DATE: Wednesday, August 13, 1997            TAG: 9708130012

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B8   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial

                                            LENGTH:   59 lines

UPS STRIKE HANDS OFF

Gov. George F. Allen often talks as if ``that government is best that governs least,'' but he's shown a preference on several occasions for keeping government power in Richmond that might have devolved to localities. And now, by calling on President Clinton to intervene in the United Parcel Service strike, Allen has shown that when push comes to shove, he'd rather have a strong federal government than a strong trade union.

But Allen is wrong to favor government action. The Taft-Hartley Act sets a high hurdle for intervention by the government in disputes between labor and management. The health or safety of the nation has to be at risk. So far, neither is imperiled by a strike that is slowing delivery of packages. Though UPS is the titan of the shipping industry, it isn't without competition - especially from Federal Express and the Postal Service. Both are scrambling to take up the slack and win business from UPS while it's shut down. For Clinton to act would be to exceed his legal authority and to take sides in what ought to be a private dispute privately settled.

It's undeniable that big issues are at stake in this case. The union claims UPS keeps many workers on part-time status for years to avoid paying them full-time wage rates or providing costly benefits. The company argues that the work it needs done requires a lot of part-time workers to cope with peak periods. And, in fact, it has provided better benefits than many companies that employ part-timers.

A second issue involves pensions. The union wants the company to pay retirement money to a union pension fund; UPS wants to set up its own plan because it fears a possibly open-ended liability in a multiemployer fund. It is not unreasonable to be concerned about a pension fund under the control of the Teamsters, whose history of fiscal probity is less than sterling. But it also isn't unheard of for companies to underfund their pension obligations.

Keeping pension plans solvent and equitably rewarding part-time work are issues facing hundreds of companies in an increasingly competitive economy, but a competitive economy also offers the solution to most such problems. If enough workers find conditions at UPS unacceptable, the company will have to improve working conditions or face constant turnover, an unreliable work force and continuing adversarial relations with unions.

Some working conditions can be egregiously unfair, and legislation to correct them can be justified. But so far, none seem obvious candidates in the UPS instance. The issue of affordable health care for part-time employees is a challenge for the whole society, but that's no argument for government intervention in this strike. Clearly there are work stoppages so disruptive that presidents must act, but the UPS strike hasn't risen to that level yet.

Both sides actually have motives for getting together. The Teamsters strike fund is so paltry they will have to rely on others to finance a long stoppage. Some workers are already crossing the lines, and others want a vote on the deal on the table. And, as the public impact of the shutdown increases, sympathy for the workers is likely to wane. On the other side, UPS is losing money and market share to competitors.

As time passes, pressure mounts for a settlement. The president can encourage settlement, but shouldn't decrease the pressure. The government must monitor fallout, but until Taft-Hartley requirements are met the bargainers should be allowed to settle their differences without government meddling.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu