Those unions watching out for their workers...

[MachZer0]

Of COURSE they did!

A rare moment of agreement

 

[mathetes123]

Where I worked there was a gal that wanted her 2 year vacation on unemployment - she made up some unbelievable excuse as to why she quit - my boss was in real estate and was doing business with a person getting out of prison - she said she felt threatened by this person and quit - my boss fought it and sent copies of the correspondence from the gentleman and there was nothing there that was threatening and she was denied the unemployment. So they still do enforce this.

Unions are not capitalistic. They hold a monopoly. If forced to compete without laws protecting their monopoly, they would not be able to compete.

 

[[serious]]

The product they make is not in as high demand as it once was, that's true. However, when the workers are making a product in lower demand during a time when the economy is down, they can't expect to have their wages increased and in this case for their wages to remain at the same level. When they go on strike while the company is in bankruptcy, refusing to accept the fact that their services are no longer in demand at the previous level, and they are notified that failure to return to work will result in liquidation of the company, then by refusing to work, they cut their own throats and are not deserving of government assistance in the form of unemployment benefits.

The company was notified that failing to negotiate in good conscience would result in a strike. Thus the company made the choice.

The company made the choice to refuse to use the additional investments it received to make needed updates.

And since you've already acknowledged this as the chief reason for the bankruptcy, the company chose not to aggressively pursue diversification into other areas of the market.

But yeah, the union refusing cuts that would mean a more than 50% paycut from what wages were 10 years ago is totally what we should fixate on.

 

[[serious]]

Unions are not capitalistic. They hold a monopoly. If forced to compete without laws protecting their monopoly, they would not be able to compete.

Nope. You can switch unions. You can even dissolve them.

 

[MachZer0]

The company was notified that failing to negotiate in good conscience would result in a strike. Thus the company made the choice.

The company negotiated in good faith

The company made the choice to refuse to use the additional investments it received to make needed updates.

And since you've already acknowledged this as the chief reason for the bankruptcy, the company chose not to aggressively pursue diversification into other areas of the market.

But yeah, the union refusing cuts that would mean a more than 50% paycut from what wages were 10 years ago is totally what we should fixate on.

The proposed pay cuts were 8%, not 50% of wages 10 years ago, and were to be temporary. Again, the workers chose not to work and will now get the they chose. They will not be working. I see no reason for them to get assistance when they got what they wanted

 

[TeddyReceptus]

The company negotiated in good faith

Is that why they tried to offer the CEO a big pay increase up to $1.5 million to help oversee the bankruptcy?

The proposed pay cuts were 8%, not 50% of wages 10 years ago, and were to be temporary. Again, the workers chose not to work and will now get the they chose. They will not be working. I see no reason for them to get assistance when they got what they wanted

The executives won't be working either. I wonder how they will survive! Oh, wait, they had a truckload of cash to begin with.

So much for "skin in the game".

LOL!

This is the New Version of Fairness in America.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The proposed pay cuts were 8%, not 50% of wages 10 years ago, and were to be temporary.

How temporary?

 

[MachZer0]

Is that why they tried to offer the CEO a big pay increase up to $1.5 million to help oversee the bankruptcy?

The executives won't be working either. I wonder how they will survive! Oh, wait, they had a truckload of cash to begin with.

So much for "skin in the game".

LOL!

This is the New Version of Fairness in America.

My guess is that managing a bankruptcy requires a tad more skill than squeezing cream into a Twinkie

 

[MachZer0]

How temporary?

A few years with incremental increases. Seems like a better deal than what the (non) workers ultimately opted for themselves

 

[TeddyReceptus]

My guess is that managing a bankruptcy requires a tad more skill than squeezing cream into a Twinkie

There's always an excuse isn't there?

even when it's the same "skillset" that oversaw them go into Bankruptcy the second time, eh?

 

[[serious]]

The company negotiated in good faith

The proposed pay cuts were 8%, not 50% of wages 10 years ago, and were to be temporary. Again, the workers chose not to work and will now get the they chose. They will not be working. I see no reason for them to get assistance when they got what they wanted

The latest proposed cut was an additional 8% over and above previously negotiated cuts. Those previous cuts were supposed to be temporary too. But no, mach, they didn't mean it, they just get angry, I mean greedy sometimes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

A few years with incremental increases.

incremental negative increases, you mean -- the 8% was on top of previous "temporary" cuts.

"Yes, yes, peons -- these cuts are only temporary... until the next cut."

 

[MachZer0]

There's always an excuse isn't there?

Which in no way demonstrates that the excuse is not valid

even when it's the same "skillset" that oversaw them go into Bankruptcy the second time, eh?

Except that the CEO in charge now of the bankruptcy is not the same as the one in charge before

 

[MachZer0]

The latest proposed cut was an additional 8% over and above previously negotiated cuts. Those previous cuts were supposed to be temporary too. But no, mach, they didn't mean it, they just get angry, I mean greedy sometimes.

What were the previous cuts?

 

[MachZer0]

incremental negative increases, you mean -- the 8% was on top of previous "temporary" cuts.

"Yes, yes, peons -- these cuts are only temporary... until the next cut."

The offer was incremental increases.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Except that the CEO in charge now of the bankruptcy is not the same as the one in charge before

But the one offered the raise to $1.5 million was.

 

[MachZer0]

But the one offered the raise to $1.5 million was.

And he resigned

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't know why people keep saying Hostess was making a product no one wanted anymore.

Firstly, Twinkies weren't the only things that Hostess made. Secondly, Twinkies were still making money for the company. Third, if it was really truly that people were trending toward eating healthy, you'd be seeing Little Debbie going out of business too. Far as I can tell (they're a privately owned company and don't publish numbers) they're still going strong.

Little Debbie version of Twinkies isn't as great as the real thing, but it's good enough.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interestingly enough the argument for the "corporations are people" thing often involves discussions of how they're made up of individual people. Of course, the same is true of unions, but let's ignore that.
.

In some cases, the corporations are indeed the people. Some corporations operating in ways akin to communalism...a lived sharing of a common ethos and goal. I'm reminded of the Mondragon Corporation, which is a worker owned, highly successful multinational where all decisions are made by the democratic vote of the worker-owners. There is a start-up in Cleveland (iirc) which is based on the same model and is apparently doing well - and they've recently expanded from laundry to a stand-alone produce company (growing and selling).

The Mondragon approach does hold a lot to offer, especially seeing how it combined the efforts of the workers with the corporation together Loved studying the system and the fruit it's bringing:

The Cleveland Model - YouTube​

• Richmond, CA Co-ops modeled after Mondragon, Spain
• In Cleveland, Worker Co-Ops Look to a Spanish Model - TIME
• Aaron Bartley: Rust Belt Cities and the New Urban Agrarianism
• Not‐Just‐For‐Profit Alternative Business Models - Community ...
• Cleveland Goes to Mondragon - Ohio Employee Ownership Center
• Mondragon, Cleveland, Sacramento << Corporate and No One Gets Hurt

 

[TLK Valentine]

The offer was incremental increases.

And their past actions show just how insincere that offer was.