Do you think the people who work(ed) at Hostess...

[Vic Vega]

Originally Posted by Ns1

The long term problems are due to corporate mis-management, the fact that the company is shutting down today is due to one union.

IMO

Where are you getting this information?

[Soundmanred]

Originally Posted by Vic Vega

Where are you getting this information?

That's where his "IMO" comes into play.

[Vic Vega]

Originally Posted by Soundmanred

That's where his "IMO" comes into play.

Something caused him to form that opinion.

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by DaTT

Do you think the people who work(ed) at Hostess...

...regret going on strike? 18,000 jobs gonzo.

No

They were interviewed on TV news here and they were tired of giving concessions and going backwards on pay.

Now their only option will be to re-hired at minimum wage with no benefits.

That's American Corporations for you.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674

No

They were interviewed on TV news here and they were tired of giving concessions and going backwards on pay.

Now their only option will be to re-hired at minimum wage with no benefits.

That's American entitlement mentality for you.

FTFY.

[IronWing]

Originally Posted by CZroe

FTFY.

Yes, corporate execs and shareholders have developed a mentality that they are entitled to the fruits of the labor of others without fair compensation. They're a bunch of parasites, oblivious to the reality that they are destroying our nation.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by IronWing

Yes, corporate execs and shareholders have developed a mentality that they are entitled to the fruits of the labor of others without fair compensation. They're a bunch of parasites, oblivious to the reality that they are destroying our nation.

It's a two-way street. You're saying that they just willingly shot themselves in the foot to spite the poor employees. Now the employees are free to go work somewhere else but the corporate execs and shareholders are laughing all the way BACK to bankruptcy court.



BTW, those poor employees are not saddled with the bankruptcy and are free to seek employment elsewhere. Yes, they are screwed too, but the execs and shareholders are screwed worse and are not the ones who did the screwing like you fantasize.

"I'll burn everything I own down rather than give you another dollar!"

Yep. That makes perfect sense. Greedy execs care more about keeping others from having money than they care about their own fortunes. Explains everything. So simple.

Why are you so quick to assume almost cartoon-like motivations that run counter to their actual motivations (making money)?

[Tsavo]

News is reporting that Hostess has accepted an offer from Lard Lad Bakeries.

Never heard of them.

[IronWing]

Originally Posted by CZroe

It's a two-way street. You're saying that they just willingly shot themselves in the foot to spite the poor employees. Now the employees are free to go work somewhere else but the corporate execs and shareholders are laughing all the way BACK to bankruptcy court.



BTW, those poor employees are not saddled with the bankruptcy and are free to seek employment elsewhere. Yes, they are screwed too, but the execs and shareholders are screwed worse and are not the ones who did the screwing like you fantasize.

"I'll burn everything I own down rather than give you another dollar!"

Yep. That makes perfect sense. Greedy execs. Explains everything. So simple. Almost, cartoon-like.

The execs will walk way rich. This was vulture capitalist looting. The employees get screwed out of the pensions they earned because the execs chose to underfund the pension plan. The execs aught to be in jail. Instead they get rich.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by IronWing

The execs will walk way rich. This was vulture capitalist looting. The employees get screwed out of the pensions they earned because the execs chose to underfund the pension plan. The execs aught to be in jail. Instead they get rich.

If I were in charge and I had "rich" money and the only way to avoid all this and continue operation was to give it all up to the union and operate the company at no profit, you'd better believe I'd do the same thing.

It's not looting just because it's not a charity. Cry about it.

Edit: They aren't entitled to the execs' and investors' money. In fact, the investors ARE entitled to it. It's the whole point of investing.

[IronWing]

Originally Posted by CZroe

If I were in charge and I had "rich" money and the only thing that could avoid all this was to give it all up and operate the company at no profit, you'd better believe I'd do the same thing.

It's not loting just because it's not a charity. Cry about it.

This was looting and underfunding the pension plan was theft. It wasn't the shareholders' money, it belonged to the employees who earned it and the execs stole it. Stealing the pension funds was made legal by a corrupt government paid off by the wealth class. Class warfare plain and simple.

[Fingolfin269]

I can't imagine this is the end game any employee looks for when going on strike.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by IronWing

This was looting and underfunding the pension plan was theft. It wasn't the shareholders' money, it belonged to the employees who earned it and the execs stole it. Stealing the pension funds was made legal by a corrupt government paid off by the wealth class. Class warfare plain and simple.

Barking up the wrong tree again. They underfunded it because they were BANKRUPT and couldn't afford it. Why couldn't they afford it? The very same union that now demanded more.

They aren't entitled to the execs' and investors' money. In fact, the investors ARE entitled to it. It's the whole point of investing. Got it?

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by DaTT

I agree. IMO, unions do NOT server any purpose in today's workforce.

Ya, and I think police no longer serve any purpose in society.

I mean once when there was crime they did but now they're just a waste of taxes.

