Congrats to Michigan "Right to Work"

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.
 
This could be Obamas' Vision, unionize the entire country, they have the Medical aspect down so far, and everyone is all happy and shit.
Word has it, his Economic Committe is working very hard on jobs, as we speak, make that, as we type.
 
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.


You didn't answer my question. At what point should a union not accept further concessions? If upper management is giving themselves 80% raises for leading the company into repeated bankruptcy, what should labor be the only one to take it in the ass?
 
Employees work for agreed upon wages and benefits, it's none of their business what the management or owners earn. None at all, and no standard demands they make a given percentage of the other.

And if the employees don't agree?
 
Precisely, but the bottom line is if the union hadn't saddled the company with unsustainable and inefficient management conditions that drove up operational costs the company might still exist. Truth is the Bakers union some 3000 people put the majority of employees out of business.

Why do you think their compensation was unsustainable? Going into their 3rd or 4th round of concession talks, it's hard to imagine they were making much over the industry standard.

Hostess told the union multiple times before that their concessions would mean the company would return to sustainability and it never did. Why do you think another round would make a difference?
 
The way I heard it, which may or may not be true and in all honesty I really don't give a shit is that the Teamsters told the Bakers union that they had seen the books and that management wasn't bluffing. If they continued, the company would fold. The bakers union called the bluff and everyone lost.

Now whether the above is true or not management salaries weren't going to save anything. A drop in the bucket. It's possibly an ethical problem but not a financial one. The top people could have been doing it for free and it wouldn't have saved the company.

Fuck Hostess, they all did it to each other. Little Debbie kicks their ass anyway. Half the price and just as good. Superior with some products. Hostess never made anything nearly as good as an oatmeal cream pie.
 
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.



in a lot of ways, hostess thing was up to the worker. they had a choice. they could stay at the company or they could leave. jobs are not for life. if the company is poorly managed then its behooving of that employee to get his or her ass out of the company before it goes under.

the union only put the final nails in that coffin

so the union spoke for the worker, take your company and shove it. so the union won. workers lost.
 
hey

The loss of the unions is only the start---, let's see where that Twinkie is actually gonna land; when the other shoe drops.

Right to Work is another name for "Kiss my ass and hit the door".

When you lose the backing of the people, you only have the right to work for lower wages and a greater level of unsafe working conditions. Which says a lot when we have a government already so willing to experiemnet on its citizenery without their permission (Tuskigee, Plum Island, Area 51, White Sands...)
 
You need to read more about the kind of working conditions and additional costs the union imposed on the company, start with its trucking requirements.


some of my experiences with union ass-hats is that they do not allow workers to be cross trained and are not allowed to perform two job functions.

why do union thugs put workers in such tight little boxes? While that might have worked pre WWII this just isn't realistic in today's world
 
in a lot of ways, hostess thing was up to the worker. they had a choice. they could stay at the company or they could leave. jobs are not for life. if the company is poorly managed then its behooving of that employee to get his or her ass out of the company before it goes under.

the union only put the final nails in that coffin

so the union spoke for the worker, take your company and shove it. so the union won. workers lost.

How much to blame is management for twice before telling the unions that they would make the company profitable again if they only made concessions?
 
some of my experiences with union ass-hats is that they do not allow workers to be cross trained and are not allowed to perform two job functions.

why do union thugs put workers in such tight little boxes? While that might have worked pre WWII this just isn't realistic in today's world

You don't work. You don't have experience with workers, union or otherwise.
 
You don't work. You don't have experience with workers, union or otherwise.

Merc, don't be protecting your self onto me.

Have you ever bee responsible for P&L?
have you ever had to hire 50 or more workers?
have you ever had to work with a union from an employer perspective?
 
Merc, don't be protecting your self onto me.



128868983100345180.jpg
 
How much to blame is management for twice before telling the unions that they would make the company profitable again if they only made concessions?

they needed to gain enough votes to kick out the CEO and Board....or find new jobs.
 
They forced the company to ship bread in different trucks than cupcakes, etc., etc., causing them to hire more drivers, typical union coercion.

I created a thread for this. I'm not sure if full time is not considered 27 hours or if someone works 27 hours Uncle obama now requires the company to pony up for health insurance?

personally, when I have great workers I strap them down with golden handcuffs. its such a pia to find good "workers" and too expensive
 
Back
Top