|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Dennis The Menace 
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Nov. 16 2012, 8:02 pm |
|
   |
So all the usual suspects predictably are regurgitating the anti-union pro-corporate
right-wing propaganda on why Hostess is closing business
This from Forbes of all places
Time for a reality check.
Hostess has been sold at least three times since the 1980s, racking up debt and shedding profitable
assets along the way with each successive merger. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2004, and again
in 2011. Little thought was given to the line of products, which, frankly began to seem a bit dated
in the age of the gourmet cupcake. (100 calorie Twinkie Bites? When was the last time you entered
Magnolia Bakery and asked about the calorie count?
As if all this were not enough, Hostess Brands management gave themselves several raises, all the while
complaining that the workers who actually produced the products that made the firm what money it did earn
were grossly overpaid relative to the company’s increasingly dismal financial position.
http://www.forbes.com/sites....winkies
This from the Wall Street Journal of all places
Creditors of Hostess Brands Inc. said in court papers the company may have "manipulated" its executives'
salaries higher in the months leading up to its Chapter 11 filing, in what the creditors called a possible
effort by Hostess to "sidestep" Bankruptcy Code compensation provisions.
The committee representing Hostess's unsecured creditors alleges that information it has gathered suggests
"the possibility" that the company converted a chunk of its top executives' pay from performance-based
bonuses to salary, "at least in part to sidestep" rules designed to ensure that companies in bankruptcy
aren't enticing their employees to stay on board with the promise of cash, according to documents filed
with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, N.Y.
http://online.wsj.com/article....50.html
In its bankruptcy request to wind down the company, Hostess asked permission to pay a group of 19 managers
bonuses ranging from 25 percent to 75 percent of their annual base compensation, according to the Wall Street
Journal
http://billingsgazette.com/busines....RA97JFH
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
nogods
Group: Members
Posts: 5426
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 16 2012, 9:03 pm |
|
 |
Maybe they meant the union people were not eating enough cake...
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
star
Group: Members
Posts: 2773
Joined: Jun. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 18 2012, 6:38 pm |
|
|
This blog explains the situation, and tells the worker's side of the story quite well.
http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2012....tml?m=1
--------------
If I wanted to live in a dictatorship I would have picked a place with shorter winters.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6031
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 6:09 am |
|
|
Why no government bail out?
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
marzsit
Group: Members
Posts: 885
Joined: May 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 9:47 am |
|
|
hostess was deliberately destroyed, at this point in time, to make it look like it was the democrat's fault. hardcore republicans will go so low as to wipe out an american tradition just so they can blame it on the democrats somehow, hoping for more votes 4 years from now.
the fact of the matter is that hostess had too many bakeries in too many states, and healthy people don't eat twinkies for lunch every day anymore............. the executives knew this, but it would have cost them millions to shut down half or more of their bakeries and pay off those union workers, so they took this opportunity to kill the company in total. they gave themselves golden parachutes a while ago, and deployed those chutes just after obama was re-elected.....
--------------
Windows XP Professional x64: Windows is now a 64 bit tweak of a 32 bit extension to a 16 bit user interface
for an 8 bit operating system based on a 4 bit architecture from a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
cgaphiker
Hen Wallow Falls
Group: Members
Posts: 11007
Joined: Apr. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 2:00 pm |
|
|
(Lamebeaver @ Nov. 19 2012, 1:15 pm)
QUOTE
(marzsit @ Nov. 19 2012, 7:47 am)
QUOTE hostess was deliberately destroyed, at this point in time, to make it look like it was the democrat's fault. Who pray tell was behind this dark conspiracy? What a crock.
The Pilsbury Doughboy of course.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
markinOhio
Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 2:03 pm |
|
|
Obviously, it was not solely the unions that brought down the Twinkie. It sounds like there is a lot of blame to go around (vulture capitalist, greedy CEO’s, inept management, and maybe even sugar tariffs).
However, I don’t think that the union gets a free pass either.
“In 2005 before concessions I made $48,000, last year I made $34,000.”
http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2012....tml?m=1
Average median salary for a baker (I’m assuming that he/she was a baker) is $26,306.
http://swz.salary.com/salaryw....35.html
So, in 2005 they were making almost double the median salary, and even after cuts, they were still in the 75th percentile. Further, even given the drastic salary reduction over the next five years proposed by management (reason given for the strike), they would still be making close to the median salary.
I’m sympathetic to everyone that is out of a job in Obama’s jobless “recovery”. As a non-union worker (not a baker either), it is hard for me to be too sympathetic to someone that felt the need to strike, refused to work, for the median salary in their industry. It is kind of a smack in the face to the non-union baker...and the millions of unemployed workers that would be happy with ANYTHING.
I know, I know, the top 1% makes obscenely more that the average employee, and it is truly unjust. However, how is the relatively large discrepancy between union and non-union labor justified?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 2:30 pm |
|
|
(markinOhio @ Nov. 19 2012, 2:03 pm)
QUOTE Obviously, it was not solely the unions that brought down the Twinkie. It sounds like there is a lot of blame to go around (vulture capitalist, greedy CEO’s, inept management, and maybe even sugar tariffs). However, I don’t think that the union gets a free pass either. “In 2005 before concessions I made $48,000, last year I made $34,000.” http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2012....tml?m=1Average median salary for a baker (I’m assuming that he/she was a baker) is $26,306. http://swz.salary.com/salaryw....35.htmlSo, in 2005 they were making almost double the median salary, and even after cuts, they were still in the 75th percentile. Further, even given the drastic salary reduction over the next five years proposed by management (reason given for the strike), they would still be making close to the median salary. I’m sympathetic to everyone that is out of a job in Obama’s jobless “recovery”. As a non-union worker (not a baker either), it is hard for me to be too sympathetic to someone that felt the need to strike, refused to work, for the median salary in their industry. It is kind of a smack in the face to the non-union baker...and the millions of unemployed workers that would be happy with ANYTHING. I know, I know, the top 1% makes obscenely more that the average employee, and it is truly unjust. However, how is the relatively large discrepancy between union and non-union labor justified?
This is so sad. Unions through collective bargaining enable employees to get higher wages.
CEOs/management don't like that so through the years they have worked hard to crush unions
resulting in far less Union power and as a result lower salaries. So instead of someone
like you being happy when unions are able to give higher wages for employees you instead
take the corporate propaganda and ask why are they making more than non-union workers
instead of asking the better reverse question which is why non-union workers not making
nearly as much as union workers?
So you take that salary differential of supposedly evidence of how much money union bakers
are making when it could easily be seen as evidence of how little non-union bakers make but
you decided to take this as evidence of how much union workers make. In other words you
want a race to the bottom just like the Corporate big wigs want. The same corporate big
wigs that have an continue to make piles of money.
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 2:31 pm |
|
|
Oh and Mark, I've been wanting to ask you who you voted for between Sherrod Brown and Josh
Mandel?
Oh and your statement "Obama’s jobless “recovery”" is a mind boggling ignorant statement
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
markinOhio
Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 3:22 pm |
|
|
Maybe all bakers are underpaid, or maybe they are all overpaid? The median salary is the only real basis of comparison that I have at my disposal. Well, that, and the current economic conditions. I know plenty of people that would be unbelievably happy to find a job making 26K a year….or any job for that matter...in this economy. It would be absurd to believe that the union was 100% to blame, but it would be equally absurd to believe that labor cost was not a factor.
I actually work very closely with union labor. Although I supervise them, they routinely make double, and often triple what I make. Since my company is forced to utilize union labor in certain venues, it is less profitable. Now, it is possible that my company could afford to pay me more (union labor is a true representation of the labor value), but it is also possible that the union labor rate is inflated (my salary is a true representation of the labor value). Either way, I would rather have a job, than “make a stand” to have a better paying job. The idea of starving for a just cause is romantic…that is, until the kids get hungry.
I did not vote, and will not vote until I feel someone will actually represent my interests (the interest of the working man).
Mind boggling Ignorant statment?
Ok, where are the Jobs….(I’ve been asking for over 4 years now)?
Day Obama took office: 7.8% Unemployment
Recession ends June 2009
Today: 7.9% Unemployment
So, unemployment is essentially the same under 4 years of Obama, I think that meets the criteria of ...Obama’s (it's his economy)....jobless (see unemployment rate)..... “recovery”....Ok, I will concede that indicating that there has been a “recovery” could very well be seen as ignorant.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 3:57 pm |
|
|
Mind boggling ignorant and simplistic analysis. The recession wasn't over when Obama took
office. It kept on going up and up and up over 10%? It didn't stop at 7.8%
How come you don't know that?
When Obama took over on Jan 20 was when the recession was at its most intense shedding
700K per month in around Jan
https://www.google.com/search?....dy4DoDA
Notice the decline in job losses when Obama took office?
So you think the recession Obama got handed to Obama was also to blame for retroactively
even though he wasn't president then?
the recession did end on June 2009
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
You think as Soon as Obama took office that incredible loss of jobs should have just
disappeared just like that because of what exactly?
What Obama policies were implemented on Jan 20th 2009? NONE
When does the effect of new policies take effect? Much later
When did Obama first fiscal year start? Jan 2009 or October 2009?
October 2009
How many months of private sector jobs growth have been created under the Bush administration?
There has now been 32 consecutive months of private sector job growth
http://www.politifact.com/texas....-straig
^^ (add 2 months to the above since its 2 months later than statement made
How many jobs did the CBO say the stimulus created?
3.3 million
"CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68965.html
Mark
How come you are unaware of any of this even though all of this I mentioned is so so so so
so basic?
This information has been out there and out there and out there and out there and out there.
I've been mentioning in this forum over and over and over again not to mention how often
its mentioned outside of the right-wing entertainment complex. Maybe you get your information
from the right-wing entertainment complex
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 3:58 pm |
|
|
Mark
Oh and BTW by blaming the president and the president alone(which you essentially said
with your statement "Obama’s jobless “recovery”") you're essentially saying we live in
dictatorship where the president alone make every decision on economics and doesn't have to
deal with a congress and that we don't have a free market which is of course total BS.
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
markinOhio
Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 4:34 pm |
|
|
You can pull up 100 more graphs that indicate how many jobs Obama created, or 100 more expert opinions on how many jobs Obama saved. You can pull out the positive statistics and give Obama the credit, and discard all the negative and deny that Obama has any blame. You can create the false narrative (sorry, I just could not resist), that I expected Obama to magically achieve 100% employment, and that I think that he alone is responsible for our economic troubles. Or, that anyone who dares to complain about the current economy is too ignorant and brainwashed to form their own opinions.
But, how much solace does that offer someone that can’t find a job today….does it feed their children?
None of that changes the fact that we are currently at 7.9% unemployment. Four years later, and the working man is no better than the day he took office.
I understand that you desperately want to defend Obama’s record on jobs. Unfortunately, that seems to have obscured the struggles that the American working class has faced for the last four years, and yes…still today.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 7:25 pm |
|
|
markinOhio said
QUOTE
You can pull up 100 more graphs that indicate how many jobs Obama created, or 100 more expert
opinions on how many jobs Obama saved. You can pull out the positive statistics and give
Obama the credit, and discard all the negative and deny that Obama has any blame. You can
create the false narrative (sorry, I just could not resist), that I expected Obama to
magically achieve 100% employment, and that I think that he alone is responsible for our
economic troubles.
^^ projection
Its not me who making any false narrative but you.
No where did I say anything about Obama being blameless although how can he be blamed for a
"jobless recovery"(the very foundation of your statement) when there have been jobs created
(millions) as the data shows?
My response was a response to your false ignorant narrative that he is to blame and him
alone and don't deny that is what you did when said "Obama’s jobless “recovery”"
Why else would you say it in those terms? If there was shared responsibility you wouldn't
have characterized it as "Obama’s jobless “recovery”" especially given that the president
isn't even the main variable here given that congress passed legislation and we have
that "free market" thing.?
and the reason why I pulled those stats wasn't to show positive stats on Obama but to
refute your mind boggling ignorant statement that we have a "jobless recovery". Now I have
posted these stats specifically to you before so I have to ask did you forget these stats?
