• 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!

The starving Baker's Union salaries...

haymarket said:
And for the last few years? And their stock options and other such fringes?
Click to expand...

Very similar to what the Union bosses are getting. But when figuring in 2012, the top four execs at Hostess (1/5 of the top twenty, and the most well-paid in the group) are not being paid. That is going to drive down the average over a number of years.... since the goal post has now been moved back to "the last few years."
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Very similar to what the Union bosses are getting. But when figuring in 2012, the top four execs at Hostess (1/5 of the top twenty, and the most well-paid in the group) are not being paid. That is going to drive down the average over a number of years.... since the goal post has now been moved back to "the last few years."
Click to expand...

Please provide a link to those salaries and benefits so we can all check to see if your statement is correct and truthful.
 
The top 10 at Hostess were making anywhere from $182K to $750k, pre-raise. The raise was then turned into ZERO dollars for the top four, and negated for four others. Creditors Question Pay Raises at Hostess Ahead of Bankruptcy Filing - WSJ.com

From the link on the first page, the top ten union bosses make between $160k-260k. Those are very similar numbers. Further, more than half of the employees working directly for the union, 29 of them, make over $100k a year. I was not able to find numbers on the next twenty at Hostess.
 
MaggieD said:
That's so silly. If everyone were making $10 an hour or less, there wouldn't even BE any CEO's. Who'd be buying their products?
Click to expand...

Lol... have you ever been outside the US? How much do you think those kids making Nike shoes in Bangladesh and China get? 10 bucks a shoe or something? It's simple:

1. find a population
2. pay them a pittance to make good
3. sell elsewhere for 10x the operating costs.
4. profit.

It's QUITE common. How do you think Wal-Mart has managed to create an empire from 15$ shirts?
 
It's very difficult for liberals and their uneducated immigrant cattle to grasp the fact that union demands that cause 18,000 workers to lose their jobs is not a win. Understand loons: NOT A WIN.

They cannot grasp the exponential effects on the families, which probably brings the number of losers to over 50,000. Then when you figure in the attendant businesses that repair the machinery, rent the buildings, supply the parts and materials, etc., etc., the loss becomes much larger.

Obama then retains their votes by paying them not to work because he really, really cares and they like the fact that Obama steals the money from others who have jobs and gives it to them.

Many of the more infantile liberal posters on here obviously have never experienced a union management relationship. It is completely adversarial bordering on hate and mistrust. The job of the union leaders is to keep the cattle inflamed about how much management is exploiting them. The union members NEVER accept that they should share a dime spent for company survival, that is management's problem and of no concern to them.

That is the real world of union destruction of businesses, far different than the saviors of the "working man." After the bankruptcy, the union leaders go on to other assignments. They don't work for the bankrupt company, they work for the union. They're not part of the 18,000 destroyed lives.
 
Last edited:
And that's really the thing--18,000 jobs gone and families hurt.
 
compared to the 10's of millions for the Executive bankruptcy payouts?

Compared to droves of $50 and $100 mill year CEO's?

$100k is a living wage.......
 
The 18000 VOTED to end thier jobs.........Better no job than making lots of money for the Executives.
 
specklebang said:
Of course, I could be wrong. Do you think that basic labor jobs would be paid more than $10 an hour? Do you think that CEOs concern themselves with the "greater good" and pay more than that because that's their societal contribution? Frankly, I doubt that. Each CEO is concerned with their own income and lifestyle. I have several friends who make $12.50 an hour (non-union) that haven't had a raise in 5 years while the CEOs have investing hundreds of thousands in making their offices more elaborate and have concerned themselves not a bit how degrading this is to their workers. My best friend who works for a cremation company has been bought out by the largest cemetery operator in America. They have announced there will be pay reductions and most paid holidays (such as the upcoming Friday after Thanksgiving) will be eliminated.

Nonetheless, I see there are no parking spaces at Walmart so either America is richer than I assumed or low wages work just fine.

My usual OPINION disclaimer applies.
Click to expand...

CEO work for the owners and or shareholders of the company. It's the CEO's job to make the company profitable and reward the investors that have money at risk in these companies. Now that we have the CEO's job description on the table. It is now up to him/her to execute to the best of their ability to make the company the most profitable. In doing so the CEO may pay their employees a higher wage and in doing so the CEO may figure he gains in productivity over the cost. It's looking at every aspect of a business and figuring out ways to make the company the best it can be. Cutting wages is not always the best way, as cutting wages can in fact lower productivity costing the company more than if they left the wages alone. Many a CEO looks at it's company and would say they buy the best tools money can buy to do the work needed, the reason is they don't break as often as a cheap tool. Same applies to the workforce where they would hire the best and brightest and pay them accordingly as a high quality workforce makes less mistakes than a cheap dumb one.

Now if your job only requires putting a cap on a bottle, then you can't expect to be compensated more than minimum wage because you have nothing to offer in the way of skills to support a higher wage.
 
274ina said:
The 18000 VOTED to end thier jobs.........Better no job than making lots of money for the Executives.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why the executives decided to liquidate, they were making so much money they wanted to put a stop to it by killing the company.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The strike did not ruin the company...
Click to expand...

No their demands did, thus liquidation. Now more union shop. Really smart union management to put yourself out of work. And now you know why the unions have lost most of it's members over the years.
 
I do recognize the validity of your statement.

My personal philosophy s that a happy employee is more reliable and more productive however, I don't know this to be a fact. I have always felt a kind of intimate connection with employees and I tried to pay and share enough so even the more menial jobs would allow them to participate in "the american dream". I used to make my partners angry with my generosity and indeed, I was a CEO who finally was voted out. Within 2 years of the changes in policies, the company went out of business.

I do understrand that the "bottle cap" job isn't worth much. But even the bottle cap worker, who DOES show up and puts his caps on neatly and quickly, has the same dreams and hopes that we all do. So, there is an emotional conflict.

In the last 5 years, the approach of cutting wages has become the dominant approach. But as you wisely pointed out, it's often better to pay for quality than to sabe on quantity.




Born Free said:
CEO work for the owners and or shareholders of the company. It's the CEO's job to make the company profitable and reward the investors that have money at risk in these companies. Now that we have the CEO's job description on the table. It is now up to him/her to execute to the best of their ability to make the company the most profitable. In doing so the CEO may pay their employees a higher wage and in doing so the CEO may figure he gains in productivity over the cost. It's looking at every aspect of a business and figuring out ways to make the company the best it can be. Cutting wages is not always the best way, as cutting wages can in fact lower productivity costing the company more than if they left the wages alone. Many a CEO looks at it's company and would say they buy the best tools money can buy to do the work needed, the reason is they don't break as often as a cheap tool. Same applies to the workforce where they would hire the best and brightest and pay them accordingly as a high quality workforce makes less mistakes than a cheap dumb one.

Now if your job only requires putting a cap on a bottle, then you can't expect to be compensated more than minimum wage because you have nothing to offer in the way of skills to support a higher wage.
Click to expand...
 
The opinions of David Horowitz do not entertain credibility, let alone truth

David Horowitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative[2] writer and policy advocate. He is a founder and current president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and edits FrontPage Magazine. Horowitz also founded the organization Students for Academic Freedom, whose self-stated goal is combating "leftist indoctrination" in academia.
Click to expand...
 
274ina said:
The 18000 VOTED to end thier jobs.........Better no job than making lots of money for the Executives.
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on this site.
 
274ina said:
The 18000 VOTED to end thier jobs.........Better no job than making lots of money for the Executives.
Click to expand...

Perhaps when you are done celebrating the power of the unions, you can write David Geffen and ask him to order his footman to come up with regulations that will curb the raid on equity that is going on in the American capital markets. This is a fine example of Corporate Raiding 2.0--instead of finding a buyer when you break a company apart, you just dump the ashes on the creditors and the bankruptcy courts.
 
The executives wanted the workers to vote for liquidation because they get a life time of Pay and beni's as a Golden Parachute.

Then they can retire at 30 ......or 20........
 
Fisher said:
Perhaps when you are done celebrating the power of the unions, you can write David Geffen and ask him to order his footman to come up with regulations that will curb the raid on equity that is going on in the American capital markets. This is a fine example of Corporate Raiding 2.0--instead of finding a buyer when you break a company apart, you just dump the ashes on the creditors and the bankruptcy courts.
Click to expand...

Raid on Equilty.....yes that is a problem. But as BAIN and ROMNEY show, profits from USA slaves are not enough. You must "bust out" the company to
make enough money fast enough.

All the more reason for SMOOT HAWLEY 2012 and massive wall street controls.
 
274ina said:
Raid on Equilty.....yes that is a problem. But as BAIN and ROMNEY show, profits from USA slaves are not enough. You must "bust out" the company to
make enough money fast enough.

All the more reason for SMOOT HAWLEY 2012 and massive wall street controls.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree but I don't see leftist loving unions doing anything but blaming the companies and letting the politicians they support get away scot-free. This is why companies are sitting on growing mounds of cash--to protect themselves since the government will not. Apple, Google, and Microsoft have done well in positioning themselves to protect against this crap. Hostess did not but the managers trying to save the damn company are being blamed for people long ago gone with everything and the union by my measure is celebrating they that the defeated the people who were trying to keep them employeed. If I read it correctly, the teamsters and the bakers combined would have owned half the company if they had just taken the deal so they gave up their jobs and the opportunity to manage correctly in their own eyes and what might have been a nice retirement package 20 years from now.
 
Born Free said:
No their demands did. Really smart union management to put yourself out of work. And now you know why the unions have lost most of it's members over the years.
Click to expand...

No the strike had literally nothing to do with the Hostess closing. It was all corporate mismanagement. Nothing to do with the union at all.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No the strike had literally nothing to do with the Hostess closing. It was all corporate mismanagement. Nothing to do with the union at all.
Click to expand...
It has already been pointed out that the costs of labor did have something to do with the reasons it was originally failing.

As for the here and now. It was the Union that caused this closing, as it would still be in operation had they not wanted more than the Teamster's Union accepted.
 
joko104 said:
“Our members were aware that while the company was descending into bankruptcy and demanding deep concessions, the top 10 executives of the company were rewarding themselves with lavish compensation increases,” Frank Hurt, President of the Bakers’ Union said.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between having a large salary and using money promised for investment instead for salaries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom