Unions Shut Down Hostess

[Funkyterrance]

I think, if there were such an agency, it would fail miserably (on the productivity side), since nobody would give a crap at a job they don't like, because they know the job safety net will just find them another one. They can call in sick whenever they want, show up late whenever they want, walk off the job whenever they want.

It will take a toll on work ethic and productivity/profits/efficiency/solvency

Why do you assume they would get paid for sick days? Disabled you say? Hmm, I know a few "disabled" folks who are quite able bodied. Answer phones or pick trash off the highway from your scooter for all I care, just do something for the money. It's not even good for someone's psyche to collect money for doing nothing so why encourage it? All the people who drag their asses into work do so in order to have the means to live. Why shouldn't unemployed and disabled people? I mean, life's a bitch right? Not for my neighbor it's not. He's "disabled" as hes legally blind. He used to be a bricklayer or something like that but now he collects disability and runs a horse boarding facility. Hmm, how does he do this if he is legally blind and disabled? He plows snow and does various other things with a giant tractor, that's dangerous for a blind person!!! What he does is he has an accountant that fudges his taxes. Great system we currently have eh?

[Symmetry]

I think, if there were such an agency, it would fail miserably (on the productivity side), since nobody would give a crap at a job they don't like, because they know the job safety net will just find them another one. They can call in sick whenever they want, show up late whenever they want, walk off the job whenever they want.

It will take a toll on work ethic and productivity/profits/efficiency/solvency

Why do you assume they would get paid for sick days? Disabled you say? Hmm, I know a few "disabled" folks who are quite able bodied. Answer phones or pick trash off the highway from your scooter for all I care, just do something for the money. It's not even good for someone's psyche to collect money for doing nothing so why encourage it? All the people who drag their asses into work do so in order to have the means to live. Why shouldn't unemployed and disabled people? I mean, life's a bitch right? Not for my neighbor it's not. He's "disabled" as hes legally blind. He used to be a bricklayer or something like that but now he collects disability and runs a horse boarding facility. Hmm, how does he do this if he is legally blind and disabled? He plows snow and does various other things with a giant tractor, that's dangerous for a blind person!!! What he does is he has an accountant that fudges his taxes. Great system we currently have eh?

If you're pissed off about this, perhaps the solution is to report him and his accountant to the IRS. That is kind of the system that's in place for fraud. Bitching on the internet is, I fear, never going to be part of the process.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, and that- "someone out of a job isn't helping the economy", it'd be best if you didn't tell that to Nancy "Botox" Pelosi and Joe "Plugs" Biden, both of which have said, in public with their bald faced liar mouths showing, unemployment payments are a boom to the economy.
So, get it right!

If you are buying food and clothing you ARE helping the economy.. and often far more than by investing in companies, roughly 75% of which go bankrupt.

[Funkyterrance]

I think, if there were such an agency, it would fail miserably (on the productivity side), since nobody would give a crap at a job they don't like, because they know the job safety net will just find them another one. They can call in sick whenever they want, show up late whenever they want, walk off the job whenever they want.

It will take a toll on work ethic and productivity/profits/efficiency/solvency

Why do you assume they would get paid for sick days? Disabled you say? Hmm, I know a few "disabled" folks who are quite able bodied. Answer phones or pick trash off the highway from your scooter for all I care, just do something for the money. It's not even good for someone's psyche to collect money for doing nothing so why encourage it? All the people who drag their asses into work do so in order to have the means to live. Why shouldn't unemployed and disabled people? I mean, life's a bitch right? Not for my neighbor it's not. He's "disabled" as hes legally blind. He used to be a bricklayer or something like that but now he collects disability and runs a horse boarding facility. Hmm, how does he do this if he is legally blind and disabled? He plows snow and does various other things with a giant tractor, that's dangerous for a blind person!!! What he does is he has an accountant that fudges his taxes. Great system we currently have eh?

If you're pissed off about this, perhaps the solution is to report him and his accountant to the IRS. That is kind of the system that's in place for fraud. Bitching on the internet is, I fear, never going to be part of the process.

That's easy for you to say. I've actually asked the guy about his tax situation and that's how I learned that his accountant fudges the numbers. So now I'm going to report someone to the IRS who will know exactly who did it? I have to live near this guy! I don't know what it's like where you come from, I'm assuming you rent, but around here there are serious repercussions for blowing the whistle on someone. I live in the country.
Besides, it shouldn't be my responsibility to risk my own livelihood because the system is broken. If I report this guy nobody is going to protect me, this is real life, not the movies.

[Symmetry]

I think, if there were such an agency, it would fail miserably (on the productivity side), since nobody would give a crap at a job they don't like, because they know the job safety net will just find them another one. They can call in sick whenever they want, show up late whenever they want, walk off the job whenever they want.

It will take a toll on work ethic and productivity/profits/efficiency/solvency

Why do you assume they would get paid for sick days? Disabled you say? Hmm, I know a few "disabled" folks who are quite able bodied. Answer phones or pick trash off the highway from your scooter for all I care, just do something for the money. It's not even good for someone's psyche to collect money for doing nothing so why encourage it? All the people who drag their asses into work do so in order to have the means to live. Why shouldn't unemployed and disabled people? I mean, life's a bitch right? Not for my neighbor it's not. He's "disabled" as hes legally blind. He used to be a bricklayer or something like that but now he collects disability and runs a horse boarding facility. Hmm, how does he do this if he is legally blind and disabled? He plows snow and does various other things with a giant tractor, that's dangerous for a blind person!!! What he does is he has an accountant that fudges his taxes. Great system we currently have eh?

If you're pissed off about this, perhaps the solution is to report him and his accountant to the IRS. That is kind of the system that's in place for fraud. Bitching on the internet is, I fear, never going to be part of the process.

That's easy for you to say. I've actually asked the guy about his tax situation and that's how I learned that his accountant fudges the numbers. So now I'm going to report someone to the IRS who will know exactly who did it? I have to live near this guy! I don't know what it's like where you come from, I'm assuming you rent, but around here there are serious repercussions for blowing the whistle on someone. I live in the country.
Besides, it shouldn't be my responsibility to risk my own livelihood because the system is broken. If I report this guy nobody is going to protect me, this is real life, not the movies.

You're worried that the legally blind guy will beat you up? Perhaps plow your house down? Man up if you're seriously concerned. Complaining about the system is one thing, but I don't really know what system you think could work without people reporting crime.

[spurgistan]

Individual responsibility, huh?

[patches70]

That's easy for you to say. I've actually asked the guy about his tax situation and that's how I learned that his accountant fudges the numbers. So now I'm going to report someone to the IRS who will know exactly who did it? I have to live near this guy! I don't know what it's like where you come from, I'm assuming you rent, but around here there are serious repercussions for blowing the whistle on someone. I live in the country.
Besides, it shouldn't be my responsibility to risk my own livelihood because the system is broken. If I report this guy nobody is going to protect me, this is real life, not the movies.

The IRS has a special division set up where citizens can report on other citizens. You'd even be eligible for a reward. Your involvement into ratting out your fellow citizen would, of course, be kept confidential.

Of the two, the guy and his accountant, the IRS would smash the book at the accountant. As a professional he should know better than that.

But worrying about the guy coming after you, well, I don't know why you'd worry about that at all. He'd have plenty of his own problems to deal with, and kind of serve him right for even telling you that his accountant supposedly fudges the numbers. You think you are the only person he's ever told that to? They guy sounds like an idiot.

Of course, I wouldn't rat him out. Not because I'd be worried about possible retaliation, I wouldn't rat him out because I'm not a rat.
But hey, you should do what you think is right, regardless of what may or may not happen because of it. The IRS won't tell the guy who reported him and as long as you can keep your own mouth shut the guy will never know it was you. If fact, if you did report the guy, don't tell anyone that you did it. But worry not, you won't be the only one reporting people to the IRS for fraud-

Go to google trends, sign in and type in "IRS tax fraud" and you'll see that searches on how to report tax fraud spike every year around tax time. LOL

[Funkyterrance]

You're worried that the legally blind guy will beat you up? Perhaps plow your house down? Man up if you're seriously concerned. Complaining about the system is one thing, but I don't really know what system you think could work without people reporting crime.

That's a really ignorant response, tbh.
I'm not afraid of the guy, hes in his fifties and hes not very fit (riding the tractor all day). And you forgot the part about him not actually being blind. Derp? The concern is not physical harm but otherwise. Where I come from people are very vindictive in regard to this sort of thing. And to reply to another person's comment, he's not stupid, he's just greedy/self centered. I was actually going to go into a business venture with him and this is how I learned about his situation and the ultimate reason why I backed out. He would know it was me.
Furthermore, he is the vindictive/sneaky type. Also, if he were to be investigated he would probably not get caught since the way his accountant fudged is by claiming that his wife was the one operating the business, not him. So basically the whole thing would most likely end up with him going off scott free and I would have a nice new enemy for a neighbor. This sounds like a really good plan for me and mine? Any more advice on how to be a man, symmetry? I'm waiting with bated breath.

[Phatscotty]

I think, if there were such an agency, it would fail miserably (on the productivity side), since nobody would give a crap at a job they don't like, because they know the job safety net will just find them another one. They can call in sick whenever they want, show up late whenever they want, walk off the job whenever they want.

It will take a toll on work ethic and productivity/profits/efficiency/solvency

Why do you assume they would get paid for sick days? Disabled you say? Hmm, I know a few "disabled" folks who are quite able bodied. Answer phones or pick trash off the highway from your scooter for all I care, just do something for the money. It's not even good for someone's psyche to collect money for doing nothing so why encourage it? All the people who drag their asses into work do so in order to have the means to live. Why shouldn't unemployed and disabled people? I mean, life's a bitch right? Not for my neighbor it's not. He's "disabled" as hes legally blind. He used to be a bricklayer or something like that but now he collects disability and runs a horse boarding facility. Hmm, how does he do this if he is legally blind and disabled? He plows snow and does various other things with a giant tractor, that's dangerous for a blind person!!! What he does is he has an accountant that fudges his taxes. Great system we currently have eh?

