Evil Semp wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:Tom Sullivan did a show on the Twinkies and the Wal-Mart "Black Thursday Walkout" the other night. A woman called in comparing Unionized Macy's 5-20 years ago (she worked there 15 years but left them 5 years ago) to non-Unionized Wal-Mart. As late as 5 years ago, Unionized-Macy's was paying minimum wage (just over $7), no benefits, and and employee had to be there for 18 months to get a (small) raise. While non-unionized Wal-Mart in the same city was paying over $9 an hour.
Not all unions are bad, and not all companies are good.
I heard today, the Hostess management is wanting its bonuses - I think they said it totals over $1billion worth of bonuses - that the guys who mis-managed the company are putting in a claim for with the bankruptcy court.
Hearing that makes me think, nope, Unions didn't shut down Hostess, management greed did.
The amount was $1.8 million. http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/11/30/hos ... 8-million/
"Hostess claims that the bonuses for the top executives are needed in order to retain them as the liquidation process plays out for the company."
It's a shame the executives don't have the same frame of mind as scotty. They should be thankful that they have a job for another year but what they heck give them extra money.
Phatscotty wrote: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,
Okay, 1.8million, it's still a lot of money for a company that's going under. I think the situation is worse even than, "be thankful to have a job for another year." The mindset of "get in, get mine, and frig everyone else," No company loyalty, no country loyalty - from guys at the top. Precisely why I'm no longer as conservative/pro-capitalism as I once was - seeing how "no morals, no ethics, no loyalty," is praised by far too many pro-capitalists.
With those types of guys in power as an example, can you really, really, blame "unions" or "union workers" for wanting to band together to be powerful to do what they can to "get in, get mine, and frig everyone else." ??? Aren't they just playing "follow the leader" when they do that?
I mean, really, why should the low level worker be more loyal, more willing to sacrifice, than the top dogs there? Is the exec who took a $1 "salary" in for some of that bonus, and if so, doesn't that change the supposed "sacrifice" he made? "No, no, don't worry about my salary, just give me a nice big bonus at the end of the year."
Hey, I'd work for a dollar "salary" if I'd get a million dollars (oh, excuse me, $1.8 million) even if I ran my company under the river, wouldn't you?
Also, if those execs were in for that "bonus" whether the company went under or not, how much did they really work at "bargaining" with the union? How much of that, "What do I care, I get a huge bonus whether we stay open or not," came to the bargaining table?