Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

aad0906 wrote:

spurgistan wrote:Yes, the private equity firms who wanted the unions to take cuts for the second time in three years probably didn't have anything to do with it. Probably.

Nope, it's not management's fault either. They did such a good job last year that they received 80% pay increase. But don't worry because the private equity firms, our nation's "job creators" will see their secured loans repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the brands/trademarks/recipe's.

Mother of pearl, you guys give me a headache. It looks like, if nothing else, the 2012 presidential election has generated a lot of angst against private equity firms. Private equity firms save jobs. There is no benefit to private equity owners if the business they just bought goes under. How is that hard to understand? I'm waiting for you all to start an anti-private equity group.

APEGPAC for America!!!!

AndyDufresne wrote:So it sounds the headline should be: "Hostess Run Into the Ground by a Changing America, though Unions Give it a Little Kick" Haha.


--Andy

Way to close to the truth for that title. Come on, be serious. This is a political discussion, we have no time for sanity. Grow up.

Also, I apologize for so many posts....I just happened to give up all the crap foods that hostess produced, and I have way more energy now...
though this whole discussion absolutely brings back the cravings for the crap.

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

aad0906 wrote:

spurgistan wrote:Yes, the private equity firms who wanted the unions to take cuts for the second time in three years probably didn't have anything to do with it. Probably.

Nope, it's not management's fault either. They did such a good job last year that they received 80% pay increase. But don't worry because the private equity firms, our nation's "job creators" will see their secured loans repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the brands/trademarks/recipe's.

Mother of pearl, you guys give me a headache. It looks like, if nothing else, the 2012 presidential election has generated a lot of angst against private equity firms. Private equity firms save jobs. There is no benefit to private equity owners if the business they just bought goes under. How is that hard to understand? I'm waiting for you all to start an anti-private equity group.

APEGPAC for America!!!!

That actually works.

thegreekdog wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

aad0906 wrote:

spurgistan wrote:Yes, the private equity firms who wanted the unions to take cuts for the second time in three years probably didn't have anything to do with it. Probably.

Nope, it's not management's fault either. They did such a good job last year that they received 80% pay increase. But don't worry because the private equity firms, our nation's "job creators" will see their secured loans repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the brands/trademarks/recipe's.

Mother of pearl, you guys give me a headache. It looks like, if nothing else, the 2012 presidential election has generated a lot of angst against private equity firms. Private equity firms save jobs. There is no benefit to private equity owners if the business they just bought goes under. How is that hard to understand? I'm waiting for you all to start an anti-private equity group.

APEGPAC for America!!!!

That actually works.

Oh, I know. Thats the problem. Stupid fucking people, enable stupid fucking things.

That being said, Im sure there are some PEG's out there, that have probably taken a little more than they've helped.

seems to be that we are placing the blame based on politics. The left blames the management/ownership, the right blames the union employees.

Everything is political starting now!

The illogical right blamed the unions initially, the left (and logical right) countered saying management was using pay cuts as a way to increase their salaries, the illogical right had nothing after that.

Well, it's not very illogical for me. If my job wanted to cut me 5%, I wouldn't walk out. Maybe I would start looking around or something, but when I worked at a union job, we were taking cuts every year. Cuts in pay, cuts in benefits, giving up raises. the main reason it wasn't a big deal to me was because I was earning a damn good wage, and I had a super hot girlfriend that I was trying to marry and she was very expensive...

If you're being told to take pay cuts knowing the cuts will be put to good use, like paying the bills and keeping the shop open or something - that's one thing.

If you're being told to take pay cuts knowing the cuts will be put toward increasing the salary of an incompetent management (it's a fact, the company was run horribly and the previous pay cuts were went straight to the pockets of management) - then you don't.

Conservatives believe it's so easy for the unemployed to work harder and they'll eventually find a job, don't they? Why wouldn't they accept the belief by the union workers that they can do better with their limited time, like a more fulfilling job with management that isn't forcing workers to take pay cuts specifically so they can line their own pockets and contribute nothing to turning the company around?

One could make an argument that an investigation should be made proving whether or not management was doing this intentionally knowing Hostess was a sinking sink ship and taking whatever money they could before it completely went under.

Of course, this conversation wouldn't be happening if the workers were the management.

Phatscotty wrote:seems to be that we are placing the blame based on politics. The left blames the management/ownership, the right blames the union employees.

Everything is political starting now!

Im not blaming it on politics. Im blaming people like you for making everything political.

I haven't blamed the demise on anyone. I know its probably a combination of many factors, and that this entire discussion was started with an absolutely absurd premise and title, as many nightstrikes are.

GreecePwns wrote:If you're being told to take pay cuts knowing the cuts will be put to good use, like paying the bills and keeping the shop open or something - that's one thing.

If you're being told to take pay cuts knowing the cuts will be put toward increasing the salary of an incompetent management (it's a fact, the company was run horribly and the previous pay cuts were went straight to the pockets of management) - then you don't.

Is that what the employees as hostess were told? Forgive me if I missed it earlier.

GreecePwns wrote:Conservatives believe it's so easy for the unemployed to work harder and they'll eventually find a job, don't they? Why wouldn't they accept the belief by the union workers that they can do better with their limited time, like a more fulfilling job with management that isn't forcing workers to take pay cuts specifically so they can line their own pockets and contribute nothing to turning the company around?

I'm not sure if that is a Conservative belief, but I believe that, yes. An able bodied person, in the current environment, absolutely can find "a" job. I think the main hang up, in my experience, is that many people can't find the job they want. I'm not sure anybody thinks it's easy. I don't agree with that part. Getting up in the morning to go to work is not "easy" either, so......

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:seems to be that we are placing the blame based on politics. The left blames the management/ownership, the right blames the union employees.

Everything is political starting now!

Im not blaming it on politics. Im blaming people like you for making everything political.

I haven't blamed the demise on anyone. I know its probably a combination of many factors, and that this entire discussion was started with an absolutely absurd premise and title, as many nightstrikes are.

Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

i heard Hostess got some bail out money from the government a few years back and then the upper management gave themselves up to an 80% pay raise or bonus. has anyone heard this? i heard it from a progressive tv show by Thom Hartman a few months ago..

warmonger1981 wrote:i heard Hostess got some bail out money from the government a few years back and then the upper management gave themselves up to an 80% pay raise or bonus. has anyone heard this? i heard it from a progressive tv show by Thom Hartman a few months ago..

If true, obviously that's total bullshit and unacceptable....but.....Isn't that what happened with all the bailout money with the other companies as well?

The corruption government intervention breeds is just one small reason why I have been against all government "bailouts" from day 1

Phatscotty wrote:Is that what the employees as hostess were told? Forgive me if I missed it earlier.

Of course they weren't told that outright. But that's exactly what has happened and what would have happened, as shown directly above.

GreecePwns wrote:
Of course, this conversation wouldn't be happening if the workers were the management.

What makes you think that?

An unprofitable business is unprofitable. You ignore all the other factors. By God, with the way people carry on about how fat Americans are then it's a good thing Hostess has gone the way of the dinosaur. Make up your minds people, Jesus.

Everybody is looking at it through their own lens of world view and it's ridiculous. Companies go bust all the time for a whole host of reasons, never for a single reason other than the product they produce becomes obsolete. The twinkie isn't obsolete, it's unhealthy.
Someone like a Michelle Obama, if she could, would have such things banned outright if she were able, and where does that leave the people who produce such things? On the street, of course.

And there is nothing wrong with private sector unions. A company has them, then fine, it's not like public sector unions.

If you look at the private sector union membership, you'll see that it spiked there just before and just after WWII and then has been in a steady decline ever since and is today at the lowest membership levels ever.
Those who think Unions are the shizznit will try to convince everyone that it's some evil plot to destroy the working class. This is untrue.

If you sit down and assign an arbitrary rate for pay and benefits, arbitrary rules on how the business must operate, then you hamstring yourself into being unable to change and adapt quickly to changing market conditions.
This is what has happened to Hostess.

For a company to stay in business, unionized or otherwise, that company must stay efficient, productive and above all, profitable.
The shareholders must be paid. The contracts must be honored, that includes the contracts with workers and management. The debts and expenses must be paid. And after all that then the company still has to be able to compete in the market place against rivals.
Hostess has been unable to do that.

