Unions Shut Down Hostess

[GreecePwns]

The illogical right blamed the unions initially, the left (and logical right) countered saying management was using pay cuts as a way to increase their salaries, the illogical right had nothing after that.

[Phatscotty]

Well, it's not very illogical for me. If my job wanted to cut me 5%, I wouldn't walk out. Maybe I would start looking around or something, but when I worked at a union job, we were taking cuts every year. Cuts in pay, cuts in benefits, giving up raises. the main reason it wasn't a big deal to me was because I was earning a damn good wage, and I had a super hot girlfriend that I was trying to marry and she was very expensive...

[GreecePwns]

If you're being told to take pay cuts knowing the cuts will be put to good use, like paying the bills and keeping the shop open or something - that's one thing.

If you're being told to take pay cuts knowing the cuts will be put toward increasing the salary of an incompetent management (it's a fact, the company was run horribly and the previous pay cuts were went straight to the pockets of management) - then you don't.

Conservatives believe it's so easy for the unemployed to work harder and they'll eventually find a job, don't they? Why wouldn't they accept the belief by the union workers that they can do better with their limited time, like a more fulfilling job with management that isn't forcing workers to take pay cuts specifically so they can line their own pockets and contribute nothing to turning the company around?

One could make an argument that an investigation should be made proving whether or not management was doing this intentionally knowing Hostess was a sinking sink ship and taking whatever money they could before it completely went under.

Of course, this conversation wouldn't be happening if the workers were the management.

[AAFitz]

seems to be that we are placing the blame based on politics. The left blames the management/ownership, the right blames the union employees.

Everything is political starting now!

Im not blaming it on politics. Im blaming people like you for making everything political.

I haven't blamed the demise on anyone. I know its probably a combination of many factors, and that this entire discussion was started with an absolutely absurd premise and title, as many nightstrikes are.

[Phatscotty]

If you're being told to take pay cuts knowing the cuts will be put to good use, like paying the bills and keeping the shop open or something - that's one thing.

If you're being told to take pay cuts knowing the cuts will be put toward increasing the salary of an incompetent management (it's a fact, the company was run horribly and the previous pay cuts were went straight to the pockets of management) - then you don't.

Is that what the employees as hostess were told? Forgive me if I missed it earlier.

Conservatives believe it's so easy for the unemployed to work harder and they'll eventually find a job, don't they? Why wouldn't they accept the belief by the union workers that they can do better with their limited time, like a more fulfilling job with management that isn't forcing workers to take pay cuts specifically so they can line their own pockets and contribute nothing to turning the company around?

I'm not sure if that is a Conservative belief, but I believe that, yes. An able bodied person, in the current environment, absolutely can find "a" job. I think the main hang up, in my experience, is that many people can't find the job they want. I'm not sure anybody thinks it's easy. I don't agree with that part. Getting up in the morning to go to work is not "easy" either, so......

[Phatscotty]

seems to be that we are placing the blame based on politics. The left blames the management/ownership, the right blames the union employees.

Everything is political starting now!

Im not blaming it on politics. Im blaming people like you for making everything political.

I haven't blamed the demise on anyone. I know its probably a combination of many factors, and that this entire discussion was started with an absolutely absurd premise and title, as many nightstrikes are.

Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

[warmonger1981]

i heard Hostess got some bail out money from the government a few years back and then the upper management gave themselves up to an 80% pay raise or bonus. has anyone heard this? i heard it from a progressive tv show by Thom Hartman a few months ago..

[Phatscotty]

i heard Hostess got some bail out money from the government a few years back and then the upper management gave themselves up to an 80% pay raise or bonus. has anyone heard this? i heard it from a progressive tv show by Thom Hartman a few months ago..

If true, obviously that's total bullshit and unacceptable....but.....Isn't that what happened with all the bailout money with the other companies as well?

The corruption government intervention breeds is just one small reason why I have been against all government "bailouts" from day 1

[GreecePwns]

Is that what the employees as hostess were told? Forgive me if I missed it earlier.

Of course they weren't told that outright. But that's exactly what has happened and what would have happened, as shown directly above.

[patches70]

Of course, this conversation wouldn't be happening if the workers were the management.

What makes you think that?

An unprofitable business is unprofitable. You ignore all the other factors. By God, with the way people carry on about how fat Americans are then it's a good thing Hostess has gone the way of the dinosaur. Make up your minds people, Jesus.

Everybody is looking at it through their own lens of world view and it's ridiculous. Companies go bust all the time for a whole host of reasons, never for a single reason other than the product they produce becomes obsolete. The twinkie isn't obsolete, it's unhealthy.
Someone like a Michelle Obama, if she could, would have such things banned outright if she were able, and where does that leave the people who produce such things? On the street, of course.

