Conquer Club

Unions Shut Down Hostess

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby chang50 on Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:51 am

AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:How does that relate to this topic?


You just asked me to explain why your comments were communistic, and I did. You suggesting they should even consider taking one for the team, or lost tax revenue is communistic by its very nature, whereas as capitalists none of those concerns should matter in the decision making process, because capitalism is based on people doing whats best for them individually, which in turn makes everything better overall...

Its awesome that you don't even see it. It should have been obvious to anyone who pretends to be a capitalist and an American as often as you do. It's nice to see your real philosophies are different than your stated ones. Not that its surprising.


'Whoosh',that's the sound of your nuanced argument going right over the head of someone..
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby AAFitz on Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:52 am

chang50 wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:How does that relate to this topic?


You just asked me to explain why your comments were communistic, and I did. You suggesting they should even consider taking one for the team, or lost tax revenue is communistic by its very nature, whereas as capitalists none of those concerns should matter in the decision making process, because capitalism is based on people doing whats best for them individually, which in turn makes everything better overall...

Its awesome that you don't even see it. It should have been obvious to anyone who pretends to be a capitalist and an American as often as you do. It's nice to see your real philosophies are different than your stated ones. Not that its surprising.


'Whoosh',that's the sound of your nuanced argument going right over the head of someone..


For my part, I tried to keep it simple at the 101 level.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:01 am

AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:How does that relate to this topic?


You just asked me to explain why your comments were communistic, and I did. You suggesting they should even consider taking one for the team, or lost tax revenue is communistic by its very nature, whereas as capitalists none of those concerns should matter in the decision making process, because capitalism is based on people doing whats best for them individually, which in turn makes everything better overall...

Its awesome that you don't even see it. It should have been obvious to anyone who pretends to be a capitalist and an American as often as you do. It's nice to see your real philosophies are different than your stated ones. Not that its surprising.


no, you defined what capitalism is, in a very narrow and self serving range, and then what Communism was. Then you continued to tell me directly why you weren't going to explain how it relates.

There is no i in team. If you want to do what's best for yourself, sometimes the team concept is best, and sometimes it's not. It's not an either or situation.

The comment you brought up, I already told you, were for the communists. It was meant to appeal to your concerns, not a statement that shows what I am the most concerned about, because it's not my main concern. tax revenue, obviously, is the concern of the left, if the drool drops and your own words mean anything...but don't let that stop you from ignoring the entire topic matter and the context while focusing entirely on one word I used in the last 5 pages...It looks like you are just cheaply declaring yourself the victor on a meaningless and ridiculous point (none of this is about capitalism vs communism, wtf) and now breaking your arm patting yourself on the back, and your gimp thinks it's awesome

chang50 wrote:
'Whoosh',that's the sound of your nuanced argument going right over the head of someone..


Indeed
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby AAFitz on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:26 am

Phatscotty wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:How does that relate to this topic?


You just asked me to explain why your comments were communistic, and I did. You suggesting they should even consider taking one for the team, or lost tax revenue is communistic by its very nature, whereas as capitalists none of those concerns should matter in the decision making process, because capitalism is based on people doing whats best for them individually, which in turn makes everything better overall...

Its awesome that you don't even see it. It should have been obvious to anyone who pretends to be a capitalist and an American as often as you do. It's nice to see your real philosophies are different than your stated ones. Not that its surprising.


no, you defined what capitalism is, in a very narrow and self serving range, and then what Communism was. Then you continued to tell me directly why you weren't going to explain how it relates.

There is no i in team. If you want to do what's best for yourself, sometimes the team concept is best, and sometimes it's not. It's not an either or situation.

The comment you brought up, I already told you, were for the communists. It was meant to appeal to your concerns, not a statement that shows what I am the most concerned about, because that wouldn't even make sense, since I have been arguing the opposite the entire time....but don't let that stop you from ignoring the entire topic matter and the context while focusing entirely on one word I used in the last 5 pages...It looks like you are just cheaply declaring yourself the victor on a meaningless and ridiculous point (none of this is about capitalism vs communism, wtf) and now breaking your arm patting yourself on the back, and your gimp thinks it's awesome

chang50 wrote:
'Whoosh',that's the sound of your nuanced argument going right over the head of someone..


Indeed


Double indeed. I hardly focused on one term you used, I instead focused on your entire point. It is complex, and there are indeed many factors, and my point is not only that most of your argument here is contradictory, hypocritical, but also, communistic. If you dont think the question of Unions and the demise of a business is worthy of discussions of economic theory, well, I apologize you can't appreciate the importance of them. And again, I only pointed out they were communistic. You are the one that asked me to explain.

