• 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]

Dickieboy said:
Ok, let's compare. Four exec went from +/-$750k/yr = 3m/yr to 5.4m/yr. Bakers w/80% increase annually would be $133m. OH yes I see your logic now...considering the exec increase is .6% of the debt and the Bakers increase would be 15% of the debt that SURELY would be sustainable...try again
Click to expand...
No, you don't see. I never said the executives' collective salaries were greater than the collective salaries of the employees.

I said their greed is what prevented a deal from being reached.
 
Dickieboy said:
Ah, being obtuse I see...carry on
Click to expand...
Not being obtuse. Merely pointing out that if YOUR source is good enough for you, I expect you to accept YOUR source as good enough for me.

Of course, the flip side to that is why are you citing sources you find not credible enough to be cited???

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Why should the stockholders, board of directors or anyone else care about the employees? What happened is the correct thing in the New America. Employers and employees are fundamentally enemies who rightly should get as much as they can from and give as little as possible to employees.

The social benefactor is the government, not companies or employers.

^ Those are the rules that people just voted for. So that's the playing field. Everyone for him/herself and any pity or charity is concerns of the government, which the goverment must take care of. So the ONLY possible complaint the 18,000 employees might legitimately have is if the government does not sufficiently take care of them now. That's what the government is for.
 
winston53660 said:
Hostess was a sinking ship and had they undermined their peers at other bakeries that would probably be frowned on if they managed to get hired at another bakery.
Click to expand...

That is one desperate reach to appear right.
 
Anybody else buy Hostess products since Friday for the first time in years?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Anybody else buy Hostess products since Friday for the first time in years?
Click to expand...

It is probably over 10 years since I had a hostess product.....don't like most cakes, and only a few pies....
 
MaggieD said:
Management would probably have been delighted if some of the old-timers decided they wanted to leave the company. They are dispensable. Top management rarely is.
Click to expand...

It appears the bakers were not dispensible to the company (after all it did shut down without them)
 
MaggieD said:
I agree. Accept the agreement, keep working, look for another job. From what I read, the bakers UNION didn't want to hurt the contracts of bakers at other companies. I doubt a baker who has rent to pay is really concerned enough to strike and lose his job in order to protect "other bakers."[/QUOTEgg

That sounds to me like a brilliant negotiating strategy. Lets show them that we are willing to lose our jobs rather than try to work it out. Ought to work even better with Hostess's largest competitor, Gumbo, owner of Sara Lee, etc, a Mexican company. I would bet they know where to get cheaper labor.
Click to expand...
 
jimbo said:
MaggieD said:
I agree. Accept the agreement, keep working, look for another job. From what I read, the bakers UNION didn't want to hurt the contracts of bakers at other companies. I doubt a baker who has rent to pay is really concerned enough to strike and lose his job in order to protect "other bakers."[/QUOTEgg

That sounds to me like a brilliant negotiating strategy. Lets show them that we are willing to lose our jobs rather than try to work it out. Ought to work even better with Hostess's largest competitor, Gumbo, owner of Sara Lee, etc, a Mexican company. I would bet they know where to get cheaper labor.
Click to expand...


The liberal union members need to do their research on the Mexican Gumbo Bakery company like you have.
Click to expand...
 
Zalatix said:
Hostess was going under, regardless. After all that has come out about the venture capitalists that Mafia-style busted-out that company, it's amazing to see any rational, well-informed person is still pushing the Union meme.

And ATC? Tons of people are retiring now, the ATC system has a real big problem with staffing issues. Karmic payback and all that.

Oh, look, the ATC shortage problem persists even in 2012!
Click to expand...

You are new here. Allow me to illuminate the darkness for you: Pavlov's bell has rung and the creatures of the right which hate unions as a matter of knee jerk reflex have salivated and attacked as a matter of course. The details do not matter. the facts do not matter. Reality does not matter.

The only thing that matters is that is is a chance for the warriors of the right to bash unions.

In a week or two or three it will be something else that fuels the rabid anti-union fires. The people defending Hostess here do NOT give a damn about the company, their employees or their products. It is merely an excuse to continue their war on unions.
 
Zalatix said:
You done dancing yet?


Gina Reinhart loves you.:roll:
Click to expand...
The dancing is all yours as you seem to think it means something that it doesn't, as most is likely attributable to advancement in technology and engineering.
 
haymarket said:
You are new here. Allow me to illuminate the darkness for you: Pavlov's bell has rung and the creatures of the right which hate unions as a matter of knee jerk reflex have salivated and attacked as a matter of course. The details do not matter. the facts do not matter. Reality does not matter.

The only thing that matters is that is is a chance for the warriors of the right to bash unions.

In a week or two or three it will be something else that fuels the rabid anti-union fires. The people defending Hostess here do NOT give a damn about the company, their employees or their products. It is merely an excuse to continue their war on unions.
Click to expand...

Okay...please now pontificate on how we SHOULD have responded and be SPECIFIC...thx
 
Hostess threatens to lay off 18,000 employees unless strike ends

haymarket said:
You are new here. Allow me to illuminate the darkness for you: Pavlov's bell has rung and the creatures of the right which hate unions as a matter of knee jerk reflex have salivated and attacked as a matter of course. The details do not matter. the facts do not matter. Reality does not matter.

