[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It is not fair in this day and age to require people to drive air conditionless vehicles in hot weather

Why? (Honestly.)

This reminds me of the windowless-apartment debate in New York. Community board members in rent-controlled units complain it's not fair for the poor to have no windows. As a result, the cheapest (legal) apartment was a bells-and-whistles deal. Meanwhile, I (illegally) subletted a windowless room in a full-floor loft for $900/month; even when (years later) I had a window, I put blackout curtains over it. The loft was a fair deal for me. Even if it offended another's sensibilities.

Give and take doesn't make a deal fair. But it indicates both sides have bargaining power. Given a trade-off between more hours, higher pay, a faster roll-out of electric vehicles, and/or more hires, on one hand, and A/C retrofitting, on the other hand, there are valid--even fair--tradeoffs the parties could have made that differ from yours or mine.

[synetic]

> It is not fair in this day and age to require people to drive air conditionless vehicles in hot weather

Why?

Because my sense of what was is fair tells me this is not fair. To you it is fair. So be it.

But it indicates both sides had bargaining power.

It does not indicate this. Consider an extreme example.

Labor: We need a $5 an hour raise. Management: We will give you $0.01 raise.

Labor takes deal because they, in reality, had very little relative bargaining power. But a compromise was made! The act of compromising does not, in and of itself, indicate anything other than that a compromise was agreed upon. It does not indicate fairness, relative bargaining power, or anything else without further information.

My point was to object to original characterization of this being fair since it was a compromise.

I don't know what the tradeoffs were in the UPS bargaining. I do know that requiring someone to drive in an airconditionless vehicle in hot weather is not fair.