Or did you not believe them and think they are false? If so why do you think they are false
Or did you remember them and believe them but chose not to mention them which would mean
you are essentially here trying to convince people to blame Obama knowing that the stats
don't back you up which would deceitful on your part?
markinOhio said
QUOTE
But, how much solace does that offer someone that can’t find a job today….does it feed their children?
Don't change the subject. We are discussing byour ignorant characterization of the economy
the last 4 years as "Obama’s jobless “recovery”"?
How much solace does it offer to someone who can't find a job to characterize it as
"Obama’s jobless “recovery”"??
markinOhio said
QUOTE
None of that changes the fact that we are currently at 7.9% unemployment. Four years later,
and the working man is no better than the day he took office.
It does change the fact that your statement "Obama’s jobless “recovery”" is full of ****.
markinOhio said
QUOTE
I understand that you desperately want to defend Obama’s record on jobs.
^^ see there you go again blaming Obama(but no mention of congress) while ignoring the stats
There is nothing to defend. The stats speak for themselves. You have some gall to accuse
of using the word "desperately" in regard to my post when you didn't even attempt to refute
those facts
The fact that you can refute the facts shows me your desperate to create a false narrative
again that this is somehow me being desperate
Do facts matter to you or is just all about creating the false narrative then accusing
the other guy of the false narrative even as you do just that?
I tell you what. How about you refute the facts. Shows some substance instead of empty
rhetoric?
markinOhio said
QUOTE
Unfortunately, that seems to have obscured the struggles that the American working class has
faced for the last four years, and yes…still today.
Don't change the subject.
This is about your ignorant statement "Obama’s jobless “recovery”"
It is ignorant statement that you can't defend hence you're desperately trying to change the
subject
Hence why you haven't been able to refute any of my points.
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 10:38 pm |
|
|
(markinOhio @ Nov. 19 2012, 2:03 pm)
QUOTE Obviously, it was not solely the unions that brought down the Twinkie. It sounds like there is a lot of blame to go around (vulture capitalist, greedy CEO’s, inept management, and maybe even sugar tariffs). However, I don’t think that the union gets a free pass either. “In 2005 before concessions I made $48,000, last year I made $34,000.” http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2012....tml?m=1Average median salary for a baker (I’m assuming that he/she was a baker) is $26,306. http://swz.salary.com/salaryw....35.htmlSo, in 2005 they were making almost double the median salary, and even after cuts, they were still in the 75th percentile. Further, even given the drastic salary reduction over the next five years proposed by management (reason given for the strike), they would still be making close to the median salary. I’m sympathetic to everyone that is out of a job in Obama’s jobless “recovery”. As a non-union worker (not a baker either), it is hard for me to be too sympathetic to someone that felt the need to strike, refused to work, for the median salary in their industry. It is kind of a smack in the face to the non-union baker...and the millions of unemployed workers that would be happy with ANYTHING. I know, I know, the top 1% makes obscenely more that the average employee, and it is truly unjust. However, how is the relatively large discrepancy between union and non-union labor justified?
Mark - I have to say watching you obsess on those around and below you who you think are getting something they don't deserve is one of the most depressing things I read on here.
But I'm obviously not seeing the true picture here. The real solution to the problems facing the middle class is to make them all worse off.
And to get into the details, bakers would encompass a wide range of different employers and work situations, so your calculations are likely off.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Ecocentric
Group: Members
Posts: 3846
Joined: Jun. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 11:20 pm |
|
|
A judge has denied the companies request to liquidate and sent both sides back to the negotiation table. Maybe a fair deal will result. In my mind, that would involve the executives giving up the loot they were trying to get away with.
--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Hungry Jack
Group: Members
Posts: 1294
Joined: Nov. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 20 2012, 10:59 am |
|
|
Any manufacturing business in the US that generates revenues of about $135,000 per employee is utterly doomed. That is simply not enough revenue productivity to maintain the workforce and the fixed assets necessary to survive.
