• 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]

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.

Yeah, I hear Bloomberg was going to ban Twinkies anyway.
 
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

Who wins and who loses here by not ending the strike:

Company - Folds rather than continuing... They lose

Unions - No dues from 18,000 people... They lose

Workers - Go from $18 per hour + benefits, to approx $10 per hour and no benefits... They lose

Consumer - No more Hostess products like Twinkies and Ding Dongs... They lose

Government/Public - Go from collecting corporate taxes from Hostess and income taxes from 18,000 employees, to collecting no corporate taxes from Hostess, no income taxes from up to 18,000 workers and instead having to pay those people weekly wages not to work for up to 99 weeks... They lose​


Can anyone think of who wins here... Because I sure can't?
 
Who wins and who loses here by not ending the strike:

Company - Folds rather than continuing... They lose
Unions - No dues from 18,000 people... They lose
Workers - Go from $18 per hour + benefits, to approx $10 per hour and no benefits... They lose
Consumer - No more Hostess products like Twinkies and Ding Dongs... They lose
Government/Public - Go from collecting corporate taxes from Hostess and income taxes from 18,000 employees, to collecting no corporate taxes from Hostess, no income taxes from up to 18,000 workers and instead having to pay those people weekly wages not to work for up to 99 weeks... They lose

Can anyone think of who wins here... Because I sure can't?

The no more Hostess products could be a win. Or it could cause a huge riot by fat people in those little electric scooters.
 
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.


Straight out of Democratic dogma. Close every company. Throw everyone out of work. For a platitude.
 
The no more Hostess products could be a win. Or it could cause a huge riot by fat people in those little electric scooters.

So you feel that offsets everything else I listed and makes continuing the strike and the company shutting down a good thing?
 
Who wins and who loses here by not ending the strike:

Company - Folds rather than continuing... They lose

Unions - No dues from 18,000 people... They lose

Workers - Go from $18 per hour + benefits, to approx $10 per hour and no benefits... They lose

Consumer - No more Hostess products like Twinkies and Ding Dongs... They lose

Government/Public - Go from collecting corporate taxes from Hostess and income taxes from 18,000 employees, to collecting no corporate taxes from Hostess, no income taxes from up to 18,000 workers and instead having to pay those people weekly wages not to work for up to 99 weeks... They lose​


Can anyone think of who wins here... Because I sure can't?

With 18,000 more people to take care of the Democrat party wins.
 
Straight out of Democratic dogma. Close every company. Throw everyone out of work. For a platitude.
Meh...they can shut it down, sell it off, and let a non-union company start from scratch. Lost in all the union/anti-union bull**** is the glaring and obvious success of non-union auto manufacturing in this country. No need to play the game.

Heck...lets go this one better. Hostess could shut the factory down and sell the plant and equipment to the UNION...and then the union would be owner operators. Watch how quick those hourly wages drop.
 
So you feel that offsets everything else I listed and makes continuing the strike and the company shutting down a good thing?

I have no say in the matter. Not only do I not eat Hostess products, I am neither manager nor union worker involved in the company. What do you want me to do about it?
 
Straight out of Democratic dogma. Close every company. Throw everyone out of work. For a platitude.

How else do corporations learn that prevention lesson? Too big to fail eh?
 
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.

There is not a real possibility that snack foods will be banned in the near future or ever. A good chunk of the startup cost could also be subsidized by economic development dollars that routinely bribe companies to bring jobs into certain areas.
 
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.

You might want to consider that when a company is in bankruptcy it really isn't their call to make--it is the Trustee's.....
 
I have no say in the matter. Not only do I not eat Hostess products, I am neither manager nor union worker involved in the company. What do you want me to do about it?

Nobody has asked, nor does anyone expect, that you to do anything about it... You were simply asked to give your opinion from an economic standpoint, of what is the best course of action for the union workers on strike to take.

Is that so hard?
 
With 18,000 more people to take care of the Democrat party wins.

I think the political affiliation of 18,000 unionized employees choosing unemployment over $18/hour for menial work is already established.

The Democrat party already owns these "workers".
 
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?

It has to do with all of the company's expenses. Including executive pay.
.
When Maggie first posted this in a different thread, I recounted a company I worked for 10 years ago. When I started, they were in the midst of a merger, but back when the company started, all of the employees recieved an ownership stake in it. Stock was part of their compensation. So when the company was bought, they all got a nice "bonus" in a way. Shared success. When the company succeeded, they succeeded. Later, while I was there, there was a lull in business and some people were laid off. Wanna guess how many of them were executives?? Wanna guess if the executives took pay cuts?? There was no Union to blame all their problems on, so it was just what it was. But nobody trusted the executives after that.