The only thing that matters is that is is a chance for the warriors of the right to bash unions.

In a week or two or three it will be something else that fuels the rabid anti-union fires. The people defending Hostess here do NOT give a damn about the company, their employees or their products. It is merely an excuse to continue their war on unions.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the Bakers Union that rejected the deal or the Teamsters that accepted it and crossed the picket lines?
 
Dickieboy said:
Okay...please now pontificate on how we SHOULD have responded and be SPECIFIC...thx
Click to expand...

How you should have responded to what exactly?

Perhaps finding out enough facts to make an intelligent post which was more than just knee jerk ideological reflex movement would have been a good start.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Are you referring to the Bakers Union that rejected the deal or the Teamsters that accepted it and crossed the picket lines?
Click to expand...

My comments were about the rabid anti-union spewings that gushed forth as they normally do.
 
haymarket said:
How you should have responded to what exactly?

Perhaps finding out enough facts to make an intelligent post which was more than just knee jerk ideological reflex movement would have been a good start.
Click to expand...

At the least, the union should have recommended accepting the deal for the good of the workers...perhaps telling them that it was the best they could expect and have a job through Christmas. The union didn't make that recommendation, or the bakers would have accepted the offer.

My guess is that the union was thinking about all the others in their union and drawing a line in the sand. Yep. That's working in the best interests of the guys at Hostess.

You know that, Haymarket. This strike was not in the best interests of the very employees who were paying their dues...
 
MaggieD said:
At the least, the union should have recommended accepting the deal for the good of the workers...perhaps telling them that it was the best they could expect and have a job through Christmas. The union didn't make that recommendation, or the bakers would have accepted the offer.

My guess is that the union was thinking about all the others in their union and drawing a line in the sand. Yep. That's working in the best interests of the guys at Hostess.

You know that, Haymarket. This strike was not in the best interests of the very employees who were paying their dues...
Click to expand...

You have already pointed out in your own posts how the company was engaged in nefarious doings regarding the pension accounts.
 
haymarket said:
You have already pointed out in your own posts how the company was engaged in nefarious doings regarding the pension accounts.
Click to expand...

Yes. You're right. I'm flattered that you read them. But. Much easier to get a job while one in still working. That's my point. They gave it all up. (I think -- one never knows...the bankruptcy court may have other things in mind.)

(People should go to jail for not making those pension contributions. It's one thing to not be able to make the conpany's side. Quite another to steal from employees.) There is different management in place, however.
 
MaggieD said:
Yes. You're right. I'm flattered that you read them. But. Much easier to get a job while one in still working. That's my point. They gave it all up. (I think -- one never knows...the bankruptcy court may have other things in mind.)

(People should go to jail for not making those pension contributions. It's one thing to not be able to make the conpany's side. Quite another to steal from employees.) There is different management in place, however.
Click to expand...

Of course I read your posts. Yours are always worth reading - even when I disagree with them.

And let us not forget the bonuses for executives while workers are asked to take cuts in salary, benefits and pension payouts that they had already legally earned.
 
haymarket said:
You are new here. Allow me to illuminate the darkness for you: Pavlov's bell has rung and the creatures of the right which hate unions as a matter of knee jerk reflex have salivated and attacked as a matter of course. The details do not matter. the facts do not matter. Reality does not matter.

The only thing that matters is that is is a chance for the warriors of the right to bash unions.

In a week or two or three it will be something else that fuels the rabid anti-union fires. The people defending Hostess here do NOT give a damn about the company, their employees or their products. It is merely an excuse to continue their war on unions.
Click to expand...

The Union crossed the line between bargaining in good faith and seeking advantage. No more, no less. Management told them, this is what we propose and if this doesnt work, we liquidate. They thought they had bargaining space---turns out management was bargaining in good faith and were honest in their appraisal of what they could afford and the union decided to squeeze harder. So everyone lost.

Your sad little tirade is quite typical of you, so full of fury and so lacking in substance. Its borderline baiting with the stereotyping and the trained animal reference. Your mistake is thinking you are being rational, you are rationalizing your behavior and can't find the difference.
 
A corporation isn't a charity. Its about money.
 
haymarket said:
How you should have responded to what exactly?
Click to expand...

Start with the title of the thread…

Perhaps finding out enough facts to make an intelligent post which was more than just knee jerk ideological reflex movement would have been a good start.
Click to expand...

Why? You don't...
 
haymarket said:
Of course I read your posts. Yours are always worth reading - even when I disagree with them.

And let us not forget the bonuses for executives while workers are asked to take cuts in salary, benefits and pension payouts that they had already legally earned.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not saying management didn't do totally unethical things. But for the union to recommend that their members strike the company out of business (if that is, in fact, what happens....and they aren't given another opportunity to change their minds), I just don't think that was the right advice. Do you?

It's my understanding they'd seen the books. They knew the bankruptcy judge had agreed with the imposition of an altered contract. They'd been offered the same as the Teamster's -- a 25% interest in the company -- and, if I recall, the company was willing to sign a promissary note for $X millions.

I really don't think the union acted in the best interests of those members. If they should get another chance (which, I think, could happen), and they turn it down -- no sympathy from me. But I think the union convinced them the company was bluffing. And I don't think that was in their best interests at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom