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 notyou2 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:57 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
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


What reason??.....you want to keep the little guy down. It's in your nature
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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:25 pm

Here is a fact that should screw up the sheeples thoughts....

The Teamsters union agreed to the contract with the pay cuts. The Bakers union is the one that rejected it, and screwed it up for all the Teamster employees, and there is another union involved, and some other non-union jobs, as well as all the management.

Looks like you guys are taking the stance of the radical bakers union, but, according to you guys....why does the Teamsters union just want to "keep the little guy down" and "only care about the rich" and "are only watching out for the management?" The Teamsters union agrees just as I do.

How should you think now?? :o See how ya are? :P
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:46 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?

Yeah, and he forgot some bonuses, other compensation types.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:08 pm

PLAYER57832 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?

Yeah, and he forgot some bonuses, other compensation types.


what would it mean if I remember them? How does that change the CEO took a 99.9% pay cut?

Your post means nothing
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:15 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Here is a fact that should screw up the sheeples thoughts....

The Teamsters union agreed to the contract with the pay cuts. The Bakers union is the one that rejected it, and screwed it up for all the Teamster employees, and there is another union involved, and some other non-union jobs, as well as all the management.

Looks like you guys are taking the stance of the radical bakers union, but, according to you guys....why does the Teamsters union just want to "keep the little guy down" and "only care about the rich" and "are only watching out for the management?" The Teamsters union agrees just as I do.

How should you think now?? :o See how ya are? :P


Radical bakers union? Because they don't agree with the cuts proposed the company and supported by the Teamsters union they are "radical?"

Maybe the Teamsters agree with the company because they think it is in their best interest not because they "only care about the rich" or are "watching out for the management."
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8352
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:26 pm

Maybe you were right PS. The Teamsters backed the company who was ripping off their employees

Phatscotty wrote:why does the Teamsters union just want to "keep the little guy down" and "only care about the rich" and "are only watching out for the management?" The Teamsters union agrees just as I do.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 71868.html

huffingtonpost wrote:Hostess Brands acknowledged for the first time in a news report Monday that the company diverted workers' pension money for other company uses.

The bankrupt baker told The Wall Street Journal that money taken out of workers' paychecks, intended for their retirement funds, was used for company operations instead. Hostess, which was under different management at the time the diversions began in August 2011, said it does not know how much money it took.

"It's not a good situation to have," Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn told the WSJ.

"Whatever the circumstances were, whatever those decisions were, I wasn't there," Rayburn added. As the founder and owner of Kobi Partners, a restructuring advisory firm, Rayburn was appointed acting CEO in March 2012.

Hostess Brands, which filed for bankruptcy for a second time in January, started liquidating its operations in November after the bakers' union refused to take another pay cut and went on strike. The liquidation will leave about 18,000 workers without jobs.

In November, a judge approved Hostess' plan to pay $1.8 million in bonuses to 19 executives, according to CNBC. Rayburn declined to take a bonus but also avoided a company-wide pay cut that he imposed, Hostess told HuffPost.

Twinkies are unlikely to go extinct, since Hostess is in talks with 110 buyers about its brands. But the snack cake genre may need a revamp, as Americans have become increasingly health- and quality-conscious.


This says that Rayburn did not take the pay cut that he imposed.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8352
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:32 pm

the point is that one one union agreed to it, and one union did not. This is no longer a management vs. union argument.

There was a split in the unions. I happen to agree with management and one of the unions. You guys got one union. And as you know, it takes two to tango
Last edited by Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:34 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 PLAYER57832 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:33 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
PLAYER57832 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?

Yeah, and he forgot some bonuses, other compensation types.


what would it mean if I remember them? How does that change the CEO took a 99.9% pay cut?

Your post means nothing


If he agrees to take a huge pay cut... but it expires in a year... only workers are going to KEEP their pay cuts for pretty much "forever", then its like I said... the 'team" is to "pull together" when things are bad; t hen when things look up, suddenly its "I did this... I,and I alone deserve the credit".

Try reading Steven Covey for a few more clues.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:35 pm

well, "pretty much forever" sounds like it came straight out of your ass. I already said, the union members could have also agreed to the cut, til the end of the year...

there is no "i" in team
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:49 pm

Phatscotty wrote:well, "pretty much forever" sounds like it came straight out of your ass. I already said, the union members could have also agreed to the cut, til the end of the year...

there is no "i" in team


That was an option? Obviously there was no Greg Rayburn in team either.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8352
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:54 pm

Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:well, "pretty much forever" sounds like it came straight out of your ass. I already said, the union members could have also agreed to the cut, til the end of the year...

there is no "i" in team


That was an option? Obviously there was no Greg Rayburn in team either.


Which way did Rayburn vote when it came to keeping the company open and keeping their jobs? Which way did the union employees vote? Rayburn took the cut, the union members did not

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

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:01 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:well, "pretty much forever" sounds like it came straight out of your ass. I already said, the union members could have also agreed to the cut, til the end of the year...

there is no "i" in team


That was an option? Obviously there was no Greg Rayburn in team either.


