Those unions watching out for their workers...

[rturner76]

Semiblind post: Didn't I read somewhere the dispute was that they would not accept a pay DECREASE? I would have voted NO on that contract as well. That is why we unionize. To collectively bargain for fair wages. The company was mismanaged. The workers did their job.

 

[variant]

Semiblind post: Didn't I read somewhere the dispute was that they would not accept a pay DECREASE? I would have voted NO on that contract as well. That is why we unionize. To collectively bargain for fair wages. The company was mismanaged. The workers did their job.

They've accepted several, they didn't want to accept the latest which would have meant their pay would be reduced to 25,000 year over the next couple of years after having their employee contribution based pension raided earlier this year.

In essence they didn't see much difference between the job they were being offered and non-factory work in terms of compensation so why collectively bargain at all?

 

[mathetes123]

They've accepted several, they didn't want to accept the latest which would have meant their pay would be reduced to 25,000 year over the next couple of years after having their employee contribution based pension raided earlier this year.

It's better than what they have now.

 

[variant]

It's better than what they have now.

Is it?

It's better to negotiate your own pay rather than work in a collective bargaining agreement without decent pay or benefits.

Especially if you are working for a failing company that can't or wont offer you better in the future but instead offers worse regardless of your performance.

 

[mathetes123]

Is it?

It's better to negotiate your own pay rather than work in a collective bargaining agreement without decent pay or benefits.

It's better than unemployment which is what they chose by killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

[mathetes123]

It's better than unemployment which is what they chose by killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Who is to say the reason they were failing is not because they were paying higher wages than the market will bear which is often the case where unions are involved.

 

[rturner76]

I would have voted NO for every pay cut straight down the line. America doesn't want any more Twinkies they need to start selling them to Brasil or Argentina or somewhere they don't have Twinkies yet. Either that or start getting into other businesses and distributing other products.

 

[variant]

It's better than unemployment which is what they chose by killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

The "golden egg" was a job for 11.50 an hr from a company that just stole money from your employee contributed pension.

Daily Kos: Inside the Hostess Bankery

I would pass.

 

[rturner76]

They sold $2.5 BILLION in product last year.

THey did not need to steal these people's pension fund

 

[variant]

They sold $2.5 BILLION in product last year.

THey did not need to steal these people's pension fund

It's not that they needed to it's that they could.

They "borrowed" money from the pension fund and then went bankrupt and had a judge rule the money they "borrowed" a debt that they couldn't repay.

They had a judge ratify a contract before presenting it to the union so they couldn't be held liable when the company was forced to liquidate.

Corporate raiders if you ask me, they wanted to sell off this company piece by piece from the beginning. The Union was just a small stumbling block on their way.

 

[Steve Petersen]

It's not that they needed to it's that they could.

They "borrowed" money from the pension fund and then went bankrupt and had a judge rule the money they "borrowed" a debt that they couldn't repay.

They had a judge ratify a contract before presenting it to the union so they couldn't be held liable when the company was forced to liquidate.

Corporate raiders if you ask me, they wanted to sell off this company piece by piece from the beginning. The Union was just a small stumbling block on their way.

A judge? So it was legal then?

 

[variant]

A judge? So it was legal then?

Yes, you can steal peoples money legally sometimes.

If you can find out how to do such things they might pay you 300 times the average worker.

Oh, I'm sorry "borrow" without the intention to repay.

So, you wish to defend the practice of stealing peoples pensions by "borrowing" the money and then declaring bankruptcy?

Is there any corporate practice that you won't defend?

 

[whatbogsends]

Yes, you can steal peoples money legally sometimes.

Oh, I'm sorry "borrow" without the intention to repay.

So, you wish to defend the practice of stealing peoples pensions by "borrowing" the money and then declaring bankruptcy?

Is there any corporate practice that you won't defend?

This is exactly the shell game corporations play. They go bankrupt, fail to repay creditors, investors, and employee pensions, and then these same management folks reappear in another corporate structure, having plucked what little fruit was left off of the previous company. Just as Donald Trump has had different businesses declare bankruptcy, yet profiting while failing to repay investors, and restructuring assets to avoid liability.

The free markets advocates don't seem to have any ethical qualms about how money is "earned", their definition seems to be - if it is legal (even if only due to what are considered by most to be loopholes), it is de facto ethical. We have a system where bribery is codified (lobbying), personal accountability is limited (bankruptcy), and wages have been significantly disconnected from value added from labor - and yet the only problem our resident "free market advocates" have is government investment in green energy.

 

[Steve Petersen]

So the judge is not the goverment? What laws did he pass to do this? Oh, judges can't make law, they can only rule on it. That means there was a legislature involved in the mess.

 

[MachZer0]

Couple points: not every job is "truck driving" (and even then a CEO is not guaranteed to be able to drive a truck, that actually is a skill), but as I gave the example earlier: I'm a PhD scientist. I work in a chemical lab. There are only a tiny fraction of Americans who have a PhD. The CEO of the company I work for only has an MBA. There are many, many more MBA's than PhD's. It requires many more years of work to get a PhD.

Why do I not make 150 times what the CEO of my company does? The CEO of the company I work for would actually probably hurt themselves in my work place before they'd be able to do any good, such is the nature of our different jobs.

AND, without the research scientists in the company the company would have a very tough time competing.

The CEO, without benefit of all the work we do, would be just another suit sitting in a big empty conference room.



So why would a PhD make much less than an MBA?

Seems your argument fails.

The nly way the argument fails is if every MBA made 150 times what you make. They don't

My suggestion to you is that if you think your PHD makes you a better candidate for the 150 times salary, apply for the job that pays that salary. My guess is that your PHD doesn't qualify you to run the company.

 

[variant]

So the judge is not the goverment? What laws did he pass to do this? Oh, judges can't make law, they can only rule on it. That means there was a legislature involved in the mess.

Yes, we should blame the government when they legitimize corporate malfeasance.

We should also blame the people who paid good money to lobby them.

Perhaps if there were no government involvement these people would become saints instead of using their money and power to step on the less fortunate.

What do you think?

 

[MachZer0]

I think a CEO's value has been overestimated when they are paid more than 300 times the average worker to run the business into the ground.

When you see a CEO running a business into the ground, go to the board of directors and tell them you will rescue the company for half the CEO's salary, or even less. Tell us how it works out.

 

[variant]

When you see a CEO running a business into the ground, go to the board of directors and tell them you will rescue the company for half the CEO's salary, or even less. Tell us how it works out.

Usually the board is pretty happy to run companies into the ground if they get theirs.

 

[MachZer0]

Usually the board is pretty happy to run companies into the ground if they get theirs.

Non sequitur

 

[TeddyReceptus]

The nly way the argument fails is if every MBA made 150 times what you make. They don't

My suggestion to you is that if you think your PHD makes you a better candidate for the 150 times salary, apply for the job that pays that salary. My guess is that your PHD doesn't qualify you to run the company.

Um, the "h" is usually lower case in PhD. Just an FYI. (Don't worry, I don't hold it against you not knowing this. There are so few PhD's in America and even fewer are in the Sciences so you are obviously among a large number who know almost nothing about these things.)

But otherwise I find your naivete charming. Sadly uninformed and simplistic.