• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hostess threatens to lay off 18,000 employees unless strike ends[W:521]

Lutherf said:
Let's say that the CEO is making $10 million a year cash (he isn't but let's just say). When you spread that across 18,000 employees that comes out to $555.56 dollars per year for a raise of just over 30 cents per hour for full time employees factored at 35 hours per week.

YIPPEE!!
:roll:
Click to expand...


I didn't say take his salary and spread it out. I know strawmen are easier to knock down, but really...

It's part of the whole picture of what's going on at the company. But let's not do that, it's obviously the Union's fault and nobody else's. :roll:
 
Lutherf said:
Hostess is in CH 11 right now and these cuts are part of that agreement. If they don't get these cuts then they can't complete the reorganization which only leaves the option of liquidation. The union is cutting off their nose despite their face but, frankly, it's the free market at work and I'm all for letting them reap the results of what they have sown.
Click to expand...

Don't insert reality into this, it's too much fun for people to just scream 'union good! management bad!'

Oh, they won't pay attention to reality anyway, so I guess it's all good. ;)
 
rocket88 said:
Why is it all the Union? Do the executives not get paid?

It's all part of the picture of what's going on. Do you think it's OK for them to have huge salaries and not take cuts but only asking for that from the Union? I'm not even saying that's happening, but it would help paint the full picture rather than just blaming the favorite right-wing bogeyman.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think the bankruptcy court should have handled this. It seems to me they could impose that 8% cut (or whatever) on everyone within the company, not just union employees (less than half are hourly workers and not all of them are union). If a bankruptcy court is supposed to help a company either stay in business or fold, why shouldn't they just be able to impose these wage changes? It would make sense to me...

I blame the company for giving in to union demands in the past that got them into the mess they're in. Nobody held a gun to their heads to give away the store.
 
rocket88 said:
I didn't say take his salary and spread it out. I know strawmen are easier to knock down, but really...

It's part of the whole picture of what's going on at the company. But let's not do that, it's obviously the Union's fault and nobody else's. :roll:
Click to expand...

You asked about what cut the CEO was willing to take so I gave you an example of what the effect would be if his salary was simply eliminated instead of just reduced marginally. Obviously, if all he did was take a marginal cut the result would have less of an economic effect than I presented and as such wouldn't solve the problem any more.
 
Arbo said:
Don't insert reality into this, it's too much fun for people to just scream 'union good! management bad!'
Click to expand...

Except that nobody's saying that. In fact, we seem to have the opposite going on here.
 
Paschendale said:
And this is why unions exist. So that those who have money and power cannot exercise that power over everyone else with impunity.
Click to expand...
In this case, the unions may very well cost its memebers their jobs.
Hooray union!
 
rocket88 said:
Except that nobody's saying that. In fact, we seem to have the opposite going on here.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in an alternate universe. "Those evil corporate types should suffer, not the union member!"
 
Fisher said:
But market analyst believe there will be several people interested in buying their brands. I don't care who makes them, just as long as their goodness returns to the marketplace. The employees get what they deserve trying to hold an already bankrupt company Hostage.
Click to expand...

Hmm...our employer seems to be going bankrupt.

Want to go on strike?
 
MaggieD said:
Frankly, I think the bankruptcy court should have handled this. It seems to me they could impose that 8% cut (or whatever) on everyone within the company, not just union employees (less than half are hourly workers and not all of them are union). If a bankruptcy court is supposed to help a company either stay in business or fold, why shouldn't they just be able to impose these wage changes? It would make sense to me...

I blame the company for giving in to union demands in the past that got them into the mess they're in. Nobody held a gun to their heads to give away the store.
Click to expand...

Well exactly. Why shouldn't they be asked to sacrifice something for their past mismanagement?

Instead this thread goes where almost every union related thread goes...."But but... JOB CREATORS! Unions are overpaid greedy cretins who just want to take all of the money!"
 
Paschendale said:
And this is why unions exist. So that those who have money and power cannot exercise that power over everyone else with impunity.
Click to expand...

I thought it was so people like me can go without heat and electricity during a snow storm while those union employees block non-union, out of state employees from helping out when asked.
 
MaggieD said:
Frankly, I think the bankruptcy court should have handled this. It seems to me they could impose that 8% cut (or whatever) on everyone within the company, not just union employees (less than half are hourly workers and not all of them are union). If a bankruptcy court is supposed to help a company either stay in business or fold, why shouldn't they just be able to impose these wage changes? It would make sense to me...

I blame the company for giving in to union demands in the past that got them into the mess they're in. Nobody held a gun to their heads to give away the store.
Click to expand...

Do you really want the courts to be making decisions for private businesses? The role of the court is to insure that the interests of both debtors and creditors are protected, not to pick winners and losers.
 
MaggieD said:
It would make a whole lot of sense to me if the executives were taking the same pay cuts they were giving to their employees. If the executives don't like it? Let them find other jobs. Seems to me that's a sense of fairness that just makes sense.

And yet we have THIS:





Creditors Question Pay Raises at Hostess Ahead of Bankruptcy Filing - WSJ.com
Click to expand...


then-chief executive Brian Driscoll's salary from to $2.55 million from around $750,000.
Click to expand...

$750,000 is just not enough to run it into the ground...
 
Notice the Democrats cheering the prospect of that company - already in bankruptcy meaning they are overwhelmed with debt or the the bankruptcy would be dismissed - closing down. They WANT it to go out of business because it is a business. They don't give a damn about the 18,000 employees either.

Everyone can die for a platitude in their opinion, some abstract platitude about the "union" having no clue nor caring what the actually issues are. Nor any clue that 1.) if liquidated the company may not come back and 2.) if it bought by another outfit, it won't be union, the union contract dead, all pensions gone, and the new owners would not take those employees back.