Not sure I assumed they would get paid for sick days. What I meant is there would be no fear of calling in sick, and sick days would be abused, since it would be okay if they got fired for calling in too much (granted there was an agency that would find them another job)

[PLAYER57832]

What do they have to justify? Hostess wasn't run on taxpayer money, what they pay their people is no one's business. If they want to shell out $1.8 million, so what? It's their money, not yours (or PS, or NS).

A company that is bankrupt can not simply cherrypick who they pay what and who they don't. They can't one hand hand default on the $2Bn pension obligations to employees and on the other hand pay bonuses to executives. If these bonuses were in fact retention bonuses needed to keep people around for the liquidation then the judge was 100% correct in approving it but I just want to make the point that bankrupt companies DO by law have to justify their payments.

I thought it was the case the employees decided they would rather not continue working or getting paid 5% less.... ( by Hostess anyways).

They thought it unreasonable that Hostess decide to cut THEIR pay, claim they could not do better -- while at the same time giving hefty bonuses to the executives. From the data I have seen, even one of those bonuses would have covered the employee demands.

That debate is really about how much workers deserve versus executives. The idea seems to be growing that workers are expendable and not worthy of anything more than pittances, and only executives really deserve payment.

Beyond that.. Hostess failed because it sells products heavy on lard and sugar, when the public at large is asking for healthier options that ALSO taste good.

In short, like many companies, the compensation for exectives had more to do with stocks and stock profits than maintaining a good production and quality product.

Damnit! I'm not making a statement about what can or can't be justified, or who deserves what, or what is fair and what isn't!

The statement is that the employees CHOSE to stop working. It was in their hands, they made it this way, that is why they are unemployed. all that means is the guilt trips and the finger pointing doesn't matter. Maybe their decision was the right one (I don't see how) maybe it was the wrong one (I think so), but the company could have stayed open, and the employees could still have their jobs (even if it's just a matter of time for Hostess)

Nobody likes quitters

I see, so according to you it doesn't matter how little people are being paid or the conditions or how much the executives are making.. if people takes every measure available to correct the problems, gets no where and then decide the only way to get anyone to even listen is to stop work.. then they are just "quitting?"

Well.. I guess that explains a lot.

In my world, the rest matters. The head of the corporation sitting back, taking increases, not developing new products and not passing profits legitimately on to workers.. that ultimately should have consequences. However, in today's paradigm, "its all good as long as they make money".

[Phatscotty]

the head of the corporation took a 99.9% paycut. How is profit sharing a "right"?

I just don't get your point. If you say it matters to you how little someone makes, shouldn't you be more upset when someone is making ZERO, compared to a 5% cut of their salary (while the CEO has already taken a 99.9% salary cut) btw, naming other things that were not cut does not erase the salary cut taken be the CEO

[Evil Semp]

the head of the corporation took a 99.9% paycut. How is profit sharing a "right"?

I just don't get your point. If you say it matters to you how little someone makes, shouldn't you be more upset when someone is making ZERO, compared to a 5% cut of their salary (while the CEO has already taken a 99.9% salary cut) btw, naming other things that were not cut does not erase the salary cut taken be the CEO

PS you forgot about the fact that the top executives were only taking the pay cut until the 1st of the year. How long were the employees going to take their pay cut?

[Phatscotty]

the head of the corporation took a 99.9% paycut. How is profit sharing a "right"?

I just don't get your point. If you say it matters to you how little someone makes, shouldn't you be more upset when someone is making ZERO, compared to a 5% cut of their salary (while the CEO has already taken a 99.9% salary cut) btw, naming other things that were not cut does not erase the salary cut taken be the CEO

PS you forgot about the fact that the top executives were only taking the pay cut until the 1st of the year. How long were the employees going to take their pay cut?

At least until the first of the year?

[notyou2]

the head of the corporation took a 99.9% paycut. How is profit sharing a "right"?

I just don't get your point. If you say it matters to you how little someone makes, shouldn't you be more upset when someone is making ZERO, compared to a 5% cut of their salary (while the CEO has already taken a 99.9% salary cut) btw, naming other things that were not cut does not erase the salary cut taken be the CEO

PS you forgot about the fact that the top executives were only taking the pay cut until the 1st of the year. How long were the employees going to take their pay cut?

PERMANENTLY of course.

Said what you wanted to say.

[Phatscotty]

the head of the corporation took a 99.9% paycut. How is profit sharing a "right"?

I just don't get your point. If you say it matters to you how little someone makes, shouldn't you be more upset when someone is making ZERO, compared to a 5% cut of their salary (while the CEO has already taken a 99.9% salary cut) btw, naming other things that were not cut does not erase the salary cut taken be the CEO

PS you forgot about the fact that the top executives were only taking the pay cut until the 1st of the year. How long were the employees going to take their pay cut?

PERMANENTLY of course.

Said what you wanted to say.

Can you at least make your trolling funny? As to making sense, what reason would I want it to be permanently? That's stupid, stfu