• 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]

I would agree with you. The problem you would have is that as soon as you tried to do those things, and they are exactly what is needed to bring the company around, you would be facing endless lawsuits, which you would most likely lose. Boeing, tried to build a plant in a right to work state, and the union members in Seattle were able to stop it from doing so, the the union got the backing of the government. Most likely the trademarks will go to Bimba in Mexico, the plants will close, and 18,000 union members will lose their jobs. That's the part that doesn't bother me. They did it to themselves.
Actually, it was a complete liquidation. All assets are liquidated including labor and contracts, the Boeing problem was that the labor board got involved and stopped them using their current holdings. New ownership means a new start legally, it doesn't mean the unions wouldn't try to get in the middle, but they wouldn't have much standing.
 
Actually, it was a complete liquidation. All assets are liquidated including labor and contracts, the Boeing problem was that the labor board got involved and stopped them using their current holdings. New ownership means a new start legally, it doesn't mean the unions wouldn't try to get in the middle, but they wouldn't have much standing.

I understand the situation. I just can't see the current administration allowing the demise of union jobs to be replaced with non union jobs.
 
I understand the situation. I just can't see the current administration allowing the demise of union jobs to be replaced with non union jobs.
I'm sure they would try some legal manipulation, they honestly don't have a leg to stand on. Of course that hasn't stopped this administration from ****ting on everything but I don't see how they have a case under proper application of law.
 
Back
Top Bottom