As far as declaring myself a victor, I am not. I am just discouraged you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, the actual implications of it, and are so utterly hypocritical while doing so. But, I agree, pointing that out is no victory. You pretty much can take all the credit for that. :D
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby stahrgazer on Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:31 am

AAFitz wrote:You just asked me to explain why your comments were communistic, and I did. You suggesting they should even consider taking one for the team, or lost tax revenue is communistic by its very nature, whereas as capitalists none of those concerns should matter in the decision making process, because capitalism is based on people doing whats best for them individually, which in turn makes everything better overall...

Its awesome that you don't even see it. It should have been obvious to anyone who pretends to be a capitalist and an American as often as you do. It's nice to see your real philosophies are different than your stated ones. Not that its surprising.


Wow! Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves at the belief that they founded American on an, "One for one and f* them all" principle that is so wrong but also so popular to spout these days.

Also, doing something for oneself and only oneself does not make everything better overall.

America was supposed to be about, "United we stand," but this version of "capitalism, capitalism, and only capitalism" is more like the, "divided we fall," part of that saying.

Capitalism without a healthy dose of patriotism or other moral ethics leads to evil.

Having said that, I think the analysts who said the union reps who refused any of Hostess's offer, did it to try to keep wages high in other baking factories they represent, are probably accurate; and I think that the union reps did those they represented at Hostess, a disservice. On the flipside, Hostess management has offered absolutely zero new products to work on stabilizing their decreasing market share. While Twinkies are a nostalgic food, many folks will just as easily buy Little Debbie creme snack cakes - not twinkies, but twinkie-like - but LD doesn't rely just on those cakes, they have a lot of other offerings that people enjoy. So, Hostess management has done its employees a disservice for a while, too.

So, to say the Unions shut down Hostess is ignoring that Hostess management hasn't done very much to keep its brand up, either. BOTH have been wrong, with the employees caught in the middle.

And that's what happens when "capitalism and only capitalism" becomes each side's goal - those without much power get to foot the bill. And THAT is what is anti American, THAT is precisely what our founding fathers fought against.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:09 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:
%hatscotty wrote:I might agree, but that doesn't mean that they are. The upper management took 99.9% paycuts to keep the company running, in this case...


When did they take those pay cuts? The cuts were only in effect until Dec. 31. Would the employee pay cuts only be in effect until Dec. 31? Only four executives under the CEO agreed to have their pay cut to $1. Others agreed to have their pay brought back to the level it was at before the raises. Permanent pay cuts for the workers and temporary cuts for the executives. Sounds fair to me.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/hostess.asp
http://radicalruss.com/hostess-ceo-greg ... f-company/


we've already decided that nothing the management does or did do or could do would be good enough....

Regardless, they took a lot of cuts. They took one for the team. Of course they are not going to make 1$ a year forever (think of all the tax revenue lost! :o ) And of course it's a short term plan. when the company is teetering on the brink of solvency, everything is short term. They didn't even make it to December 31st, so I don't see any point making a issue about "only taking the cuts till dec 31st" and I would put more stock into "now its the other sides turn to take one for the team" The workers did not, so they did not make it to dec 31st

Now none of them have jobs. Now there are no tax revenues being generated


Then why did you make it a point that he took a 99.9% pay cut? I am saying the knight in shining armor isn't so shiny.

Didn't the workers take one for the team the last time the company was in trouble?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:27 pm

because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Iliad on Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:26 pm

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


btw, this link has been "corrected" At first I was just going to point out that these management pay raises were "claims" from the union, but it doesn't matter anymore anyways...


Yes it does matter. It could explain part of the reason why the employees would accept the pay cuts.

Phatscotty wrote:
An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.


The name given was wrong but that doesn't change the fact about the pay increases or at least the attempt at the pay increases.

Hostessā€™ creditors accused the company in April of manipulating executive salaries with the aim of getting around bankruptcy compensation rules, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time. In response, Rayburn announced he would cut his pay and that of other executives to $1 until Dec. 31 or whenever Hostess came out of bankruptcy.


Phatscotty wrote:I bet this won't matter though. The incorrect information has been corrected, but the opinions of posters that have been strongly shaped based solely on the size of the pay raises and salaries for the CEO and management will probably stay the same...


Actually it does matter. It show me that he might have taken one for the team but we don't know about his whole pay and compensation package.

Here is an article explaining the CEO changes at Hostess. http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/03/09/h ... as-sought/


ty again for the link. I am eating them up like candy!

However, it does show he certainly did his part, basically taking a 99.9% pay cut on his standard salary. If that isn't good enough, then I'm not sure if anything would have been good enough. He not only took one for the team, he sacrificed so that there was still a "team" at all. He's probably pretty pissed now that after what he gave up to keep the company going and keep the workers working, and they just walked out on the company. I'm more pissed at the employees now too.

Let me read your link


Why are you pissed off at the employees? Why is this an emotional event at all?

