It wouldn’t have been a big deal … we would have moved it to private for you … no problem. (we just didn’t want to do it without your permission).
I don’t need to give permission for anything… Haha
I’m using the same handle and avatar here as I did there, and it was for that account so it was a good callout. It’s also the account I am trying to close…
So maybe we got Karma. Who knows
Amazon’s need for UPS further diminished
When it is 50% from your largest customer that is not an only.
When that 50% is unprofitable because of the new Teamster’s contract that is not an only
When it follows a major layoff of white collar workers it is not an only
When the recently hired CEO, the first from outside the company does it that is not an only.
They layoffs were going to happen whether the tariffs happened or not. UPS could not continue to handle all of those Amazon orders. They were in areas which were too expensive for Amazon Logistics and UPS has a much higher cost structure than Amazon Logistics. UPS probably now has a higher cost structure than USPS, but that is speculation on my part.
I was just updating from the article. It seems that the 50% retained by UPS, was strategically the most profitable, so it doesn’t seem like it was a 50% reduction in revenue.
Whatever the case, it seems like UPS’s changes announced Tuesday were a surprise to many insiders and investors. 
Certainly not based on that article. There are plenty of other articles blaming it directly on the Teamster’s contract, and saying it was expected. When UPS agreed to the Teamster’s contract. it was predicted. When they had the white collar layoff, more layoffs were predicted.
Could the market have missed the extend of the effects - sure they could. Could reticence to discuss the Teamster contract have been involved - consider that Democrats rarely bad mouth labor agreements, added to DJT considering the Teamsters to be among his supporters. They have bipartisan support to a greater extent than any recent bipartisan support. Something which is not politically controversial except with people who run the numbers.