It's tough to make a go of it when your product sells at retail for about $.50. But if Interstate had too many workers working at too many bakeries making Twinkies that sold at too low a price, then management is at fault for not right-sizing the operation to increase the productivity of the plants and workforce.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 20 2012, 11:03 am |
|
|
(markinOhio @ Nov. 20 2012, 10:32 am)
QUOTE QUOTE Mark - I have to say watching you obsess on those around and below you who you think are getting something they don't deserve is one of the most depressing things I read on here.
But I'm obviously not seeing the true picture here. The real solution to the problems facing the middle class is to make them all worse off.
And to get into the details, bakers would encompass a wide range of different employers and work situations, so your calculations are likely off. I recognize that the idea that 48K is an unreasonable wage expectation for a baker is unpopular (or that anyone below the 95th percentile is overpaid for that matter). But, I’m far more concerned about the welfare of the majority of the middle class (in which I’m included) than the small segment that is unionized. I just happen to believe that the 30% higher earnings/benefits enjoyed by the 12% of the workforce that is unionized is at the detriment in the form of higher consumer prices and overall employment levels for the remaining 88% that is not unionized. That is, the gains directly enjoyed by the 12% and any indirect gains to the non-unionized are outweighed by the negative impacts. It is not a matter of making us all worse off, it is a matter of what provides the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.
Mark - you are part of the problem facing America.
I find it disgusting that you identify someone making a reasonable but not excessive salary as part of the problem in America while ignoring the huge and growing wealth imbalances.
How about you look at the actions of the board here?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
Hungry Jack
Group: Members
Posts: 1294
Joined: Nov. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 20 2012, 11:17 am |
|
|
(Land Rover @ Nov. 20 2012, 11:04 am)
QUOTE
(Hungry Jack @ Nov. 20 2012, 10:59 am)
QUOTE Any manufacturing business in the US that generates revenues of about $135,000 per employee is utterly doomed. That is simply not enough revenue productivity to maintain the workforce and the fixed assets necessary to survive.
It's tough to make a go of it when your product sells at retail for about $.50. But if Interstate had too many workers working at too many bakeries making Twinkies that sold at too low a price, then management is at fault for not right-sizing the operation to increase the productivity of the plants and workforce. Those figures would vary almost totally on the nature of the business Jack.
True, but look at the same metric for similar firms:
Sara Lee coffee business: $300,000
Dean Foods: $530,000 per employee ($13B in sales)
Heinz: $362,000 ($11 B)
Tree House: $525,000 ($2B - closest in size in terms of sales)
General Mills: $475,000 ($35B)
These are mot perfect comparisons, but they all our food businesses that manufacture and distribute in the US, though some raw materials (e.g. coffee beans) may be sourced internationally.
Sara Lee's coffee business is considered an underperformer, yet its sales productivity is 2.3X that of Interstate. It is such a huge gap that it is pretty clear that Interstate has a real problem with its economics.
Heck, my little clothing retail business generates about $200,000 in sales per employee, and that is almost certainly on the low end of comparable firms. And this business is very asset-light. The main assets are inventory and a rented story, which is a far cry from having manufacturing and distribution facilities and equipment that have to be maintained.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Hungry Jack
Group: Members
Posts: 1294
Joined: Nov. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 20 2012, 12:09 pm |
|
|
Per Mark's point, unions in practice are little different than any other special interest group that attempts to buy influence in Washington through campaign donations and funding political activity and messaging.
It is hard to completely accept the notion that the union fights for all the middle class when union membership is roughly 7% of the private work force (according to NY Times 2010 article), but a much bigger share of the public sector, which leaves union membership at 12% of the total workforce.
Many of the important victories won by unions in the past are now encoded into law, so most union efforts today revolve around collective bargaining for higher compensation. I have no problem with collective bargaining (though as a self-employed person, I prefer to bargain on my own), but the trouble with collective bargaining in the public sector is that it pits 37% of workers against 100% of taxpayers. And the unions typically win, which can be unfortunate for tax payers.
A great case in point is Illinois, where the unfunded pension liabilities amount to roughly $90B, or $25,000 per IL household. I don't plan to be around when the bill comes due. State lawmakers are largely to blame for this, but IL has long been a blue state that has rewarded union support with compensation promises that are going to be impossible to keep without pillaging taxpayer pocketbooks. Again, it is hard to sympathize with unions when you confront these realities.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
marzsit
Group: Members
Posts: 885
Joined: May 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 20 2012, 12:20 pm |
|
|
(Lamebeaver @ Nov. 19 2012, 10:15 am)
QUOTE
(marzsit @ Nov. 19 2012, 7:47 am)
QUOTE hostess was deliberately destroyed, at this point in time, to make it look like it was the democrat's fault. Who pray tell was behind this dark conspiracy? What a crock.
take a guess? do you really think that a company the size of interstate brands would have executives in-charge that are not republican-leaning? they were losing money, didn't want to innovate, decided to s**tcan the company instead of working with employees and chose this point in time to make it look like obamacare killed the twinkie.
you watch... in 4 years, the republicrats will claim that obama killed the twinkie.
--------------
Windows XP Professional x64: Windows is now a 64 bit tweak of a 32 bit extension to a 16 bit user interface
for an 8 bit operating system based on a 4 bit architecture from a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
Ecocentric
Group: Members
Posts: 3846
Joined: Jun. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 20 2012, 3:23 pm |
|
|
They already are. The crock is that they made an honest effort to do more than loot the company of whatever cash they could get their hands on before they jumped with their golden parachutes.
--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 20 2012, 6:02 pm |
|
|
(Hungry Jack @ Nov. 20 2012, 12:09 pm)
QUOTE Per Mark's point, unions in practice are little different than any other special interest group that attempts to buy influence in Washington through campaign donations and funding political activity and messaging.
It is hard to completely accept the notion that the union fights for all the middle class when union membership is roughly 7% of the private work force (according to NY Times 2010 article), but a much bigger share of the public sector, which leaves union membership at 12% of the total workforce.
Many of the important victories won by unions in the past are now encoded into law, so most union efforts today revolve around collective bargaining for higher compensation. I have no problem with collective bargaining (though as a self-employed person, I prefer to bargain on my own), but the trouble with collective bargaining in the public sector is that it pits 37% of workers against 100% of taxpayers. And the unions typically win, which can be unfortunate for tax payers.
A great case in point is Illinois, where the unfunded pension liabilities amount to roughly $90B, or $25,000 per IL household. I don't plan to be around when the bill comes due. State lawmakers are largely to blame for this, but IL has long been a blue state that has rewarded union support with compensation promises that are going to be impossible to keep without pillaging taxpayer pocketbooks. Again, it is hard to sympathize with unions when you confront these realities.
So how do you set that against the lower percentages we are paying in taxes than in the past and the large number of freeloaders at boardroom level in America sucking the life out of the rest of the economy.
We seem to have a mindset in America after the past few decades that the taxes we pay give us very little in return. The reality is that you want good people running you local, state and federal government, because like it or not, once you get out to the pretend conservative world, they play a vital role in the functioning of the American economy and America itself.
Without getting into the details of specific cases as its tough with so many states involved, and anecdotally there are certainly examples of bad situations caused in part by unions and by lawmakers, its wrong to place things in terms of taxpayer vs union.
We all have a stake in the functioning of America and we should want it to function well. Rees a lot of anti government bs out there, but to me a good dedicated teacher is worth more to America than the small businessman, despite the demigod status afforded to these particular subset of American worker by the conservative movement,
It's frankly wrong to pitch this into an unions vs the rest scenario and symtomatic of where we are losing are values and going wrong as a nation. It's a loss of a core worthwhile value when we seek to diminish the role of those in a union as somehow unfair or greedy, especially in America where the balance of power is so tipped in the favor of the mega rich.
And the thing is failing to address the concerns of the working man and woman in America, either as individuals or as art of a union, will lead to the destruction of America. People need a living wage. The future of America does not involve a race to the bottom to the cheapest labor.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 20 2012, 6:05 pm |
|
|
But clearly you Identified the fact that they are not making enough cash to sustain their business model. That seems to be the core issue here with the management looking to blame the unions for their own failures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
