[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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

Or pause delivery by ambient-temperature vehicles during the hottest parts of the day. There are a number of solutions which, while not suited to Twitter, can be worked out between adults not drawing red lines for the public's consumption.

Note that we don't have the NMA. We're going off highlights, one bullet point among which reads "safety and health protections, including..."

This entire thread is a brilliant illustration of why compromise cannot be made in public anymore.

[synetic]

I think you didn't read carefully what I wrote. I will state the last sentence again. If it is infeasible to add air conditioning then that is a reality but the compromise is not fair.

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.