Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Londo_Jowo, Nov 15, 2012.
taken from another thread, but the 'anti-union' stance here is completely justified.
So this literally is the case of the company asking below market wage and people essentially quitting. Are they in an RTW state predominantly? Because that's the only stupid part of it - the company should be to try to hire replacement workforce.
I agree that management made stupid decisions - giving union health plans richer than non-union, exorbitant union pension plans, pay increase greater than national average - but when the private equity company came in, spent $30M of it's own money just last summer, put in new management and risked a ton of capital, at the end it was the Bakers' union was the one who called the endgame. Plain and simple. Even the Teamsters has stated that the Bakers Union could have done this differently and helped save the company. They didn't, the voted in their self-interest and now are out of a job.
I really have my doubts that the labor Attys trying to negotiate it would act irrationally and against their self-interest (ie retaining jobs). I would guess it was the case that in order for the company to stay solvent, they would have to convince the employee to take below market wages... in which case it may be more beneficial to strike and essentially quit while being able to collect unemployment.
the company was already in bankruptcy, short on cash leverage, had a surprise strike (the Bakers Union hasn't talked with management since the strike occurred - 30 days ago) and you want them to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to hire replacement workers?
Exactly, free market at work. If there is demand it will be filled elsewhere.
Weak companies should fold.
the CEO said an 8% pay decrease was going to be applied to all employees, union and non-union. Teamsters and all of the other unions had agreed to it.
Wow, just went into my local Famima store. All Hostess stuff completely gone except suzie qs. Even those pink coconut snowball things were gone.
Im just going to leave this here.
Blame Obama, Blame Democrats, Blame whoever...but you can never blame a corporations top level CEOs for being greedy and ruining their own company.
...and here you guys were, blaming unionized workers for the downfall of this company. Its pretty clear, when a CEO can up his salary from 700k a year to 2.55 million and call it "performance based compensation" AND other high level employees raising their salaries anywhere from 33% - 80% while the company is "Bankrupt"..there's something fishy going on.
But hey, its the UNION thats the problem.
Just saw this on ebay
Come back and post when they have real proof and not allegations.
I wonder if the unemployment rate will be back over 8% this month.
Lol you require proof from him but willingly accept that the union was the cause of the companies downfall.
Since unions and pensions have cause many downfalls in the Airline, Manufacturing, Automotive, and about a half dozen other industries - it's not a real stretch to blame unions.
And as to executive pay. Realistically it's a drop in a bucket it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths but honestly if they really let people cut their pay as people want in a bankruptcy they would just leave the company.
A lot of people like to cheer good riddance but the reality is that would drive the company down faster.
A strike is a major inconvenience for workers as well, as they don't get paid for the duration of the strike, other than perhaps a stipend from the union. If there was better paying work elsewhere, the workers would just go to the company offering the higher rate.
No, people strike to maintain above market wages, or because there's no other employment options and the company would have them over a barrel if they weren't unionized.
The explanation is simple: companies in financial distress have to pay more to attract/keep high-level people.
While I don't doubt that Hostess endured some financial shenanigans at the hands of their management team (which large company doesn't?), this isn't the conspiracy that you make it out to be.
Hostess's creditors planned on the company failing and found a convenient scapegoat. It was, and always is the fault of management that kills a company. They take all the money, but accept none of the responsibility. Then when they walk out the door with millions of dollars they can blame a delivery driver for sinking the company.
Whenever I hear a story like this, I'm reminded of the Chris Rock line about divorce and pre-nups. "You got 20 million and your wife wants 10, big deal! You ain't starvin'. But if you make 30,000, and your wife wants 15? You might have to kill her." It's easy for management to blame the unions and say "we did an 8% cut across the board; that's fair." But an 8% pay cut isn't so bad when you're making 500,000. When you're making 30,000? An 8% cut might mean that you can't pay your mortgage. That's a pretty big deal to most people. The idea of "we're all in this together" doesn't work when one person is in this in a Yugo and another is in this with a yacht.
Granted, I don't know the ins and outs of this scenario; maybe it really all is the fault of a greedy union run amok. Maybe it's entirely on management. It's probably somewhere in the middle. But rich people complaining about poor people not wanting to "take one for the team" while constantly protesting anything that costs them a red cent is the height of hypocritical bullshit. This just shows the need for a good working relationship between management and workers; the workers have the power to bring the company down just as much as management does.
It was absolutely 100% the Union's fault that the company was forced to liquidate. Not saying the company wouldn't have died down the road, but this immediate response of liquidation is a direct effect of the strike and the union being greedy. It's very clear unless you have blinders on.
If you can't pay your mortgage over an 8% decrease, you've got bigger problems and you can only blame yourself. Shouldn't have bought that house if you weren't 100% sure you could pay the bill.
Obviously you didn't read the same article I did.
Sheep will follow whatever reasoning will lead them to their preconceived conclusion.
The court had already given permission to unilaterally void the union contracts. One union decided to say "screw the court", and imposed a walk-out. This destroyed the company's revenue stream.
With no revenue, the company cannot meet the covenants of their DIP financing, and are forced into liquidation.
I don't know if they bankruptcy's restructuring would have saved the company or not. But this liquidation is absolutely the unions fault.
LOL not only would he not eat it, he'd be totally PISSED at it's very existence.
Save the Twinkies!
The White House asks for people to petition the White House to .........wtf? The White House is begging people to petition themselves?
FFS what a crock of shit. Save the Twinkie so some self righteous diet nazi can ban them.
Right, but that still doesn't mean that 8% isn't below what the Bakers union is willing to work for (presumably market wage? ) Striking under that assumption is rational way to quite while being able to collect unemployment. Otherwise their action would be grossly irrational, which i have hard time believing.
Link? The exec pay package was approved by all creditors at the time IIRC.
It would make sense for unsecured creditors to try something like this when facing liquidation, since they'll most likely get wiped out.
Thats the link for the creditors' allegations of being decitful. I read the tidbit about the salaries elsewhere, I'll check my history when I get back home.