But Democrats on this thread don't care about any of that. They want the company destroyed because they want all companies destroyed. That's the bottomline to it. Doesn't matter if it is a rich company, a poor company or a financially broke company like Hostress. Mention a company, any company, and they start chanting "! DIE! DIE!"

And since their team is in power, those companies are dying.

The super rich? Those they ultra support however.
 
rocket88 said:
Why is it all the Union? Do the executives not get paid?

It's all part of the picture of what's going on. Do you think it's OK for them to have huge salaries and not take cuts but only asking for that from the Union? I'm not even saying that's happening, but it would help paint the full picture rather than just blaming the favorite right-wing bogeyman.
Click to expand...

This issue is cut and dry, and has nothing to do with executive pay. This is a simple choice between accepting a pay cut from a struggling company going through bankruptcy, and making an average of $18 an hour... Or forcing the company to close their doors, liquidate their assets, and all 18,000 employees lose their jobs permanently, and go on unemployment instead.

What do you think is the right choice is here?
 
Lutherf said:
Do you really want the courts to be making decisions for private businesses? The role of the court is to insure that the interests of both debtors and creditors are protected, not to pick winners and losers.
Click to expand...

In this case, what she is asking for most likely is for the government to not enforce the terms of a contract, but to change them for a "fairness" result.
 
H. Lee White said:
In this case, the unions may very well cost its memebers their jobs.
Hooray union!
Click to expand...

The union will do so in defense of 1.) the national contract wages and 2.) to preserve union dues. The evolution is a radical downgrading of pay for employees for which the union becomes a sweetheart deal union to maintain dues. A person only has to look at the packinghouse industry, all the companies that the union wiped out, and now the industry transformed into running off huge facilities in Iowa and Missouri using mostly illegal employees receiving lower than minimum wage - but union dues also taken out. The role of the union then is to keep the people down and try to block deportations.
 
Max weekly unemployment pay out in Oklahoma is $358/week, or $8.95/hr on a 40 hour week.
Max weekly unemployment pay out in Texas is $415/week, or $10.38/hr on a 40 hour week.

What the hell are they thinking? They're willing to sacrifice an average of $9.60-$11 an hour in order to avoid losing an average of $2?!

(Source for unemployment pay outs here: Unemployment Benefits Comparison by State
 
Grim17 said:
Why is it always about what the other guy makes, rather than what you make?

My mother always taught me that what other people have is none of my business, and to just worry about myself.
Click to expand...

One for you, one for me.

One for you, two for me.

One for you, one two three for me.

Etc.etc.etc.

If it doesn't matter, why do we have an immigration problem.
 
rocket88 said:
Well exactly. Why shouldn't they be asked to sacrifice something for their past mismanagement? Instead this thread goes where almost every union related thread goes...."But but... JOB CREATORS! Unions are overpaid greedy cretins who just want to take all of the money!"
Click to expand...

Because it's absurd.
Unions are always out for their own pay, benefits, and job quality of life and security. Apparently these guys aren't as interested about job security, more power to them. If they lose their job, they will have no one but themselve to blame. Descructive, and inefficient, but then it's a free country, knock yourselves out. If it happens all over and becomes a real economic issue for the naton, I'd expect that we'd put some regulations in place to keep unions from being overly/routinely descructive to the economy. Otherwise, as MaggieD points out, it's really up to each business in how it deals with mass hysteria.
 
tessaesque said:
Max weekly unemployment pay out in Oklahoma is $358/week, or $8.95/hr on a 40 hour week.
Max weekly unemployment pay out in Texas is $415/week, or $10.38/hr on a 40 hour week.

What the hell are they thinking? They're willing to sacrifice an average of $9.60-$11 an hour in order to avoid losing an average of $2?!

(Source for unemployment pay outs here: Unemployment Benefits Comparison by State
Click to expand...

If a person can make $11 an hour doing nothing, why work? I mean, an hourly employee would have to be a fool to get a job that pays no more or even less than they can make watching TV, playing video games and messing around on the Internet - plus of course bitching about why doesn't he/she get more unemployment money, cursing those damn greedy Republicans and evil rich people.
 
Grim17 said:
This issue is cut and dry, and has nothing to do with executive pay. This is a simple choice between accepting a pay cut from a struggling company going through bankruptcy, and making an average of $18 an hour... Or forcing the company to close their doors, liquidate their assets, and all 18,000 employees lose their jobs permanently, and go on unemployment instead.

What do you think is the right choice is here?
Click to expand...

Does the company hold any loyalty to the workers? Then why should the converse be true? There was a time when companies DID look out for their employees, but now it's about how much of the pie they can get. And then you complain because the workers decide to say "screw it, they won't look after us so we won't look after them!", and they try to get as much of the pie as possible. Of course it's a silly system that can only end in breaking; but that's what happens when neither side has any loyalty to the other.
 
Fisher said:
It would be a good buy for Nestle that already has an extensive distribution network. While Coke is mainly beverage, you never know they may be willing to diversify their holdings. Pretty much anyone in food/beverage should take a look. They were dragged down by old debt and unions, not the lack of a market.
Click to expand...

Companies like Nestle and Coke would undoubtedly have taken an interest in the brand name a few decades ago but, as Luther points out, there is a very real possibility that snack foods like that could be banned in the near future. There is just no real sense in spending the millions required to produce these snacks if the shelf life may only be a few years.
 
It seems like a win-win. Not sure what everyone is upset about. Hostess says it must cut costs due to a bankruptcy agreement and will in no uncertain terms shut down if the strike continues. Unions declare they refuse to work for the salaries offered. Shut it down. Win win. The world will live without Twinkies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom