[artsytrashcan]

I don't think so. The air conditioning bit was a big point*, and it doesn't look like they've moved at all since June. The deal says they'll put AC in vehicles purchased from 2024 forward, but no retrofits except for a "heat shield" for the cabin. Unless UPS plans to replace its fleet in 2024 (it does not), it will be years before the vast majority of drivers have AC. More are going to die.

*because multiple deliverymen have died of heat-related illness while on the job, and it's otherwise a major long-term health concern

[JumpCrisscross]

> Unless UPS plans to replace its fleet in 2024 (it does not), it will be years before the vast majority of drivers have AC

This is what makes it a fair deal. Give and take. A maximalist position from labour would demand UPS churn or retrofit its entire fleet overnight. That's obviously not feasible, even if it makes for great PR.

> no retrofits except for a "heat shield" for the cabin

Maybe I'm reading "all cars get two fans and air induction vents in the cargo compartments" incorrectly?

[synetic]

I disagree. What would make it fair is that they put air conditioning in vehicles that service areas that have a high probability of being very hot during the summer. UPS should pay a price for neglecting the welfare of its workers for so many years and pay up to put air conditioning in its vehicles.

Give and take does not always mean a fair deal. Some negotiating positions are just plain wrong. If it is infeasible to retrofit vehicles then one has to accept that but this doesn't make it fair.

[drewcoo]

> This is what makes it a fair deal. Give and take. A maximalist position from labour would demand UPS churn or retrofit its entire fleet overnight.

So the "maximalist" labor position is "stop killing any of us" and the compromise "ok, just kill fewer of us" is a good thing?

Meeting in the middle is not always a moral position.

[anakaine]

Fans are not equivalent of air conditioning, particularly on hot and humid climates where the ability for the human body to conduct evaporative cooling significantly decreases with increasing humidity.

[artsytrashcan]

"Fair" does not mean "central, between horrible and tolerable".

>That's obviously not feasible

Your curt dismissal belies that it's actually not just feasible, but a necessity. I would like to see UPS spend the money to replace/retrofit, rather than fighting lawsuits from the relatives of dead or disabled workers, only to have to replace/retrofit anyway.

[lotsofpulp]

> This is what makes it a fair deal. Give and take

I disagree that give and take alone makes something fair.

[verelo]

I dont know why you're so heavily downvoted. The second point is entirely correct and your first other than claiming something is not feasible without data to back it up (although i admit it probably isnt feasible), it seems very true and fair.

[tyrfing]

Air conditioning was fairly easy for both parties to agree on, due to a very successful PR campaign that the company wants to bury. Something like an accelerated schedule to retrofit current vehicles would be expensive to negotiate and result in sacrifices elsewhere.

Cabin AC won't fix cargo areas hitting 140s, and most drivers wouldn't agree to lose $5/hr for AC today or something like that. The heat shield is for the cargo compartment, along with improved air intakes / ventilation and possibly other mitigations - they get absurdly hot and have minimal airflow.

[dymk]

I agree that it's not a strong win. But from this:

> All cars get two fans and air induction vents in the cargo compartments.

It sounds like all existing vehicles at least get a retrofit to have fans / air in the back?