Maybe I'm just reading from a somewhat jaded viewpoint and I'm curious what you all think. I saw an article which I won't link here because I don't want to drive clicks but the headline is “I make 40/hr at UPS but there's so much drama” if you want to look it up. Here's the summary:
Grateful for the union because it nearly doubled their pay as a driver compared to Amazon.
Doesn't like the friction between the union and corporate.
Scheduled vacation for August because striking isn't for them.
Sees “both sides” and feels the union can be too strong protecting some workers who shouldn't be there.
It feels to me that this seemingly innocent interview will do a few things as far as public perception. First, 40/hr in Ohio is really nice pay that a lot of people aren't making. It's easy to think the union workers are being greedy asking for more. But a quick look at ups website it is quite clear that this is not the average pay. It's easy to forget that a union secures well deserved raises after being with the company (per the article) for TWELVE years.
Friction between the union and corporate is a load of horseshit. Yeah of course there is. The union works to get people a living wage. Corporate types at any company would pay $0/hr if they could. It makes it seem like they are both at equal blame. Like taking the side of both the bully and the victim on the playground.
And an actual driver not wanting to participate in the strike makes it seem like striking is not a desirable thing. I mean afterall an actual veteran driver with the company doesn't want to.
So what do you think? Just an innocent interview or a carefully selected piece to try to increase public perception of UPS corporate and decrease sympathy for the Union?