majority in Congress, with UPS now aligned with the Teamsters, wants to put FedEx’s ground pickup and delivery operations under the NLRA, thereby making FedEx’s entire integrated system susceptible to disruption by local disputes.
He goes on to explain how Democrats are planning to expand the National Labor Relations Act to cover FedEx’s ground division which is currently covered by the Railway Labor Act. As Will explains, the RLA “ensure[s] that any bargaining unit for workers must be systemwide so that no local unit could hold the railroads hostage.” Operations like FedEx were covered by the RLA instead of the NLRA because this didn’t allow a unit in Nashville, TN affect a unit in Anchorage, AK for example. All union negotiations are made on a system-wide level.
Right now, UPS isn’t doing too hot. And UPS happens to be a Teamsters’ stronghold while FedEx is not. So, as the government no longer respects the free market and contracts between two parties (i.e. employment contracts), they’re trying to harm FedEx. But not by offering a better product or services, reducing prices, or doing anything that would attract consumers to them and not to FedEx. They’re trying to harm FedEx by bringing the coercive arm of the government to implement a law that would make FedEx’s operations more suspectible to stoppages due to local disputes.
Yet another example of why the government should not involve itself in the free market. Big Business teams up with Big Government to make our economy less efficient which ends up being paid for, not by Big Business, but by consumers, individuals like you and me. Because if the law is changed, FedEx will be forced to cancel a “multibillion-dollar order for 15 Boeing 777s” which would not only make FedEx operations more efficient (thereby reducing costs), but also keeps people employed making aircraft. Something that would actually “create or save” thousands of jobs which just might be welcome in this economy.
UPS quarterly results aren’t out yet, but FedEx results are, so we DO know FedEx isn’t “doing too hot.” You imply that UPS is suffering because it’s heavily unionized, but there is no evidence that is the case.
Off topic, but I was wondering if anyone here plans to comment on the election of 38-year-old Audra “Mad Coons” Shay to lead the Young Republicans?
“Right now, UPS isn’t doing too hot. ”
I say, “Lucy?!? ‘splain?!?”
FedEx stock has dropped 66% in the last few quarters. UPS has dropped 33%.
Who’s hurting? Back your statements up with verifiable sources. I know that proves difficult for any demagogue. But please. We already have enough Rush’s and Alan Colmes’. The latter much more reliable than the former.
So if you want to get my attention again put some beef on the bone!!!!
It takes skill to bring a healthy fact and/or theory to our attention. We want you to do the work. We shouldn’t have to do the research.
The funny thing is, these moves were necessary to save Chrysler. What was your alternative plan? Your post does not establish either a premise that saving Chrysler was a good or bad idea. If not for the labor unions owning Chrysler, what is the alternative? Would you rather see Chrysler fail? Obama has no interest in anyone owning Chrysler other than Chrysler itself. However, they were on the verge of going under and he decided it’d be better to save the company.
Slightly shifting gears: A lot of your articles are very critical of Obama’s economic policies. We are in a very serious financial crisis and unconventional tactics must be used to revive our economy. If Obama had taken office in better economic times, Teamsters wouldn’t own any part of Chrysler and many similar tactics would not have been implemented. However, your posts make it seem as though Obama would love for unions and the American people to own every business, control production and natural resources, etc. That, sir, is just not the case.
A lot of economists — both liberal and conservative — called for many of the bailouts that took place, the stimulus package, and even nationalization of the banks (which wasn’t done). So, it’s not like Obama has been outside of the mainstream with his economic policies.
That was not a straw man argument. I asked you: “What was your alternative plan?” You offer critique after critique but never a comprehensible alternative. Anyone can find “fault” in most anything. The reason for a controlled Chapter 11 bankruptcy was to avert severe collateral damage and to make the process much quicker. Further, the rationale behind influencing the restructuring of GM and Chrysler is that we have billions of dollars invested in each of them. I’m sure you would be crying foul if we made no effort to protect taxpayer money.
“What Obama did was circumvent the normal Chapter 11 process, which would mean allowing the special bankruptcy courts decide want should occur, in order to gain control of the company to dictate the results which included union majority ownership and mandating “green cars” being produced”
Not really. The Chrysler restructuring plan was reviewed by multiple courts (including the Supreme Court) and there was nothing wrong with it legally. The court accepted the restructuring plan; there was no “circumvention.” Further, Fiat refused to invest in Chrysler unless they had a deal with the UAW; that wasn’t Obama’s idea.
Card-check, health care reform, and cap & trade are equivalent to “controlling” businesses? More like *regulating* how businesses operate and helping to usher in a new era of economic growth. I know that regulation is a sin in your book, but we’ve had too little in recent history: America circa 2008.
Britain 1979 vs. U.S. 2009 = apples vs. bananas.