Those unions watching out for their workers...

[Jane_the_Bane]

It seems to me that the position of the Political Right is even more simplistic than the most starry-eyed leftist approach.

The Management is GOOD, and if they want to treat themselves to some extra loot while the ship goes down, expecting their lowly serfs to bear the brunt of the damage, then that is their god-given right!

It's basically a 21st century version of absolutism, except that the contemporary aristocracy has traded titles like "duke" and "margrave" for "CEO" and "Chairman of the Board". And there are indeed some fawning simpletons who worship the ground on which these people tread.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

And he resigned

Doesn't change the fact that HE WAS OFFERED THE RAISE BY THE REST OF THE MANAGEMENT!

And the rest of that management probably in place right now.

Do you see how they might have lost some "trust" with the workers who were being asked by the same management group to take more cuts?

 

[TeddyReceptus]

It seems to me that the position of the Political Right is even more simplistic than the most starry-eyed leftist approach.

The Management is GOOD, and if they want to treat themselves to some extra loot while the ship goes down, expecting their lowly serfs to bear the brunt of the damage, then that is their god-given right!

It's basically a 21st century version of absolutism, except that the contemporary aristocracy has traded titles like "duke" and "margrave" for "CEO" and "Chairman of the Board". And there are indeed some fawning simpletons who worship the ground on which these people tread.

This is it exactly. The "cult of the CEO" today is just that. A form of "royalty worship".

There is really little different between how earlier societies treated royalty and how we treat executives.

Note the parallels:

Royals were thought to be imbued by God with their rights and mandate. CEO's are thought to be imbued by "The Market" with their rights and mandate for a given value.

Both were actually chosen by groups of people for political and market choices with little actual care for what "God" or "The Market" thought.

Both are overly pampered and the justification is that "Uneasy Lies the Head the Wears the Crown".

How many times have you heard how hard it is to be a CEO, so of course we give them the right to take family on the corporate jet, and of course we help them get financial advice for their personal finances, and of course we provide them with personal security for their homes, etc etc.

The real difference actually is that many on the Right defend excessive CEO pay because at some deeper level it reassures them that amazing opportunities are available for everyone! If you take away from those who have clawed their way to the top, even a tiny bit taken away, it will "disincentivize" everyone else.

It's like the lottery. Many on the Right fantasize that maybe one day they'll be wealthy beyond avarice, when in fact, like the lottery, they never will. They'll be average joes and janes forever. But it's a great dream!

And in order to keep the dream alive it must be nurtured for those who already won the lottery.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It seems to me that the position of the Political Right is even more simplistic than the most starry-eyed leftist approach.

The Management is GOOD, and if they want to treat themselves to some extra loot while the ship goes down, expecting their lowly serfs to bear the brunt of the damage, then that is their god-given right!

It's basically a 21st century version of absolutism, except that the contemporary aristocracy has traded titles like "duke" and "margrave" for "CEO" and "Chairman of the Board". And there are indeed some fawning simpletons who worship the ground on which these people tread.

I think you're oversimplifying the "Right's" approach to this.

Several times it has been maintained that the company was mismanaged. I don't think that's in dispute.

What's in dispute is who caused the shutdown. Right now, had the Bakers union approved the contracts, there'd be 18,000 people with jobs during the holidays. It is the union's immediate action that has caused the shutdown.

This does not mean that we think the company would succeed with an approval. But what we recognize is that a job that is not paying as much as it used to is still far better than no job at all, and that at least these people could've been looking for other jobs while still employed.

Yes the company screwed up. But the union screwed up bigger. Take a stand all you want, but these guys screwed around with 13,000 other jobs that really weren't theirs to screw around with.

 

[Thekla]

This is it exactly. The "cult of the CEO" today is just that. A form of "royalty worship".

There is really little different between how earlier societies treated royalty and how we treat executives.

Note the parallels:

Royals were thought to be imbued by God with their rights and mandate. CEO's are thought to be imbued by "The Market" with their rights and mandate for a given value.

Both were actually chosen by groups of people for political and market choices with little actual care for what "God" or "The Market" thought.

Both are overly pampered and the justification is that "Uneasy Lies the Head the Wears the Crown".

How many times have you heard how hard it is to be a CEO, so of course we give them the right to take family on the corporate jet, and of course we help them get financial advice for their personal finances, and of course we provide them with personal security for their homes, etc etc.

The real difference actually is that many on the Right defend excessive CEO pay because at some deeper level it reassures them that amazing opportunities are available for everyone! If you take away from those who have clawed their way to the top, even a tiny bit taken away, it will "disincentivize" everyone else.

It's like the lottery. Many on the Right fantasize that maybe one day they'll be wealthy beyond avarice, when in fact, like the lottery, they never will. They'll be average joes and janes forever. But it's a great dream!

And in order to keep the dream alive it must be nurtured for those who already won the lottery.

There certainly is a curious pattern - instead of an analysis of events long-term, the characterization is that the company's failure is wholly the fault of the Union/s, and the management bears no responsibility.

 

[mathetes123]

I think you're oversimplifying the "Right's" approach to this.

Several times it has been maintained that the company was mismanaged. I don't think that's in dispute.

What's in dispute is who caused the shutdown. Right now, had the Bakers union approved the contracts, there'd be 18,000 people with jobs during the holidays. It is the union's immediate action that has caused the shutdown.

This does not mean that we think the company would succeed with an approval. But what we recognize is that a job that is not paying as much as it used to is still far better than no job at all, and that at least these people could've been looking for other jobs while still employed.

Yes the company screwed up. But the union screwed up bigger. Take a stand all you want, but these guys screwed around with 13,000 other jobs that really weren't theirs to screw around with.

