Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Another victory for the unions!


Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman

Yes, but why use up unemployment benefits when you still have a job? I'd save those benefits for if or when the current job ended before I was able to find a better one. It's just common sense. But again, that's just my opinion.

It's just common sense to bide your time in a job that pays less and less - as management makes more and more - than to get out and find another job sooner rather than later? - while collecting more money? I fail to see the common sense in that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 312
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's just common sense to bide your time in a job that pays less and less - as management makes more and more - than to get out and find another job sooner rather than later? - while collecting more money? I fail to see the common sense in that.

Nope. To use the current job as income while I look for something better, instead of using up unemployment benefits that could be needed down the road with no job at all. Besides, I don't know how it works in your country, but you can't quit your job here, and apply for unemployment benefits. You have to lose your job through no fault of your own. After that, you get 30 some odd weeks of benefits, until they run out. No extension. That's why I'd rather see how things go with a current job, even if it's at a lower pay, while I look for a better one. That way, if I did lose my job entirely, I still have unemployment benefits to rely on.

But I guess what you're suggesting is pretty much the entitlement mentality these days. Why bother working when you can not work and still get paid. Even if you actually have a job you could go to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
Nope. To use the current job as income while I look for something better, instead of using up unemployment benefits that could be needed down the road with no job at all.

Why would you be any more likely to find a job "down the road" than you would be now? Furthermore, not having to work would free you up to devote that much more time to finding another job.

Besides, I don't know how it works in your country, but you can't quit your job here, and apply for unemployment benefits. You have to lose your job through no fault of your own.

The strikers are losing their job through no fault of their own.

After that, you get 30 some odd weeks of benefits, until they run out. No extension.

That's not how things work in the States.

That's why I'd rather see how things go with a current job, even if it's at a lower pay, while I look for a better one. That way, if I did lose my job entirely, I still have unemployment benefits to rely on.

That's your prerogative. It wasn't the choice of the workers who voted to strike - as management gave themselves raises.

But I guess what you're suggesting is pretty much the entitlement mentality these days.

Yes, indeed. I feel the workers are entitled to not lose their benefits and have their salary slashed as management gives themselves raises. I guess what you're suggesting is pretty much the indentured servant mentality.

Why bother working when you can not work and still get paid. Even if you actually have a job you could go to.

Yes, indeed. And in that light, I think you should take a 50% pay cut, along with benefits - and give the money to management. smile.png

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites

But I guess what you're suggesting is pretty much the entitlement mentality these days. Why bother working when you can not work and still get paid. Even if you actually have a job you could go to.

Speaking of which, no doubt upper management have their parachutes fully packed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an article on the situation worth reading:

"What’s happening with Hostess Brands is a microcosm of what’s wrong with America, as Bain-style Wall Street vultures make themselves rich by making America poor."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162355/--Hostess-Brands-is-a-microcosm-of-what-s-wrong-with-America

Link to post
Share on other sites

CEO got a 300% raise last year. Sounds like they were really hurting eh?

Just another sign that this company had no future and they had to bribe someone to go down with the ship. Again this isn't the unions fault (Shady stop being stupid) and it really isn't current managements fault. They were a company destined to failed the Union membership knew this which is why they weren't ready to take another pay cut to work for slave wages for a year just to lose their jobs then. Their best shot was for this company to go belly up and hope that in the liquidation someone buys some of the stuff with the idea of using it as is and they hire these employees.

Stop outside of your partisan arguments look at the history and the books. This company wasn't going to be saved by the union taking another pay cut, or management not getting their raised. They didn't even have enough money to miss one shipment. It was the end the writing was on the wall and keeping the company open for one more year wasn't going to change anything.

Stop the blame game the ones to blame are the American consumer who stopped buying their products. It is the American way deal with it. This is capitalism at work. If their is a market someone will buy up the brand open the bakeries back up and make money. Don't worry about that. If their is no money to be made there is no money to be made and no amount of pay cuts was going to help that.

Everyone in this thread maybe beside and it kills me to say this BC2004 and American women is not seeing the forest through the trees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People don't work for free. Management was fiscally incompetent. Period. It's not the employees' responsibility to balance the books.

It's management's job to run the company as you are saying. They decided they couldn't make a profit. Bye Bye jobs.

Obviously if management can't give them the wages and benefits they demand they are left with no choice but to shut down. Giving them what they want would indeed be fiscal incompetence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's management's job to run the company as you are saying. They decided they couldn't make a profit. Bye Bye jobs.

Obviously if management can't give them the wages and benefits they demand they are left with no choice but to shut down. Giving them what they want would indeed be fiscal incompetence.

That doesn't make this the Unions fault. They gave management their concessions 2 twice over the last 3 years and management couldn't turn it around. Again in this cause the blame game is on the consumer deal with it sometimes industries die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has little to do with the management or the unions. The product was garbage and people are waking up to that fact.

The competence of the management might be questionable, and the militancy of the union might be a factor, but they were trying to sell obesity and disease to a population that is slowly (very, very slowly, it must be said) becoming aware that that is what they are buying. It is no surprise that the instant sugary hit doesn't sell as well any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem is that management and unions don't work together. They both lose their jobs but management has the ability to better prepare itself for that outcome since it can see the writing on the wall. Unions in relinquishing all responsibility for the company's economic health and who only see their job as being getting bigger and bigger paycheques with more and more benefits never see the writing on the wall.

If management is competent the company makes bigger profits. If the employees are more productive the company makes bigger profits. Unions seem to disconnect the productivity of the worker from their paycheques. They want bigger paycheques and more benefits but wish to produce less - more days off, longer breaks, smaller quotas, shorter hours more benefits for the same production.

bcsapper makes a valid point that the product is not in as much demand as it was. Management and Unions both fail in this regard. Management in not improving or diversifying or following market trends and Union employees that are bound to do only what is in their contracts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take note of your quote.

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

― Blaise Pascal

Does that mean Communism is a religion or the State's adoption of Atheism makes that a religion?

Stalin - 20 million dead. Mao 30 million dead. Pol Pot - 1-3 million dead. All cheerfully accomplished as a result of their policies. All within a century. What religious conviction killed more in the same time frame?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take note of your quote.

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

― Blaise Pascal

Does that mean Communism is a religion or the State's adoption of Atheism makes that a religion?

Stalin - 20 million dead. Mao 30 million dead. Pol Pot - 1-3 million dead. All cheerfully accomplished as a result of their policies. All within a century. What religious conviction killed more in the same time frame?

Make that propionate to world population and all religious war will fit into that category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has little to do with the management or the unions. The product was garbage and people are waking up to that fact....

It's a little more complicated than that. Hostess Brands had a diverse product portfolio including upscale bread brands. The company was built by nationalizing what were previously local and regional bakeries that made products with a limited shelf life and distribution challenges for retail outlets. Locally and regionally produced breads and other baked goods competed with IBC/Hostess for shelf space, but had the advantage of local control for each market.

People are still buying baked goods, often in an upscale product and setting. The demographics for well known Hostess products worked against them as well. Seniors don't usually buy Ho-Hos or Ding-Dongs, except perhaps for their grandchildren, which are fewer in number. Health conscious consumerism was certainly a factor, but not the only factor.

I would point out that another nearly 100 year-old regional baking business based in Philadelphia (Tastykake) had also fallen on hard times, but was rescued by a larger grocer business. Adjusting their sales strategy, they started selling their iconic brands nationally through Amazon with much larger margins than can be obtained by retail sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based upon the concept of collective might, leaders can do all sorts of evil. Collectively we can all accomplish what our leaders want - basically a consolidation of their power. Collectively companies can be bled to death and evil management vanquished. In that respect, collectivism to right evil is evil, as it eventually destroys itself as well.

Were any workers at Hostess content with their jobs and their recompense for doing them? I would assume that some were. True, management has more opportunity and could take advantage of the nation's economic situation in its bargaining but I guess employees preferred no work to slavery.

Government of course had a role to play in this as well. Guaranteeing affordable healthcare to all employees without consideration of whether business could afford to pay for it or not is a collective imposition. We'll have to see if it destroys more jobs, then maybe management and employees can agree upon responsibility by assigning blame to someone else.

Essentially it doesn't help much to blame management or unions or government for lost jobs. The fact is they are gone and it is mostly because of the selfish interests of all concerned. If management did its job of creating a profit and unions concentrated on creating jobs, which is basically creating productivity, and didn't care so much about eating up the profit that was the job of management to make, and if government just kept the roads clear for management and employees to operate then things might be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take note of your quote.

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

― Blaise Pascal

Does that mean Communism is a religion or the State's adoption of Atheism makes that a religion?

Stalin - 20 million dead. Mao 30 million dead. Pol Pot - 1-3 million dead. All cheerfully accomplished as a result of their policies. All within a century. What religious conviction killed more in the same time frame?

You're talking about numbers. I'm talking about conviction.

I have no problem with the notion that communism has killed more.

Completely and cheerfully, I leave to religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...