Which way did Rayburn vote when it came to keeping the company open and keeping their jobs? Which way did the union employees vote? Rayburn took the cut, the union members did not

nuff said


Not exactly "nuff said."
Rayburns "cut" was a PR stunt. If he took a cut. Read the article I posted above. He was getting his cut back. When were the employees getting their cut back? When you can answer that I that you can say "nuff said."
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8352
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:40 pm

He took the cut. Whether or not you give him any credit is another story. The thing of it is, that doesn't even matter, because if he did not take a pay cut, you would be here right now criticizing him for not taking a pay cut. He can't win. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I understand the management was shitty, the company was most likely doomed eventually anyways, but nobody else wants to understand it's the union workers who walked off the job and are a bunch of quitters. That is damn near anti-American, in our values and expectations that if we work hard, we can achieve something.

I suggested the employees negotiate to get their cut back. Why do you keep asking me that? likes it's my business? or the power is in my hands? The 5,500 bakers union employees shut down a corporation and cost another 12,500 employees their jobs. With that kind of power, I think they can "ask" that the cuts be restored, based on something they come up with in their offer.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:57 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 Lootifer on Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:56 pm

Your tale of two unions is old news PS:

Teamsters agreed to givebacks to finance the latest Hostess turnaround attempt, the Teamsters held onto work rules that would have driven the company into the ground. Examples: Drivers couldnā€™t help with unloading, and products like Wonder Bread and Twinkies were not allowed to ride on the same truck. Jenkins says the bakers decided to strike because bakery operations were efficient compared to the delivery process, and they didnā€™t want to prop up a Teamster contract that would eventually bring the company down.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/ ... ad-to-die/
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:57 pm

Lootifer wrote:Your tale of two unions is old news PS:

Teamsters agreed to givebacks to finance the latest Hostess turnaround attempt, the Teamsters held onto work rules that would have driven the company into the ground. Examples: Drivers couldnā€™t help with unloading, and products like Wonder Bread and Twinkies were not allowed to ride on the same truck. Jenkins says the bakers decided to strike because bakery operations were efficient compared to the delivery process, and they didnā€™t want to prop up a Teamster contract that would eventually bring the company down.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/ ... ad-to-die/


of course it's old news. I am the one that posted the same thing you posted here a couple weeks ago.

Pretty bizarre. What is the motivation for a post like that???
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Iliad on Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:00 pm

Phatscotty wrote:He took the cut. Whether or not you give him any credit is another story

I suggested the employees negotiate to get their cut back. Why do you keep asking me that? likes it's my business? or the power is in my hands? The 5,500 bakers union employees shut down a corporation and cost another 12,500 employees their jobs. With that kind of power, I think they can "ask" that the cuts be restored, based on something they come up with in their offer.

A meaningless temporary paycut.

Why should the employees financially sabotage their own wages for the sake of an inefficient company? I've posted this several times, but the workers clearly saw that the proposed paycut was not in their financial self-interest and decided to reject it. The inefficient business of Hostess going bankrupt now only gives more market space to more efficient companies who can expand and hire this labour force.

Why are you against free market capitalism, Scotty? Do you hate freedom?
User avatar
Private 1st Class Iliad
 
Posts: 10394
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:48 am

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Lootifer on Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:02 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Pretty bizarre. What is the motivation for a post like that???

Because you were defending teamsters (or more accurately you were applauding their acceptance of the pay cuts); and I dont think they, nor their decision are worthy of support (as shown by my quote).

Apologies for the lack of clarity, im having a brain fart day.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:11 pm

Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Pretty bizarre. What is the motivation for a post like that???

Because you were defending teamsters (or more accurately you were applauding their acceptance of the pay cuts); and I dont think they, nor their decision are worthy of support (as shown by my quote).

Apologies for the lack of clarity, im having a brain fart day.


I wasn't defending them. I was using them to show that it's incorrect to paint me as anti-union only for expecting them to take the 5% pay cut, or negotiate harder for a 4%, or time based, or whatever....One union agreed with what I said they should have agreed to, one union did not. It's no longer a union vs. management discussion (for all intends and purposes)

My biggest problem here is that I have a gut feeling that the union employees turned down the 5% pay cut with a smile on their face, because they are going to sit back and collect unemployment for the next couples years. It also bothers me, because the answer to our economic woes is more jobs/more taxpayers, not less jobs/more "emergency" benefits.

Wages have been going down for a while. We're just on the other side of the longest Recession ever (that was not a depression). Unions needs to get real/adapt/evolve. And if you want to understand where I am coming from, just know that I get a letter in the mail regularly about how my union pension is 98% underfunded and at critical status. So yeah, I know how unions operate, where the money goes, how much is spent on administration, and given to slimy politicians who use their power opposite of my own interests....
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:42 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Pretty bizarre. What is the motivation for a post like that???