Isn't this your fabled free market at work? A company can't operate unless it pays its employees below market rate wages.
Clearly it's inefficient relative to its competitors if it can't maintain a profit and pay its employees the market rate for their wages, so by going bankrupt it's opening up market space for its more efficient competitors. Its employees, as rational self-interested individuals, as all are in an economist framework, have no interest in sacrificing their own wages to perpetuate inefficiency. If a company can't pay its employees the average market rate wages and maintain a profit, then i don't see why it should be in business.

Why is it, when tax hikes are proposed, even by 1 or 2% the lovely business owners can threaten to flee and relocate and this is celebrated as the 'market' in action, but apparently employees are supposed to accept a 5% pay cut just after concessions two years ago. Like their jobs are some kind of gift bestowed on them and their rational self-interest is not at stake.

You make for a shitty economist if you can't even adhere to your own ideology and just blindly shit on the poorer side in an argument.

Still no-one even trying to refute this.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Iliad
 
Posts: 10394
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:48 am

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:35 pm

Phatscotty wrote:because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too


Yes there is more. How about the raise in health care and pension cuts. I don't see anything saying the CEO taking any of those cuts. Yeah he took a temporary cut in pay but was getting it back. I don't see where the employees cuts were temporary. Yeah he took one for the team, he should he is the leader of the team.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:20 pm

Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too


Yes there is more. How about the raise in health care and pension cuts. I don't see anything saying the CEO taking any of those cuts. Yeah he took a temporary cut in pay but was getting it back. I don't see where the employees cuts were temporary. Yeah he took one for the team, he should he is the leader of the team.


whatever people say, I'm confident your attitude pin-points the attitudes of the unions workers, and you speak for them well
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:38 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too


Yes there is more. How about the raise in health care and pension cuts. I don't see anything saying the CEO taking any of those cuts. Yeah he took a temporary cut in pay but was getting it back. I don't see where the employees cuts were temporary. Yeah he took one for the team, he should he is the leader of the team.


whatever people say, I'm confident your attitude pin-points the attitudes of the unions workers, and you speak for them well


I take that as a compliment scotty. Why don't you address any of my comments. You seem to side step comments made by others.

Would Rayburn have taken the pay cut if he didn't have other income? I doubt it. He took the pay cut as a PR stunt.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:40 pm

Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too


Yes there is more. How about the raise in health care and pension cuts. I don't see anything saying the CEO taking any of those cuts. Yeah he took a temporary cut in pay but was getting it back. I don't see where the employees cuts were temporary. Yeah he took one for the team, he should he is the leader of the team.


whatever people say, I'm confident your attitude pin-points the attitudes of the unions workers, and you speak for them well


I take that as a compliment scotty. Why don't you address any of my comments. You seem to side step comments made by others.

Would Rayburn have taken the pay cut if he didn't have other income? I doubt it. He took the pay cut as a PR stunt.


we aren't getting anywhere. I feel like you keep moving the goal post. You asked "when" were the raises, I adressed it. Then you jumped to something else to do with the raises, I addressed it. Now we are into the benefits and health care program...

I mentioned from the start that nothing would be good enough, we don't have to refigure that out one piece at a time
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:52 pm

Phatscotty wrote:I mentioned from the start that nothing would be good enough, we don't have to refigure that out one piece at a time


If my boss said he would take a pay cut until the end of the year and I would have to take a pay cut with no time line on getting back to that pay level but I would also have to take cuts in benefits I would say no also.

Your are right about one thing. Nothing would be good enough for you if the employees didn't accept managements proposals.

Humor me scotty. Lets have a negotiation. You are management and I am the union. Convince me that management would take the same hit for the company that the employees were being asked to take. Remember some management had their raises taken away but they didn't take a pay cut from their previous pay level.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:58 pm

Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I mentioned from the start that nothing would be good enough, we don't have to refigure that out one piece at a time


If my boss said he would take a pay cut until the end of the year and I would have to take a pay cut with no time line on getting back to that pay level but I would also have to take cuts in benefits I would say no also.


and you are prepared to take a 100% cut to back that up?

Evil Semp wrote:Your are right about one thing. Nothing would be good enough for you if the employees didn't accept managements proposals.

Humor me scotty. Lets have a negotiation. You are management and I am the union. Convince me that management would take the same hit for the company that the employees were being asked to take. Remember some management had their raises taken away but they didn't take a pay cut from their previous pay level.


I can't figure out how you aren't asking me to start all over from the beginning, because all I want to say to that is "management is prepared to take a 99.9% paycut, and work for a 1$/year"
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:11 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I mentioned from the start that nothing would be good enough, we don't have to refigure that out one piece at a time


If my boss said he would take a pay cut until the end of the year and I would have to take a pay cut with no time line on getting back to that pay level but I would also have to take cuts in benefits I would say no also.


and you are prepared to take a 100% cut to back that up? [\quote]

Yes I am.