And there is nothing wrong with private sector unions. A company has them, then fine, it's not like public sector unions.

If you look at the private sector union membership, you'll see that it spiked there just before and just after WWII and then has been in a steady decline ever since and is today at the lowest membership levels ever.
Those who think Unions are the shizznit will try to convince everyone that it's some evil plot to destroy the working class. This is untrue.

If you sit down and assign an arbitrary rate for pay and benefits, arbitrary rules on how the business must operate, then you hamstring yourself into being unable to change and adapt quickly to changing market conditions.
This is what has happened to Hostess.

For a company to stay in business, unionized or otherwise, that company must stay efficient, productive and above all, profitable.
The shareholders must be paid. The contracts must be honored, that includes the contracts with workers and management. The debts and expenses must be paid. And after all that then the company still has to be able to compete in the market place against rivals.
Hostess has been unable to do that.

The reason the private union membership has dropped to all time lows is because it adds expense and hurts efficiency. Those companies that were once unionized go bankrupt and have to close their doors before the companies that have more flexibility to change and adapt quicker. The bad processes are driven out, those processes that work survive.

If you think that unions are the only way to keep workers getting livable wages, then you are ignoring that earning livable wages is not possible just because you make a rule saying they must be paid. If what is being produced cannot earn enough money to pay those wages (on top of all the other things that the worker's never have to worry about*), then the business will not be in business for very long.

I'm not saying private unions are bad, it is what it is. I am saying that the unionized process is slower to adapt to the changing market conditions and such a thing is fatal to companies. This ultimately leads to what is happening to Hostess today.

But the sycophants and people with agendas will do everything they can to deflect and blame others for what is simply just a natural consequence.
It's nobody's fault. It just is. Hostess went belly up. Big Fucking Deal. Fat bastards will still get twinkies or their equivalent, the former Hostess employees (including management, who also are losing their jobs) will either find new jobs and be better for it in the long run with a better company or they'll mire in anger and angst. Either way, it's up to the individual to figure their own way through hard times.

Cause hard times always come and no union, nor company (no matter how well run), no government, no preacher, no priest, no doctor or anyone else can change that.


*You know, the initial capital required to even start the business, the financing, the expenses like power and material, complying with regulation, obtaining the permits and licenses, and all the other stuff that has to be taken care of that the worker is never responsible for.

[Phatscotty]

Is that what the employees as hostess were told? Forgive me if I missed it earlier.

Of course they weren't told that outright. But that's exactly what has happened and what would have happened, as shown directly above.

When you say "shown above" are you referring to Warmonger saying he thought he heard something on one of the most biased shows in existence?

[Evil Semp]

Here is the article posted earlier about the pay increases for management. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 47043.html

Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

As far as taking one for the team. When management receives the same compensation package [insurance, stock options, vacation, etc, etc] as the workers then the workers might have been more willing to take the pay cuts. Yeah management took a pay cut but after the raises they received they could afford it.

[Phatscotty]

Here is the article posted earlier about the pay increases for management. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 47043.html

Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

As far as taking one for the team. When management receives the same compensation package [insurance, stock options, vacation, etc, etc] as the workers then the workers might have been more willing to take the pay cuts. Yeah management took a pay cut but after the raises they received they could afford it.

ty

[Juan_Bottom]

For a company to stay in business, unionized or otherwise, that company must stay efficient, productive and above all, profitable.
The shareholders must be paid. The contracts must be honored, that includes the contracts with workers and management. The debts and expenses must be paid. And after all that then the company still has to be able to compete in the market place against rivals.
Hostess has been unable to do that.

The reason the private union membership has dropped to all time lows is because it adds expense and hurts efficiency. Those companies that were once unionized go bankrupt and have to close their doors before the companies that have more flexibility to change and adapt quicker. The bad processes are driven out, those processes that work survive.

Then how could Unions have ever existed in the first place, let alone grow.

[Phatscotty]

Here is the article posted earlier about the pay increases for management. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 47043.html

Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

As far as taking one for the team. When management receives the same compensation package [insurance, stock options, vacation, etc, etc] as the workers then the workers might have been more willing to take the pay cuts. Yeah management took a pay cut but after the raises they received they could afford it.

ty

wait a sec. Are you saying that the top management level should have the same compensation as the minimum wage/no skill level positions? I don't think that will ever happen, not even in a Marxist Utopia

whether or not they can afford it, I don't see how you could possibly have any information knowing if that is true or not.