Those unions watching out for their workers...

[mandelduke]

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

The mismanagement that’s costing American jobs, are the mismanagements in the unions.

 

[MachZer0]

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.

Management is going to be out of work too

 

[MachZer0]

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…
​

At least we've moved beyond blaming Bush

 

[[serious]]

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.

Let's approach this from a free market perspective.

The company was demanding such pay cuts that many workers would have been making less than they would get from unemployment. At that point the management had established a situation where market forces no longer disincentivized bankruptcy. Just as they can price their product such that there is no longer any demand for it, they can set their wages such that there is no longer any labor available. The management can no more blame workers for refusing further pay cuts than they can blame consumers for refusing further price increases. Both are simply manifestations of the invisible hand.

 

[MachZer0]

The mismanagement that’s costing American jobs, are the mismanagements in the unions.

 

[mathetes123]

Let's approach this from a free market perspective.

The company was demanding such pay cuts that many workers would have been making less than they would get from unemployment. At that point the management had established a situation where market forces no longer disincentivized bankruptcy. Just as they can price their product such that there is no longer any demand for it, they can set their wages such that there is no longer any labor available. The management can no more blame workers for refusing further pay cuts than they can blame consumers for refusing further price increases. Both are simply manifestations of the invisible hand.

The only problem is that union wages are not market wages, they are monopoly wages.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

The only problem is that union wages are not market wages, they are monopoly wages.

How so?

Unless you feel that management wages are also monopolistic.

ALSO: American history is replete with instances where companies have "busted" unions or moved to non-union places.

Hostess already had indicated they were going to close some facilities down. Clearly people were going to be out of work. Management had opted to not tell anyone exactly which facilities were going to be shuttered, so who knew if they would have a job or not.

It sounds like a game of russian roulette wherein Management gets to:

1. Pull the trigger
2. Knows where all the bullets are

If there's a "monopoly" here it is Management's monopoly on all the information and the choice to pull the trigger.

 

[[serious]]

The only problem is that union wages are not market wages, they are monopoly wages.

You seem to be trying to make an antiunion point here, but pointing out that the management has a monopoly on what they set as wages doesn't help your case.

I'm assuming you are trying to say that the union somehow dictates the wages they are paid, but this isn't the case at all. The union negotiates the wages as a block rather than negotiating individually. It's the equivalent of a group purchase. If Hostess was offering sufficient wages, they would be able to hire strikebreakers to work the machines.

 

[MachZer0]

How so?

Unless you feel that management wages are also monopolistic.

ALSO: American history is replete with instances where companies have "busted" unions or moved to non-union places.

Hostess already had indicated they were going to close some facilities down. Clearly people were going to be out of work. Management had opted to not tell anyone exactly which facilities were going to be shuttered, so who knew if they would have a job or not.

It sounds like a game of russian roulette wherein Management gets to:

1. Pull the trigger
2. Knows where all the bullets are

If there's a "monopoly" here it is Management's monopoly on all the information and the choice to pull the trigger.

Interestingly, Little Debbie has been put forth as an example of a company managed properly, and they hire nonunion workers. Interesting indeed.

 

[mathetes123]

You seem to be trying to make an antiunion point here, but pointing out that the management has a monopoly on what they set as wages doesn't help your case.

I'm assuming you are trying to say that the union somehow dictates the wages they are paid, but this isn't the case at all. The union negotiates the wages as a block rather than negotiating individually. It's the equivalent of a group purchase. If Hostess was offering sufficient wages, they would be able to hire strikebreakers to work the machines.

What are the wages for the non union workers in the same business? That's your market wage.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

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

And rich - unlike the other employees.
Unemployment kinda loses its menace if the only thing you'll ever have to worry about is what to do with all the free time and all the available cash.

 

[[serious]]

What are the wages for the non union workers in the same business? That's your market wage.

Can't find a wage for bakers, but shipping is 15-17 per hour at little debbie according to glassdoor.com.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

Unions can be an easy target to focus on for blame - despite the fact that historically they were often formed for solid reasons of protection.

I'm certain that in times where sharecroppers in the South - be it black or white - were not treated fairly (i.e. overworked without compensation, changing wages, etc.) and formed unions to protect themselves from being exploited, the ones making money off of them complained that they were hurting the economy the business contributed to....and yet it was never asked if a business should continue giving what was claimed to be contributions when the contributions themselves came through unjust means.

We see similar things when others complain of others not doing their job even though they were exploited in their jobs and no one said anything since others benefited from the product - with slavery in the Chocolate Industry being one example amongst many others involving others who people have suggested come together/resist the institution:

Slavery in the Chocolate Industry​

 

[MachZer0]

And rich - unlike the other employees.
Unemployment kinda loses its menace if the only thing you'll ever have to worry about is what to do with all the free time and all the available cash.

Generally speaking, CEO's are better off financially than bakers, truck drivers, etc.

 

[Thekla]

Unions can be an easy target to focus on for blame - despite the fact that historically they were often formed for solid reasons of protection.

I'm certain that in times where sharecroppers in the South - be it black or white - were not treated fairly (i.e. overworked without compensation, changing wages, etc.) and formed unions to protect themselves from being exploited, the ones making money off of them complained that they were hurting the economy the business contributed to....and yet it was never asked if a business should continue giving what was claimed to be contributions when the contributions themselves came through unjust means.

We see similar things when others complain of others not doing their job even though they were exploited in their jobs and no one said anything since others benefited from the product - with slavery in the Chocolate Industry being one example amongst many others involving others who people have suggested come together/resist the institution:

Slavery in the Chocolate Industry​

I do wonder why the response is often that employees are paid too much, yet the same folks don't question the salary of CEOs, mgmt etc. no matter how high the compensation ...

 

[MachZer0]

I do wonder why the response is often that employees are paid too much, yet the same folks don't question the salary of CEOs, mgmt etc. no matter how high the compensation ...

The reverse could also be argued

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I do wonder why the response is often that employees are paid too much, yet the same folks don't question the salary of CEOs, mgmt etc. no matter how high the compensation ...

It's easier to blame the workers than it is to see who benefits from the work. Martinez discussed this often when seeing the ways the Industrial Revolution occurred with the mindset that workers did work and were meant to be content with however they're treated because it was assumed that the employers were always treating them properly.

 

[Thekla]

It's easier to blame the workers than it is to see who benefits from the work. Martinez discussed this often when seeing the ways the Industrial Revolution occurred with the mindset that workers did work and were meant to be content with however they're treated because it was assumed that the employers were always treating them properly.

We seem to be returning to this sort of thing ...

(Though not entirely related, there was an interesting study by historian John Demos that found a correlation between the Industrial Revolution and increasing incidents of child abuse; the study is found in this book Past, Present, and Personal: The Family and the Life Course in American History: John Putnam Demos: 9780195047660: Amazon.com: Books)

 

[MachZer0]

It's easier to blame the workers than it is to see who benefits from the work. Martinez discussed this often when seeing the ways the Industrial Revolution occurred with the mindset that workers did work and were meant to be content with however they're treated because it was assumed that the employers were always treating them properly.

The workers benefit from their work

 

[kiwimac]

Only if they are paid a working wage otherwise only the management benefits from their work.