The reason the private union membership has dropped to all time lows is because it adds expense and hurts efficiency. Those companies that were once unionized go bankrupt and have to close their doors before the companies that have more flexibility to change and adapt quicker. The bad processes are driven out, those processes that work survive.

If you think that unions are the only way to keep workers getting livable wages, then you are ignoring that earning livable wages is not possible just because you make a rule saying they must be paid. If what is being produced cannot earn enough money to pay those wages (on top of all the other things that the worker's never have to worry about*), then the business will not be in business for very long.

I'm not saying private unions are bad, it is what it is. I am saying that the unionized process is slower to adapt to the changing market conditions and such a thing is fatal to companies. This ultimately leads to what is happening to Hostess today.

But the sycophants and people with agendas will do everything they can to deflect and blame others for what is simply just a natural consequence.
It's nobody's fault. It just is. Hostess went belly up. Big Fucking Deal. Fat bastards will still get twinkies or their equivalent, the former Hostess employees (including management, who also are losing their jobs) will either find new jobs and be better for it in the long run with a better company or they'll mire in anger and angst. Either way, it's up to the individual to figure their own way through hard times.

Cause hard times always come and no union, nor company (no matter how well run), no government, no preacher, no priest, no doctor or anyone else can change that.


*You know, the initial capital required to even start the business, the financing, the expenses like power and material, complying with regulation, obtaining the permits and licenses, and all the other stuff that has to be taken care of that the worker is never responsible for.

GreecePwns wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Is that what the employees as hostess were told? Forgive me if I missed it earlier.

Of course they weren't told that outright. But that's exactly what has happened and what would have happened, as shown directly above.

When you say "shown above" are you referring to Warmonger saying he thought he heard something on one of the most biased shows in existence?

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

Phatscotty wrote:Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

As far as taking one for the team. When management receives the same compensation package [insurance, stock options, vacation, etc, etc] as the workers then the workers might have been more willing to take the pay cuts. Yeah management took a pay cut but after the raises they received they could afford it.

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

Phatscotty wrote:Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

As far as taking one for the team. When management receives the same compensation package [insurance, stock options, vacation, etc, etc] as the workers then the workers might have been more willing to take the pay cuts. Yeah management took a pay cut but after the raises they received they could afford it.

ty

patches70 wrote:
For a company to stay in business, unionized or otherwise, that company must stay efficient, productive and above all, profitable.
The shareholders must be paid. The contracts must be honored, that includes the contracts with workers and management. The debts and expenses must be paid. And after all that then the company still has to be able to compete in the market place against rivals.
Hostess has been unable to do that.

The reason the private union membership has dropped to all time lows is because it adds expense and hurts efficiency. Those companies that were once unionized go bankrupt and have to close their doors before the companies that have more flexibility to change and adapt quicker. The bad processes are driven out, those processes that work survive.

Then how could Unions have ever existed in the first place, let alone grow.

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

Phatscotty wrote:Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

As far as taking one for the team. When management receives the same compensation package [insurance, stock options, vacation, etc, etc] as the workers then the workers might have been more willing to take the pay cuts. Yeah management took a pay cut but after the raises they received they could afford it.

ty

wait a sec. Are you saying that the top management level should have the same compensation as the minimum wage/no skill level positions? I don't think that will ever happen, not even in a Marxist Utopia

whether or not they can afford it, I don't see how you could possibly have any information knowing if that is true or not.

Phatscotty wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:seems to be that we are placing the blame based on politics. The left blames the management/ownership, the right blames the union employees.

Everything is political starting now!

Im not blaming it on politics. Im blaming people like you for making everything political.

I haven't blamed the demise on anyone. I know its probably a combination of many factors, and that this entire discussion was started with an absolutely absurd premise and title, as many nightstrikes are.

Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

You realize the entire idea of taking one for the team is essentially communism right?

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:seems to be that we are placing the blame based on politics. The left blames the management/ownership, the right blames the union employees.

Everything is political starting now!

Im not blaming it on politics. Im blaming people like you for making everything political.

