Those unions watching out for their workers...

true2theword · Nov 16, 2012

Considering the products that "Hostess" produces, humanity would be better served if they never pulled another thing out of the oven, let them go bankrupt, they sell garbage and call it food

PreachersWife2004 · Nov 16, 2012

true2theword said:
Considering the products that "Hostess" produces, humanity would be better served if they never pulled another thing out of the oven, let them go bankrupt, they sell garbage and call it food

I take it you've never eaten it then?

And hey, while we're at it, let's just shut down all the Fast Food restaurants as well because they serve unhealthy stuff! Shut down the tobacco factories!! Shut down the candy bar manufacturers!!!

Maynard Keenan · Nov 16, 2012

The major flaw, contained right in the title, is thinking of the workers as one thing and the union as another thing. The workers ARE the union. The workers voted, and rejected the contract. This isn't the union doing something to the workers, this was the workers saying "Our labor costs more than that, if that's what you're offering, then we aren't selling our labor." That's capitalism in action. This company wasn't able - whether due to market forces or bad management or whatever - to survive in the market and so they failed. Capitalism isn't a one way street where owners are the only ones who get negotiating power, and the sales side isn't the only place competition occurs.

Maynard Keenan · Nov 16, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
I take it you've never eaten it then?

And hey, while we're at it, let's just shut down all the Fast Food restaurants as well because they serve unhealthy stuff! Shut down the tobacco factories!! Shut down the candy bar manufacturers!!!

Ridiculous straw man. Nobody is talking about shutting anyone down. It would actually be a good thing if, due to lack of demand, tobacco factories shut down. But nobody is talking about forcibly doing anything - they're talking about the invisible hand of the free market doing its job.

kermit · Nov 16, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
source for the 80%?

http://www.teamsters26.org/Flyers to Add/HOSTESS MANIPULATED PAY.pdf

However, in response they rolled back the raises. http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/New...executives to roll back pay raises.aspx?cck=1

PreachersWife2004 · Nov 16, 2012

Maynard Keenan said:
The major flaw, contained right in the title, is thinking of the workers as one thing and the union as another thing. The workers ARE the union. The workers voted, and rejected the contract. This isn't the union doing something to the workers, this was the workers saying "Our labor costs more than that, if that's what you're offering, then we aren't selling our labor." That's capitalism in action. This company wasn't able - whether due to market forces or bad management or whatever - to survive in the market and so they failed. Capitalism isn't a one way street where owners are the only ones who get negotiating power, and the sales side isn't the only place competition occurs.

You're pretty naive if you think the "workers ARE the union". It hasn't been that way for quite some time now.

Unions are not capitalism. There were people that were crossing the picket lines to go to work so not everyone agreed with the bakers union. The teamsters union approved the contract. Which union is more correct?

The very fact that the workers are striking is what is causing the shut downs. Now, instead of a job where they were making slightly less, they're making nothing at all. Who wins?

whatbogsends · Nov 16, 2012

kermit said:
http://www.teamsters26.org/Flyers to Add/HOSTESS MANIPULATED PAY.pdf

Thanks, kermit. I saw the 80% claim echoed throughout the internet, but was having trouble finding a good source for it.

eldermike · Nov 16, 2012

Maynard Keenan said:
The major flaw, contained right in the title, is thinking of the workers as one thing and the union as another thing. The workers ARE the union. The workers voted, and rejected the contract. This isn't the union doing something to the workers, this was the workers saying "Our labor costs more than that, if that's what you're offering, then we aren't selling our labor." That's capitalism in action. This company wasn't able - whether due to market forces or bad management or whatever - to survive in the market and so they failed. Capitalism isn't a one way street where owners are the only ones who get negotiating power, and the sales side isn't the only place competition occurs.

The problem is; the worker that did not agree lost big time. Our system of laws is not based on workers, it's actually based on the one. The conflict of ideas here is based on how you view the rights of people.

PreachersWife2004 · Nov 16, 2012

Maynard Keenan said:
Ridiculous straw man. Nobody is talking about shutting anyone down. It would actually be a good thing if, due to lack of demand, tobacco factories shut down. But nobody is talking about forcibly doing anything - they're talking about the invisible hand of the free market doing its job.

It's not a straw man in terms of what true2theword wrote. He thinks it's okay that almost 20,000 workers are going to be unemployed because he believes Hostess makes garbage.

Yes, it's a ridiculous notion. That's the point I was trying to make.

kermit said:
http://www.teamsters26.org/Flyers%20to%20Add/HOSTESS%20MANIPULATED%20PAY.pdf

However, in response they rolled back the raises. Food Business News | Hostess executives to roll back pay raises

So the raises ranged from 35% to 80%, not 80% and more. And it seems as though it was done not to pay them more so much as to cook something for the bankruptcy. That part I don't get. It's odd that the CEO would get such a large increase and I'm glad he refused it.

kermit · Nov 16, 2012

whatbogsends said:
Thanks, kermit. I saw the 80% claim echoed throughout the internet, but was having trouble finding a good source for it.

Please note that I updated my post. The raises were rolled back due to the Teamsters making it public.

That Hostess was willing to give extremely extravegant raises to the top execs while the company was going through bankruptcy proves the point that Hostess' problems were a management issue not a union issue.

whatbogsends · Nov 16, 2012

kermit said:
Please note that I updated my post. The raises were rolled back due to the Teamsters making it public.

