The Issues
There have been some good comments on my previous post from people on both sides of the issue. I responded to the points I thought had some validity. Do go and read them, and please chime in if you have something to add to the debate. I am always open to opposing views, including admitting I’m wrong if proven so.
For the record, I think unions are in many ways obsolete and in all ways a hindrance to free markets and the U.S. economy and should probably be abolished entirely - so I don’t disagree with the commenters who protested the entire FedEx/UPS situation based on their desire to protect FedEx from the Teamsters. But: FedEx has resisted unionization even in the parts of the company that are subject to it, so I don’t fully buy into the contention that the Teamsters will necessarily come in and take over. Let’s not forget that unionization takes a majority vote of employees, and that there are ways of combatting it (a friend of mine does this for a living: flies in and assists organizations being targeted for unionization).
Either way, as long as unions and labor laws continue to exist, rules and categorizations should be applied fairly and equitably. UPS and FedEx may well have started out as different types of companies, but they have since evolved into remarkably similar organizations. If FedEx employees and/or independent contractors are to remain as-is (non-union), then yes, absolutely, let’s go ahead and allow UPS to operate the same way. But, as FedEx acknowledges, this was tried, and failed, even back when the Republicans were in charge.
As for all the nice stuff FedEx does, it’s beside the point. We can’t exempt orgs or people from fairness under the law just because they are, like, super nice.
Why We Buy
I do support one commenter’s stated free-market standard for consumer decision making: the cheapest price for the best service. But since the better FedEx rate exists due to an inherent unfairness by way of the mis-application of our laws, I am personally willing to pay a little more for UPS on principle. (Besides, UPS pricing is still quite reasonable and the truck is always early to deliver to my mother up in rural Idaho.)
I am NOT a Blogstitute
On a final note re: the comments, the ex-Nevada senator who insinuated that the only bloggers who would advocate for UPS must be getting paid to do should (1) refrain from directly or indirectly insulting my integrity and (2) offer evidence that UPS did, or is, paying me or other bloggers to push their agenda. I am not a blogstitute — that’s “prostitute” minus “pro” plus “blog” — and I don’t appreciate even the hint of an allegation like that. The bent of my blog posts is not for sale. I don’t march to the drum nor tow the line of any party, group, or organization.
I say what I want; I say what I mean; and I mean what I say. Exclamation point.
E!!
John JBZ
26 June 2009
E – I understand your fairness arg, but what I don’t understand is why you don’t choose to apply it the other way.
UPS operates under an unfair burden of regulation. Fedex doesn’t. Why not advocate that the burden on UPS gets removed, not that Fedex is similiarly weighted down?
And I don’t think your blow off arg that a such a proposal failed – “even back when the Republicans were in charge” – is sufficient.
What did the Republicans pass that favored the free market/limited government when they were in charge? Abolishing the Department of Education? Entitlement reform? Lower spending? Lower debt? Less waste? Fewer earmarks?
Just because those things didn’t pass, doesn’t mean they aren’t good ideas or that we shouldn’t continue to pursue them.
Alright, one last random analogy. It’s like saying, we shouldn’t give businesses government subsidizes or bailouts, but since we already gave one to AIG, Citigroup, and Cabela’s, we might as well make it a fair playing field and give bailouts/subsidizes to all.
If the principle is bad, repeal the principle, don’t try and subject everyone to it’s authority.