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 Funkyterrance on Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:48 pm

patches70 wrote:
<sigh>, the problem is, take Hostess for example, 18,000 workers just got laid off. That's 18,000 with the same skill sets competing for a finite number of jobs.

What happens when you get a massive burst of a product in a static market?

The cost of the product decreases.
In the case of these workers, the ones who get the same jobs in their respective fields are the ones who will be willing to take less money.
That's why it's up to the individual to get some skills beyond their current ones. There are plenty of programs already in place for this, but it's up to the individual to actually go out and learn new things.
Not to mention, they all lost their jobs and it's apparent that there are too many workers for that particular field for what the economic realities are as to the demand for the products that are being produced. There can only be but so many bakers and drivers and such.

The existing companies will expand, eventually (hopefully), but that's not immediate. Capital has to be raised, and all sorts of other administrative stuff needs to happen first.

You can't just wave a magic wand and everybody has a freaking job, man. Until then, there is unemployment insurance and job training programs available already. Everything you said you want already exists in some degree already.

Hey, I got an idea, just make a law that says everyone must be employed. Problem solved! LOL




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! ;)


Lolz. :)
Well I can respect your position in that the economy may be unable to support the out of work people but aren't all the "systems" in place which you mention to act as a safety net to those people out of work payed for by the taxpayers? Even if jobs were "created" for the sake of these out of work people, wouldn't this be a better alternative to unemployment? Have them make license plates or break rocks if that's what it takes. At least they would be participating in some level of productivity. My point is get people back out working; they are worth more doing something, anything, than they are collecting a check.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby patches70 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:40 am

Funkyterrance wrote: Even if jobs were "created" for the sake of these out of work people, wouldn't this be a better alternative to unemployment?


No, it's not. While unemployed the unemployed can be taking steps to learn new skills to find new jobs in other fields and looking for jobs on their own.

So if...


Funkyterrance wrote: Have them make license plates or break rocks if that's what it takes. At least they would be participating in some level of productivity. My point is get people back out working; they are worth more doing something, anything, than they are collecting a check.


while they are breaking rocks, digging holes or whatever else stupid, worthless job paid for by taxpayers, when will they get the job training they need?

Not to mention, by creating such "government companies" to do whatever that doesn't need to be done, you must create another new layer of government agency, which increases costs with no benefit. The government, to pay for this proposal, must take from some people to give to other people, through taxes. It's horribly inefficient and wasteful. It's not government's role to get someone a job. So you are just taking from one sector to give to another sector and since the government borrows 46 cents of every dollar it spends as it stand now, you get a negative drag when you are trying to help the economy. You aren't helping the economy that way, you are harming it.



Naw, dude, there are plenty of programs available as it is now. Don't fall for all the emotional stuff. Take it as a lesson, actually. Shit happens. One is wise to have emergency funds, generally six months wages saved up just for such things as losing your job suddenly. Living within your means and having marketable skills. Poor bastards who get content and don't use prudence in their lives, well, that's on them. Freedom means freedom to starve. One of the cons I suppose, but there it is.

Those workers will be fine in the long run, if the economy truly is "recovering". I have my doubts about that, but it is what it is. If what is being spouted by Washington about the economy is true, then these workers will find jobs if that's what they wish. Didn't you see the latest unemployment numbers? Apparently, jobs are coming back big time.
(There is much more to that story but I'd rather not get into that.)
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Funkyterrance on Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:05 am

patches70 wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote: Even if jobs were "created" for the sake of these out of work people, wouldn't this be a better alternative to unemployment?


patches70 wrote:No, it's not. While unemployed the unemployed can be taking steps to learn new skills to find new jobs in other fields and looking for jobs on their own.


I've got to stop for a second on this point. How does one acquire new skills on an income that is based on former employment? This just appears a further drain on the system.


Funkyterrance wrote: Have them make license plates or break rocks if that's what it takes. At least they would be participating in some level of productivity. My point is get people back out working; they are worth more doing something, anything, than they are collecting a check.


patches70 wrote:while they are breaking rocks, digging holes or whatever else stupid, worthless job paid for by taxpayers, when will they get the job training they need?