[DesiPower]

they didnt go on strike, the union coerced them to do it, another reason to get rid of these scum of the society. First they force the workers to pay up and then use to money to elect liberal dipshits, that's their only purpose. Look at the Detroit big 3, once they were able to get rid of the unions, they prospered.

[IronWing]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Barking up the wrong tree again. They underfunded it because they were BANKRUPT and couldn't afford it. Why couldn't they afford it? The very same union that now demanded more.

They aren't entitled to the execs' and investors' money. In fact, the investors ARE entitled to it. It's the whole point of investing. Got it?

Which part of the word earned are you confused about? The workers performed labor in return for agreed compensation. The execs shortchanged the workers by $2 billion.

In your world, I guess if I offer you $50 to do a job for me and then, after the work is done, I decide to only pay you $10 that's okay because, hey it's my money.

[IronWing]

Originally Posted by DesiPower

they didnt go on strike, the union coerced them to do it, another reason to get rid of these scum of the society. First they force the workers to pay up and then use to money to elect liberal dipshits, that's their only purpose. Look at the Detroit big 3, once they were able to get rid of the unions, they prospered.

Um. What?

[DesiPower]

Originally Posted by Craig234

Ya, and I think police no longer serve any purpose in society.

I mean once when there was crime they did but now they're just a waste of taxes.

Current day workers are competing with Chinese, south American and other cheap labors AND the workers work of companies that compete with others in a competitive marketplace. Police does not do either so you argument fails.
With respect to your analogy, crime did not you cease to exist but workers right did they day Nixon and other made us lay down and spread our legs for China, so take you failed argument and stick it up your master's a$$

[DesiPower]

Originally Posted by IronWing

Um. What?

put the kool aid down, let it wear off, then you might be able to understand.

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Barking up the wrong tree again. They underfunded it because they were BANKRUPT and couldn't afford it. Why couldn't they afford it? The very same union that now demanded more.

They aren't entitled to the execs' and investors' money. In fact, the investors ARE entitled to it. It's the whole point of investing. Got it?

Link to facts on tne negotiated dispute? Who asked for what?

I did see some footage of the union workers on strike such as wearing a sign announcing his wage was $30,000. Not exactly 'gouging'.

But in this bankruptcy, they've asked to give bonuses to execs of 25% to 75% of salary.

Reminds me a bit of that 'papa john' saying there's no way to afford the $5 million, $2,000 per uninsured worker Obamacare cost - while taking enormous profits ($600 million).

It's more important he keep the personal wealth up - a few things about the mansion he's bought the low-paid workers have earned him:

"•Multi-level 22 car underground garage
•Multiple swimming pools
•Private golf course
•Gigantic motorized turntable-driveway to park stretch limousines
•6,000-square-foot guest house"

[IronWing]

Originally Posted by DesiPower

put the kool aid down, let it wear off, then you might be able to understand.

The big three are still unionized so wtf are you going on about?

[DesiPower]

Originally Posted by IronWing

The big three are still unionized so wtf are you going on about?

but its not the same, they do not have the same power, their salary, benefits, pensions were significantly reduced or eliminated. If they didn't declare bankruptcy they would have never been able to get rid of the old union ways and THAT would have taken them down for good. The current union is just for namesake, its castrated and that's what helping them prosper.

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by DesiPower

Current day workers are competing with Chinese, south American and other cheap labors AND the workers work of companies that compete with others in a competitive marketplace. Police does not do either so you argument fails.
With respect to your analogy, crime did not you cease to exist but workers right did they day Nixon and other made us lay down and spread our legs for China, so take you failed argument and stick it up your master's a$$

People who assemble iPads are competing with third world workers who assemble iPads.

Baked goods, not so much. Long shelf life, but still a more locally made industry.

They didn't offshore the products, they closed the company. So you're the one with the incorrect argument.

'Crime did not cease to exist' - um, ya, that was the point, neither has worker needs.

Unions are still very much relevant to protecting worker incomes the same as they always have been, and they protect non-union workers at the same time.

In this time of 'globalization', we need worker protections unless you want to be like China.

Since you can't make a post without being obnoxious apparently, no reply needed.

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by DesiPower

but its not the same, they do not have the same power, their salary, benefits, pensions were significantly reduced or eliminated. If they didn't declare bankruptcy they would have never been able to get rid of the old union ways and THAT would have taken them down for good. The current union is just for namesake, its castrated and that's what helping them prosper.

Link to support your claim?

It's funny, one minute right-wingers are attacking Obama for the auto-bailouts being a total union-driven (no pun intended) power grab to benefit them.

The next, we have this comment the unions were 'totally destroyed, just in name now'.

[WilliamM2]

Originally Posted by Tsavo

News is reporting that Hostess has accepted an offer from Lard Lad Bakeries.

Never heard of them.

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Lard_Lad_Donuts