Because you were defending teamsters (or more accurately you were applauding their acceptance of the pay cuts); and I dont think they, nor their decision are worthy of support (as shown by my quote).

Apologies for the lack of clarity, im having a brain fart day.


I wasn't defending them. I was using them to show that it's incorrect to paint me as anti-union only for expecting them to take the 5% pay cut, or negotiate harder for a 4%, or time based, or whatever....One union agreed with what I said they should have agreed to, one union did not. It's no longer a union vs. management discussion (for all intends and purposes)


I don't think anyone was painting you anti-union. Anti-worker maybe buy not anti-union.

Phatscotty wrote:My biggest problem here is that I have a gut feeling that the union employees turned down the 5% pay cut with a smile on their face, because they are going to sit back and collect unemployment for the next couples years. It also bothers me, because the answer to our economic woes is more jobs/more taxpayers, not less jobs/more "emergency" benefits.


I have a gut feeling that management is sitting there with a smile on their face because they knew not all the unions would accept the cuts with a smile on there face. See I can assume just like you.

Phatscotty wrote:Wages have been going down for a while. We're just on the other side of the longest Recession ever (that was not a depression). Unions needs to get real/adapt/evolve.


Wages have been going down for the worker. I do agree that unions have to rethink their positions.

Phatscotty wrote:And if you want to understand where I am coming from, just know that I get a letter in the mail regularly about how my union pension is 98% underfunded and at critical status. So yeah, I know how unions operate, where the money goes, how much is spent on administration, and given to slimy politicians who use their power opposite of my own interests....


I take your last statement with a grain of salt. Your credibility with me is at almost zero because of this post.

Phatscotty wrote:I have been giving up my annual cost of living increases just to hold on to my health insurance since 2003.....
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8352
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Lootifer on Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:51 pm

Phatscotty wrote:My biggest problem here is that I have a gut feeling that the union employees turned down the 5% pay cut with a smile on their face, because they are going to sit back and collect unemployment for the next couples years.

I find that hard to believe, but that is based on my NZ pov; we have a pretty big welfare safety net, but even then most low income workers would still rather work than collect the dole (aka welfare) - mostly because it'll be a pay cut (they get less from the doel than their low income job). I dont know if its different in the US; does welfare give you more cash per week than 40 hours of low income work? (I am aware of the welfare cliffs that patches posted, but you only get all of that welfare under certain circumstances such as solo mothers etc, so for sake of argument I am talking about a single working age individual).

It also bothers me, because the answer to our economic woes is more jobs/more taxpayers, not less jobs/more "emergency" benefits.

Government racking up debt to pay for welfare, or a failing company racking up debt to pay unhappy workers. Both are bad for the economy. The best solution is that hostess gets chopped up, sold off, the remaining assets are rejuvinated and some of the 18k workers are re-employed in a new more efficient organisation(s).

Wages have been going down for a while. We're just on the other side of the longest Recession ever (that was not a depression). Unions needs to get real/adapt/evolve. And if you want to understand where I am coming from, just know that I get a letter in the mail regularly about how my union pension is 98% underfunded and at critical status. So yeah, I know how unions operate, where the money goes, how much is spent on administration, and given to slimy politicians who use their power opposite of my own interests....

Im left wing, but im not a unionist by any stretch. As you say the union of old is an outdated entity. Im all for employees fighting collectively for their right, but I dont think you need a union to do it anymore.

However I dont think for a minute that the union decision to reject a wage cut was what caused Hostess to fail; it was the poor strategic management and rising costs (i.e. their balance sheet looked rubbish), I too would reject the pay cut (and not because I am not willing to suck it up for the company, but because the company has a track record of shithouse management). Those employees made the correct decision (via the union) I reckon.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:16 pm

I never said the union was old and outdated. I have specifically said unions have become too strong, too expensive, too regulatory and burdensome, and too powerful a lobby.

If you don't think the union rejection shut down Hostess, then you have to ask yourself this: What if the union voted yes? Why did the company close right after the rejection? And when it comes to rejecting the pay cut. The employees could quit and reject the company entirely by finding a new job at any time of their choosing. Obviously, it wasn't so bad they could no longer work there.....Besides, do you even know how much the employees were making in order to decide whether you would reject or accept the cut, or whether their decision was right or wrong?

Phatscotty wrote:Unions are like fire.

Yes, fire provides heat and cooks your food and provides light to see, and these are all good things, but if you don't keep an eye on the fire, it will burn down your house and kill everyone in your family...
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Dukasaur on Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:52 am

Phatscotty wrote:If you don't think the union rejection shut down Hostess, then you have to ask yourself this: What if the union voted yes? Why did the company close right after the rejection?

Simple answer: PR. The bosses who had run the company into the ground knew that the public has a short attention span and little patience for digging below superficial appearances. They knew that a lot of people would blame it on the union, exactly as has happened.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26963
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Previous

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dukasaur