Not to mention, by creating such "government companies" to do whatever that doesn't need to be done, you must create another new layer of government agency, which increases costs with no benefit. The government, to pay for this proposal, must take from some people to give to other people, through taxes. It's horribly inefficient and wasteful. It's not government's role to get someone a job. So you are just taking from one sector to give to another sector and since the government borrows 46 cents of every dollar it spends as it stand now, you get a negative drag when you are trying to help the economy. You aren't helping the economy that way, you are harming it.


Here's my angle:
Once unemployed a person is assigned some mind numbing, uninteresting job. What better initiative to improve oneself to fill a niche in the private sector? With a check coming in the mail its way too easy to procrastinate and loaf around. In a perfect world people would pull themselves up by the bootstraps and shape up to fit the needs of the work force but honestly I've seen the opposite in my personal experiences. I worked for a temp agency for a time and was working alongside some people who had been assigned the same job by some organization (government). Upon making acquaintance with these people they confided in me that they planned on going back onto unemployment instead of sticking with the somewhat boring job we were doing. They explained to me that they would be making more money this way, at least in the short term and they hated the work anyway. Once their unemployment ran out they would just be placed in another cushy yet unsatisfying position. Now I am not sure of the actual nuts and bolts of these people's situations but I got a pretty good glimpse of their "humanity" as it were. The job we were performing, while tedious, was needed. I know this for a fact because they were hiring temps like mad. Basically I feel that there is more incentive for people who get laid off to get back in the mix if they were obligated to do something instead of nothing in order to get paid. Lets say that someone actually prefers the mind numbing/back breaking work assigned. This is great as they can be promoted to the highway department or some other as they are obviously more qualified than the current employees. :P
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Timminz on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:06 am

patches70 wrote:<sigh>, the problem is, take Hostess for example, 18,000 workers just got laid off. That's 18,000 with the same skill sets competing for a finite number of jobs.


Companies (Hostess) don't require a variety of skill sets? Every single employee of any company (Hostess) has the exact same skill set?

That is an interesting premise you've picked for your argument.
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby HapSmo19 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:31 am

Funkyterrance wrote:
HapSmo19 wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Bailouts obviously are not the answer but there ought to be some sort of program that specifically relocates workers such as these into another job of relatively equal prosperity. This program should be payed for by the taxpayers.

Suck balls(if you're not already).
Their union can pay for it.


Your problem with this is what exactly? Not that I am expecting an especially substantive response, considering your above quote.
Frankly the unions are not to be trusted with this responsibility as they aren't exactly the model of efficiency.

Create a government agency to relocate these workers that effectively quit their jobs into jobs of relatively equal prosperity? Like a job that pays 5 percent less, for instance? How sweet. Is that good enough for them now?
And the government is the model of efficiency? Talk about LOLZ's.
User avatar
Lieutenant HapSmo19
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Willamette Valley

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:15 pm

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

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:25 pm

Phatscotty wrote: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

Hear Hear!

If it wasn't for society's demand that I wipe my tush to participate, I know I certainly would NOT do so.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby crispybits on Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:33 pm

And the banana leaf industry is eternally grateful for that!

(that IS what a monkey uses right?)
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:53 pm

(Often, yes. Bananas Peels work well as a baby wipes though, the extra moistness can be nice).


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:26 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:(Often, yes. Bananas Peels work well as a baby wipes though, the extra moistness can be nice).


--Andy


And they are scented.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8352
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Funkyterrance on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:43 am

Phatscotty wrote: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?
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Symmetry on Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:01 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: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.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:10 pm

patches70 wrote:
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.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Funkyterrance on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:28 pm

Symmetry wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Symmetry on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:35 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: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.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby spurgistan on Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:41 pm

Individual responsibility, huh?
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 patches70 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:05 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:

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. :D
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
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Funkyterrance on Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:35 pm

Symmetry wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:03 pm

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

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:09 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
aad0906 wrote:
patches70 wrote:
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".
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:57 pm

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

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:28 pm

Phatscotty wrote: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?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8352
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:33 pm

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

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby notyou2 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:38 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:47 pm

notyou2 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: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
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users