Well said.

 

[Thekla]

I think you're oversimplifying the "Right's" approach to this.

Several times it has been maintained that the company was mismanaged. I don't think that's in dispute.

What's in dispute is who caused the shutdown. Right now, had the Bakers union approved the contracts, there'd be 18,000 people with jobs during the holidays. It is the union's immediate action that has caused the shutdown.

This does not mean that we think the company would succeed with an approval. But what we recognize is that a job that is not paying as much as it used to is still far better than no job at all, and that at least these people could've been looking for other jobs while still employed.

Yes the company screwed up. But the union screwed up bigger. Take a stand all you want, but these guys screwed around with 13,000 other jobs that really weren't theirs to screw around with.

How can the Union "screw up" be bigger than running the company into the ground (twice) in the first place

I can't imagine that the employees would keep their job if they failed to do it, yet the mgmt failed to do their job and were handsomely rewarded for their failure.

 

[MachZer0]

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

Or they reflect the poor economic conditions, 4 long years of stagnation

 

[TLK Valentine]

And he resigned

Would've lost his golden parachute had he waited for the company to liquidate.

Even a rat knows when to abandon a sinking ship.

 

[MachZer0]

I think you're oversimplifying the "Right's" approach to this.

Several times it has been maintained that the company was mismanaged. I don't think that's in dispute.

What's in dispute is who caused the shutdown. Right now, had the Bakers union approved the contracts, there'd be 18,000 people with jobs during the holidays. It is the union's immediate action that has caused the shutdown.

This does not mean that we think the company would succeed with an approval. But what we recognize is that a job that is not paying as much as it used to is still far better than no job at all, and that at least these people could've been looking for other jobs while still employed.

Yes the company screwed up. But the union screwed up bigger. Take a stand all you want, but these guys screwed around with 13,000 other jobs that really weren't theirs to screw around with.

It should be noted as well that if the market changes, a company has choices, to either tread on, change it's products or go out of business. But the employee also has choices. If he works for a company that makes a product that is no longer as popular as it once was, he has to decide to either tread on or learn more skills to work making a product in higher demand. These employees decided to demand more money to make a product that didn't produce the revenue to support their demands. Now they will pay the price.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I think you're oversimplifying the "Right's" approach to this.

Several times it has been maintained that the company was mismanaged. I don't think that's in dispute.

Just one question: have you read Mach Zer0's posts?

 

[MachZer0]

Would've lost his golden parachute had he waited for the company to liquidate.

Even a rat knows when to abandon a sinking ship.

CEO's generally have contracts that have to be met even when they leave the company, similar to professional athletes. So with the company sinking, and our liberal friends claiming it was mismanaged, would you prefer he stay or leave?

 

[TLK Valentine]

And of course, the employee has the choice to take a(nother) "temporary" pay cut to cover the cost of (more) mismanagement, or not to.

How dare they choose not to!

 

[MachZer0]

And of course, the employee has the choice to take a(nother) "temporary" pay cut to cover the cost of (more) mismanagement, or not to.

How dare they choose not to!

Just for the record, that's exactly what they chose, and we see the result. As I've said, I'm hopeful that they will be denied unemployment benefits. Decisions have consequences

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Just one question: have you read Mach Zer0's posts?

I'll answer your question with a question of my own. Since when does MachZero represent the entirety of the Political Right?

And of course, the employee has the choice to take a(nother) "temporary" pay cut to cover the cost of (more) mismanagement, or not to.

How dare they choose not to!

They caused the unemployment of 13,000 other workers. Exactly how did their actions help ANYONE??

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Decisions have consequences

Unless you happen to be a CEO. In that case, it does not matter whether you drive your company into the ground or lead it to new heights - you'll end up with a huge pile of money anyway.

 

[MachZer0]

Unless you happen to be a CEO. In that case, it does not matter whether you drive your company into the ground or lead it to new heights - you'll end up with a huge pile of money anyway.

While we haven't seen any real evidence that he "drove the company into the ground", we do know that like the other employees, he also became unemployed

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just for the record, that's exactly what they chose, and we see the result. As I've said, I'm hopeful that they will be denied unemployment benefits. Decisions have consequences

Unless you're in management -- then you can screw up six ways from Sunday and then blame the peons for refusing to pay for it.

 

[Assyrian]

My favorite tweet on Hostess:

https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/269984843687948289
LOLGOP@LOLGOP
The gift Mitt gave us: Now you can just say, "That Hostess
thing was a Bain kind of deal" and people shake their heads.
alternet.org/bye-twinkies-a…
​

 

[Thekla]

My favorite tweet on Hostess:

https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/269984843687948289
LOLGOP@LOLGOP
The gift Mitt gave us: Now you can just say, "That Hostess
thing was a Bain kind of deal" and people shake their heads.
alternet.org/bye-twinkies-a…
​

I followed your link and found this:

In fact, according to the company’s 1113 filing with the bankruptcy court earlier this year as well as its last/best/final and non-negotiable proposal to its BCTGM-represented workers, the company was planning to close at least nine bakeries as part of its reorganization plan, although the company refused to disclose which bakeries it intended to close. This is in addition to the three bakeries that were to be closed as a result of the company’s planned sale of its Merita division.
Moreover, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was quoted in a November 13 KMOX-CBS St. Louis article stating, “I was told months ago they were planning on closing the site in St. Louis… And there was no indication at that time it had anything to do with the strike the workers were waging.”
Daily Kos: Hostess lies about strike causing possible plant closings

Perhaps they knew what the "popular" account would be (the fault of the employees) ...