The moral of the story is, when the company sets up artificial "us vs. them" walls, the employees respond in kind.

Now if the company closes here, everybody loses in some sense. Does it make sense for the executives to be getting hundreds of thousands and ask for cuts only from the Unions? It's all interconnected. It's all a company's expense. Have you ever worked for a large corporation that's top heavy? It's sad, and when cuts come, who gets cut? Not the executives, that's for sure.
 
I think the political affiliation of 18,000 unionized employees choosing unemployment over $18/hour for menial work is already established.

The Democrat party already owns these "workers".


God, how thick can we lay on the partisan bull****?

18,000 people are going to lose their jobs, but I guess it's OK since they're Democrats. :roll:
 
God, how thick can we lay on the partisan bull****?

18,000 people are going to lose their jobs, but I guess it's OK since they're Democrats. :roll:

No, it's 'ok' because they are doing it to themselves, out of their own greed. And due to blindly following the union, who clearly is not really looking out for their well being.
 
No, it's 'ok' because they are doing it to themselves, out of their own greed. And due to blindly following the union, who clearly is not really looking out for their well being.

It's partially due to them. Mismanagement is not them. When a company that size just closes up shop, there's more than that going on.
 
Nobody has asked, nor does anyone expect, that you to do anything about it... You were simply asked to give your opinion from an economic standpoint, of what is the best course of action for the union workers on strike to take.

Is that so hard?

I already gave you that answer. Of course its better to work towards a mutually acceptable solution. But as I said, neither side has any loyalty to the other and this is what happens.
 
I already gave you that answer. Of course its better to work towards a mutually acceptable solution. But as I said, neither side has any loyalty to the other and this is what happens.

That wasn't the question... It's no longer about the 2 sides working toward a solution.

it's about either continuing the strike, the company folding, and 18.000 people losing their jobs... Or ending the strike, the company staying open, and workers accepting an 8% reduction in pay and keeping their jobs.

That is the question and I would like to know what you think would be best for the workers and for the American economy?
 
That wasn't the question... It's no longer about the 2 sides working toward a solution.

it's about either continuing the strike, the company folding, and 18.000 people losing their jobs... Or ending the strike, the company staying open, and workers accepting an 8% reduction in pay and keeping their jobs.

That is the question and I would like to know what you think would be best for the workers and for the American economy?

It is best that both sides work towards a mutually acceptable solution. This isn't a one party thing. The aggressiveness of unions was in response to the aggressive nature of companies to take advantage of workers. And once the trust and loyalty between company and worker were lost, we escalated up to the "mutually ensured destruction" scenario we have now. It would be great if the unions would take the hit with the company making assurances and contract as to improving pay and hours back to their nominal levels when crisis is adverted; but when both sides are clamoring for the whole pie, this is what we get.
 
God, how thick can we lay on the partisan bull****?

18,000 people are going to lose their jobs, but I guess it's OK since they're Democrats. :roll:
No reason for them to lose their jobs. The Union can simply employ them. Give them jobs. Good lord...its about time the Unions stopped being parasites. Id LOVE to see them actually buy the plant and run it AS a union plant. Time to step the **** up for once. Live your word.
 
Now if the company closes here, everybody loses in some sense. Does it make sense for the executives to be getting hundreds of thousands and ask for cuts only from the Unions? It's all interconnected. It's all a company's expense. Have you ever worked for a large corporation that's top heavy? It's sad, and when cuts come, who gets cut? Not the executives, that's for sure.

Did you ever consider that the executives are under contract and their salary can't be touched? That can easily include any bonuses, fringe benefits, severance payments, deferred payments, retirement benefits, etc. Why liberals insist businesses go up a tree they can't go up is beyond me.

That is why I said this earlier in the thread:

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.
 
It is best that both sides work towards a mutually acceptable solution.

That time has already come and gone...

What the Union and their workers are left with is a choice between:

a) Ending the strike, accepting the 8% pay cut and keeping their jobs

b) Continuing the strike, the company folding, and all 18,000 workers losing their jobs.


What in your estimate, is the best choice of action here... "a" or "b" ?
 
Did you ever consider that the executives are under contract and their salary can't be touched? That can easily include any bonuses, fringe benefits, severance payments, deferred payments, retirement benefits, etc. Why liberals insist businesses go up a tree they can't go up is beyond me.

Unions are under contract too. Did you consider that?
 
Back
Top Bottom