I haven't blamed the demise on anyone. I know its probably a combination of many factors, and that this entire discussion was started with an absolutely absurd premise and title, as many nightstrikes are.

Well, in all honesty, the union employees could have taken one for the team, right?

You realize the entire idea of taking one for the team is essentially communism right?

I took one for the team last night so my buddy could get laid...nobody called me a Communist tho

It was a voluntary action on my part. Nice dodge though

Juan_Bottom wrote:Then how could Unions have ever existed in the first place, let alone grow.

Because conditions are different now than when unions began forming.

That's the point I'm making, changing conditions always require changing responses. Unions are slow to change, are they not?

At it's peak (in the 1940's) the private labor unions were about 34% of workers were in a union. Public sector union membership at the same time was around 10%.

In 2009, the number was 7% of workers were in a labor union. At the same time, public union membership is around 36%.

show

As I've said, I have no problem at all with private unions. I just think individuals should be given a choice, though, and I suppose they do in a way. That is, one should not be required to join a union. However, if a company requires that it's workers be in a union and an individual wishes not to be, then the individual need not work there.

But that's a whole other issue.

One of the biggest killers of private labor unions is, Globalization. It's ironic, the very people who are all gaga over unions and just think they are great, are also the very people who say things like "The US needs to start being part of the World community instead of trying to rule over it", or "The UN should hold precedence over the Constitution" or the anti-nationalistic or those who don't believe in State sovereignty above that of global institutions (like the UN) and other such pro globalization stances.

It's hard for US companies which often enough by union contract must pay for generous benefits and wages (which is all good, a deal is a deal, after all) but in other nations, with whom these companies must compete, don't give a rat's azz about such things.
What would be considered a living wage in someplace, like India, is far different than what you would call a living wage.

Thus, the unionized companies, unable to compete with other companies based in countries with much cheaper labor costs (because that's what unions are in many ways, labor costs) go out of business or leave the country. Either way, all those unions jobs go away, don't they?

If you think about it, complaining that a place like China is unfair to it's workers, is ironic being as everyone is supposedly treated the same. There is no need for labor unions in China, because after all, it was the workers who are supposedly in charge (though we know the truth, don't we?). Theoretically.

Even if these other nations were forced by the WTO to create labor unions, do you think the demands in those nations would be the same as those in the US? Where our workers would need, IDK, what's a livable wage these days? I guess it depends on the region, but lets say it $20 an hour. In some third world nation, the equivalent cost would be something like $5 an hour, and the workers would think it's great. Especially as many of you have noted, the people in many other nations of the world make it by with mere pennies on the dollar what the typical family in the US needs.

Just sayin' is all. The unions operate in a vacuum, or try to at least. The Union is supposed to get the most they can for the worker, despite what the conditions around the world would dictate what the wages and benefits can be and still maintain a business. The union has a narrow view, but there are always factors outside that view that affect companies and the workers. And often enough it's out of the control of the companies and the unions and the workers.



The Hostess people walked off the job. Hostess went Kaput. So what's the problem? The workers walked off the job, they took a risk, didn't they? It didn't pay off this time. But it's ok because now those workers can find new jobs, possibly better jobs, depending on the individual and the skill sets they possess.
After all, isn't the economy improving?
Isn't that what we are told, that's the line of the Central Government? That things are working? That the Administrations economic plans are bearing fruit?
If so, then no worries, these people will find jobs and in the grand scheme of things people will be better off (so long as the propaganda we are being fed is true....)

And that's what it really comes down to. The skills of the individual. The more skills one has the greater opportunities life offers. Those who are unskilled are going to have a much harder time making it. And there is nothing truly unfair about that, that's just the consequences individuals must face for their own decisions.

Unions in general are a good idea and a good thing. Unions that grow into monsters and start shutting out younger workers and put their own interests in front of student education or profitability and are run by Socialists and Communists are a bad thing.

Phatscotty wrote:Unions in general are a good idea and a good thing. Unions that grow into monsters and start shutting out younger workers and put their own interests in front of student education or profitability and are run by Socialists and Communists are a bad thing.

Who should Unions be run by Scotty?