ChinaBandit
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Posts
- 4,281
There was a labor agreement in place. Hostess execs said they wanted to nullify that legal agreement that they agreed to. The workers were under no obligation to agree for a third time to reduce their compensation.
Let me ask you this - at what point would concessions be too much? When they were making $12 per hour? Or minimum wage with a bare-bones retirement plan? Where do you draw the line? Because Hostess management said they'd be able to get the company back on track if the union just agreed to concessions (two times prior to this)... And each time management didn't follow through and they didn't reinvest the labor savings back into the company. No new products, no new marketing.
You're acting like if the unions conceded just one more time that Hostess would have returned to profitability. But in all likelihood they'd just be bankrupt again in a couple years just like after every other labor concession. The problem wasn't labor because labor had always agreed to renegotiate and the company still went bankrupt two or three times.
So, your position is that the union served the membership well by letting Hostess close those doors without further court challenge? Parallel to Sean's position of "fuck it", the result was inevitable anyway. If I were a member, my preference would have been further litigation. My point, the union did not even present their membership with that option. There was absolutely no rank and file vote on doing so. There should have been.