Juan_Bottom wrote:No, That's far to general. Unions are quick to change. That is why they have all been agreeing to pay and benefits cuts for their members since the financial collapse.
Conditions are different today than they were yesterday, so that's not saying anything. The only thing that's truly changed is the people's mindset. Unions appeared in a flash of a few years, and big business has been fighting a propaganda campaign ever since. And they're winning.
The evil plot, then is it? There is a much more logical reason, just see below.
Juan wrote: But we've obviously returned to the same worker/employer disparity that we had in the 1900s that brought about Unions in the first place.
Yes, we are as bad off as people were in the 1900's.
You don't think it has anything to do with the plunging value of the dollar, do you? Scratch that, don't answer, you wouldn't make any sense anyway.
Juan wrote: We're talking about a large company that tried to force it's workers to give up their earned pay so that the managers could get bigger raises.
If we are talking about Hostess, then why are you bringing up-
Juan wrote:Germany has a stronger Union membership than the US, Canada has more than double the members the US has, and most Finnish workers are in a Union.
Try to stay on subject. Who cares what the managers got? There is another reason, a much more simple reason Hostess went out of business, just read on.
Juan wrote:America is a Union, and we still exist, even though conditions have changed.
And you believe that will never change?
juan wrote:I disagree with your peak timeline, and Unions have grown since then in other country which are technologically and financially sound. Germany has a stronger Union membership than the US, Canada has more than double the members the US has, and most Finnish workers are in a Union.
Now you know full well that I was talking about US labor unions. Are you trying to say that US labor unions are growing? Because the facts don't support that.
What does the union membership of Germany and what ever other nations you want to list have to do with the poor bastards who were working at Hostess?
Not a damn thing.
Again, try to stay on topic.
It's all the same with you demagogues, always have to cast someone as the villain. When are you ever going to grow up? A business went under. It happens. It's like a messy divorce in a lot of ways. But if the parties involved are wise, then in the long run they'll be better off.
Of course it stings right now. Especially for the workers who walked off the job. Sure they had their reasons, so what? The company is being liquidated, they lost their jobs. Is anyone saying that these workers didn't know this could happen? If so, the naive nature of people is quite telling.
Now, the real reason Hostess went under-
When I was a kid all we ever had was Hostess products. Guess what? Hostess products now are crap. Wonder Bread is nasty, twinkies suck, every product they created was just terrible. I didn't spend a single cent on Hostess products, for decades.
If you want someone to blame, blame people like me. I think Hostess sucked and refused to buy their products. I myself had more to do with all those people losing their jobs than anything else. And guess what? That's the nature of business. Should I have spent my hard earned money buying something I hate just so someone can keep their job?
Make a better product and thrive. Make crap and go out of business. Screw the workers, the managers, the whole company. They made crap. And that's
the reason Hostess is gone now. Because people like me found other products that we liked much better and we found to be a better value.
You talk about worker disparity and all that jazz and ignore that large swaths of the consumer gave the thumbs down to Hostess. So tell me, how much money should a person get paid to produce an inferior product?
Welcome to the market bitchezz.