That Hostess was willing to give extremely extravegant raises to the top execs while the company was going through bankruptcy proves the point that Hostess' problems were a management issue not a union issue.

I saw that they rolled back the pay raises as a concession, but i agree with your assessment that it goes to the heart of my concern with corporate America that even as a company is failing, those at the top seek to (and most often successfully) profit immensely, even as they are failing at the jobs they are supposed to be doing, and often at the expense of the workers.

PreachersWife2004 · Nov 16, 2012

kermit said:
Please note that I updated my post. The raises were rolled back due to the Teamsters making it public.

That Hostess was willing to give extremely extravegant raises to the top execs while the company was going through bankruptcy proves the point that Hostess' problems were a management issue not a union issue.

Not particularly. I still think, based on what I read, that there was something odd about those raises. I don't know what though, I admit.

But currently, RIGHT NOW...the issue is with the Bakers Union. That is a fact. The Bakers Union workers who are striking have led to the closure of three plants. You can't dispute that.

jgarden · Nov 16, 2012

In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%, compared to 18.6% in Germany, 27.5% in Canada, and 70% in Finland. Union membership in the private sector has fallen under 7% — levels not seen since 1932.

..... The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35% and the total number of union members peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million.

Labor unions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps the OP would care to explain why Germany, Canada, Finland and virtually every other modern democracy in the world have a higher % of unionized workers than the US - and yet they continue to remain competative.

Perhaps the OP would also care to explain that despite the decline of unionized labor since the late 1970's, why the economic prospects of the average American worker have not improved.

If organized labor is the problem, and given that unionized labor in America has declined ftom 35% (1954) to under 7% (2010), then who has benefitted from the corresponding short and long term economic savings - certainly not the workers?

Maynard Keenan · Nov 16, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
You're pretty naive if you think the "workers ARE the union". It hasn't been that way for quite some time now.

"The union" isn't some separate entity that decided to strike. The workers voted, and chose to strike and reject the contract. Nothing was imposed on the workers. They knew what they were doing and made their choice.

kermit · Nov 16, 2012

whatbogsends said:
I saw that they rolled back the pay raises as a concession, but i agree with your assessment that it goes to the heart of my concern with corporate America that even as a company is failing, those at the top seek to (and most often successfully) profit immensely, even as they are failing at the jobs they are supposed to be doing, and often at the expense of the workers.

Also, it's worth noting that most CEOs get most of their compensation as part of guaranteed bonuses. I know for a fact that the last CEO I worked for had a salary of $500k, but really made $2.5M.

kermit · Nov 16, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
Not particularly. I still think, based on what I read, that there was something odd about those raises. I don't know what though, I admit.

But currently, RIGHT NOW...the issue is with the Bakers Union. That is a fact. The Bakers Union workers who are striking have led to the closure of three plants. You can't dispute that.

You are attempting to take the culmination of a series of misteps, over many years, by the company and place it all at the feet of the Bakers Union.

jpcedotal · Nov 16, 2012

This is why unions have outlived their usefulness. Union members are just sheep who have not grasped that union leaders have made their money and the sheep will be left without a job....stupid, stupid, stupid.

Companies are not going to continue doing business if there is no profit in it...duh.

jpcedotal · Nov 16, 2012

Those union sheep need to turn that sign around and put "will work for food" on the other side since they aint got a job now.

oh wait...

They are now part of Obama's voting majority...they can sign up for their own "my check"...don't worry, the real workers will take care of you now.

FreeSpirit74 · Nov 16, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
If I were employed by Hostess, I'd be looking at it this way. Three days ago I had a job. I might've taken a cut in pay, but I had a job. Now, I don't have a job at all. Which is better?

That's why I'm glad I work for a non-union company, where the owner and management are free to do whatever they can to save the company.

Where I work, we lost 60% of our business through the recession, and a number of our customers went out of business. What they did here was cut our hours down to 35 for managers/sales, and 32 for everyone else. No OT allowed for the shop guys. The NYSDOL had instituted a program where if a business cut its workers' hours by 20%, they would pay unemployment for the hours cut; the business has to keep up with whatever non-financial perks they offer, like time-off accruals and such. The program ran for 53 weeks, and we only needed it for 40 and, since someone in my department decided to leave the company (of his OWN accord) my supervisor (the Credit Manager) and I were actually put back to 40/week before everyone else. My co-workers were MAD, because they've all been here 20+ years, and here's this whippersnapper, only been with the company since 2002, gets put back to a full work-week over them (I also have a mile-long task list and cover for 3 other people including my boss, while the rest of the people in this office are mostly one-trick ponies!).

Long story short - we made it through the recession with no lay-offs, and everybody waas restored to 40/week as of February 2010. We all got a $500 check for Thanksgiving last year to make up for the fact that no one had gotten a COLA increase in wages since 2008. Can't speak for everybody, but *I* got an increase this past March.

kermit · Nov 16, 2012

jpcedotal said:
This is why unions have outlived their usefulness. Union members are just sheep who have not grasped that union leaders have made their money and the sheep will be left without a job....stupid, stupid, stupid.

Companies are not going to continue doing business if there is no profit in it...duh.

You are attempting to take the culmination of a series of misteps, over many years, by the company and place it all at the feet of the Bakers Union.

Those unions watching out for their workers...

Newbie

by his wounds we are healed

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

by his wounds we are healed

Senior Veteran

Pray

by his wounds we are healed

Legend

Senior Veteran

by his wounds we are healed

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Contra Dancing Pagan Warrior

Legend

Similar threads