Phatscotty wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:Your are right about one thing. Nothing would be good enough for you if the employees didn't accept managements proposals.

Humor me scotty. Lets have a negotiation. You are management and I am the union. Convince me that management would take the same hit for the company that the employees were being asked to take. Remember some management had their raises taken away but they didn't take a pay cut from their previous pay level.


I can't figure out how you aren't asking me to start all over from the beginning, because all I want to say to that is "management is prepared to take a 99.9% paycut, and work for a 1$/year"


I am not asking you to start over. I am asking how a few members of management taking a pay cut for a predetermined amount of time is fair.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:28 pm

so your main hang up was that the CEO only made 1$ until december 31st? I'm not sure how fair it is, but I am sure it's a start.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Nola_Lifer on Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:26 am

Phatscotty wrote:so your main hang up was that the CEO only made 1$ until december 31st? I'm not sure how fair it is, but I am sure it's a start.


Answer the question. Talk about one who is doggy.

I am not asking you to start over. I am asking how a few members of management taking a pay cut for a predetermined amount of time is fair.
Image
User avatar
Major Nola_Lifer
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: é›Ŗå±±

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:07 pm

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:so your main hang up was that the CEO only made 1$ until december 31st? I'm not sure how fair it is, but I am sure it's a start.


Image

I am not asking you to start over. I am asking how a few members of management taking a pay cut for a predetermined amount of time is fair.


whats up dawgy?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:56 pm

Phatscotty wrote:so your main hang up was that the CEO only made 1$ until december 31st? I'm not sure how fair it is, but I am sure it's a start.


NO scotty that is not my hang up. My hang up is how long will the employees have to endure the pay cuts, increase in health insurance payments and decrease in the pension contributions. Rayburn has other income to make up for his pay cut the employees don't.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Viceroy63 on Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:41 pm

Has anyone addressed the fact that the Unions began as a means to protect worker health and personal rights and dignity and are now the abusers of the companies and it seems to me that some times they even work with the companies behind the union employee backs to deny workers benefits and help companies for monies.

Oh, how the wheels have turned?
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:28 pm

Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:so your main hang up was that the CEO only made 1$ until december 31st? I'm not sure how fair it is, but I am sure it's a start.


NO scotty that is not my hang up. My hang up is how long will the employees have to endure the pay cuts, increase in health insurance payments and decrease in the pension contributions. Rayburn has other income to make up for his pay cut the employees don't.


I don't know. Hopefully they would negotiate some kind of short term plan where if it works they will get some or all of their paycut back. And on health insurance....everyone's insurance is going up, so they should probably do what the rest of us have to do. I'm unaware of pension decreases (other than the straight loss of pension/plug pulled on their pension when Hostess goes belly up). What are the pension decreases?

I'm sure Rayburn does have other income. That does not change that he sacrificed hundreds of thousands of dollars that Hostess did not have to pay him and likewise allowed Hostess to remain functional for a while longer. You can't take that away from him. If you have to minimize it, fine. It also doesn't change what the employees did, which is nothing. They could have maybe took the 5% paycut, until Decembr 31st? That would buy more time



When I was in the union, I believed in the team concept. Everyone has to have some skin in the game, because everyone has skin in the outcome IE unemployed
Last edited by Phatscotty on Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby muy_thaiguy on Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:31 pm

For most of my life, I had bought Homepride brand bread. When I went to the grocery store to get more, they don't have any. I have come to find out that Homepride was owned and operated by Hostess.

Somehow, someway, this is all Army of God's fault.
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
Private 1st Class muy_thaiguy
 
Posts: 12727
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Location: Back in Black

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby oss spy on Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:05 pm

Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would shut down when it can't sustain itself and its workers go on strike after it attempts to make necessary pay cuts.
2012-04-05 19:05:58 - Eagle Orion: For the record, my supposed irrationality has kept me in the game well enough. Just in rather bizaare fashion.

2012-04-05 19:06:28 - nathanmoore04: Look at your troop count...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class oss spy
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:30 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby spurgistan on Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:09 pm

oss spy wrote:Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would shut down when it can't sustain itself and its workers go on strike after it attempts to make necessary pay cuts.


Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would award its executives raises for a job horribly done, then try to leverage workers into lower wages citing said horrible job by executives. Oh, no, wait, that's how the economy works now.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:22 pm

spurgistan wrote:
oss spy wrote:Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would shut down when it can't sustain itself and its workers go on strike after it attempts to make necessary pay cuts.


Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would award its executives raises for a job horribly done, then try to leverage workers into lower wages citing said horrible job by executives. Oh, no, wait, that's how the economy works now.


+1
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users