The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2012, 05:15 PM
The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
This is what the corporate media (called free media under capitalism lol) will tell you when you hear about this on the news.

The corporate version of events is that the striking workers didn't want to take an 8 percent pay cut and this caused the hostess factory to file for bankruptcy.

However, what you won't hear in the corporate media is whether or not the top execs were taking a pay cut. And guess what boys and girls, the top execs at hostess were getting raises more than 100 percent even as they knew the company was headed for bankruptcy. Yes that's right, these fucks wanted factory workers to take pay cuts while they were getting raises.

mmmmmm whats that smell? CAPITALISM It's so free and beautiful, you gotta love it.


Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 05:22 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
Basically a question that applies to every thread you've ever opened: What's your point? We are well aware of the downsides of capitalism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 05:31 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 05:15 PM)I and I Wrote:  This is what the corporate media (called free media under capitalism lol) will tell you when you hear about this on the news.

The corporate version of events is that the striking workers didn't want to take an 8 percent pay cut and this caused the hostess factory to file for bankruptcy.

However, what you won't hear in the corporate media is whether or not the top execs were taking a pay cut. And guess what boys and girls, the top execs at hostess were getting raises more than 100 percent even as they knew the company was headed for bankruptcy. Yes that's right, these fucks wanted factory workers to take pay cuts while they were getting raises.

mmmmmm whats that smell? CAPITALISM It's so free and beautiful, you gotta love it.


Drinking Beverage
Given that Hostess hasn't made a single healthy food product for DECADES (management decision, not worker decision), I don't think we're all missing out much.

These workers were asking for something reasonable, were negotiating in good faith with a management who did surprise lock-outs and intimidated their workers... if only there were criminal penalties for violating the NLRB rights of workers. These workers were verbally assaulted and harassed by their managers, but since it happened during business hours at work there are no criminal penalties.

~ themanchicken
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes themanchicken's post
16-11-2012, 08:51 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 05:31 PM)themanchicken Wrote:  Given that Hostess hasn't made a single healthy food product for DECADES (management decision, not worker decision), I don't think we're all missing out much.

These workers were asking for something reasonable, were negotiating in good faith with a management who did surprise lock-outs and intimidated their workers... if only there were criminal penalties for violating the NLRB rights of workers. These workers were verbally assaulted and harassed by their managers, but since it happened during business hours at work there are no criminal penalties.
Actually, this time it really was the fault of the bakers union.

The company had been in bankruptcy for a reason. And after a long negotiation, the teamsters agreed to the new contract which saw the unions getting a 25% equity stake in the company and two seats on the board in exchange for reduced salaries and pension contributions. In a move which surprised all involved, the bakers union, instead of holding a ballot to vote on the contract, rejected the contract on voice vote nearly unanimously. This was after the bakers union failed to participate or object to any part of the negotiations they allowed the teamsters to lead. This was two month ago when the company made it clear that they saw no option other than liquidating the company if there was no deal. (ref http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/20...al/?iid=EL )

And in further evidence to the real situation here, the teamsters pleaded with the bakers union to sign onto the deal as the last and final deadline was communicated by the company that the strike end Thursday at end of business or the company could no longer afford to operate and would liquidate:
http://www.teamster.org/content/teamster...te-hostess

Quote: On Wednesday, Nov. 14, Hostess Brands indicated that if it couldn’t resume normal operations by 5 p.m. EST on Thursday, Nov. 15 that it would have to begin the liquidation process. Teamster Hostess members and all Hostess employees should know this is not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic, but the certain outcome if members of the BCTGM continue to strike. This is based on conversations with our financial experts, who, because the Teamsters were involved in the legal process, had access to financial information about the company.

....


The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist. Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.

....

That strike is now on the verge of forcing the company to liquidate – it is difficult for Teamster members to believe that is what the BCTGM Hostess members ultimately wanted to accomplish when they went out on strike. We may never know unless the BCTGM members, based on the facts they know today, get to determine their fate in a secret ballot vote. Teamster members would understand that the will of the BCTGM Hostess membership was truly heard if that was the case.
This was the statement the teamsters released on the day of the deadline. I take a statement against interests--in this case a statement by a union critical of another union for not recognizing the state of the company they were striking against--as strong evidence that the bakers union was in the wrong. The teamsters did the right thing by negotiating hard for the best deal that maintained the viability of the company over a difficult 18 month period, only to be undone by another incompetent union that waited until the very last minute to speak up and insist they could get a better deal. Thanx to the incompetence and greed of one union, 18,000 people lost their jobs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:08 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 08:51 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 05:31 PM)themanchicken Wrote:  Given that Hostess hasn't made a single healthy food product for DECADES (management decision, not worker decision), I don't think we're all missing out much.

These workers were asking for something reasonable, were negotiating in good faith with a management who did surprise lock-outs and intimidated their workers... if only there were criminal penalties for violating the NLRB rights of workers. These workers were verbally assaulted and harassed by their managers, but since it happened during business hours at work there are no criminal penalties.
Actually, this time it really was the fault of the bakers union.

The company had been in bankruptcy for a reason. And after a long negotiation, the teamsters agreed to the new contract which saw the unions getting a 25% equity stake in the company and two seats on the board in exchange for reduced salaries and pension contributions. In a move which surprised all involved, the bakers union, instead of holding a ballot to vote on the contract, rejected the contract on voice vote nearly unanimously. This was after the bakers union failed to participate or object to any part of the negotiations they allowed the teamsters to lead. This was two month ago when the company made it clear that they saw no option other than liquidating the company if there was no deal. (ref http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/20...al/?iid=EL )

And in further evidence to the real situation here, the teamsters pleaded with the bakers union to sign onto the deal as the last and final deadline was communicated by the company that the strike end Thursday at end of business or the company could no longer afford to operate and would liquidate:
http://www.teamster.org/content/teamster...te-hostess

Quote: On Wednesday, Nov. 14, Hostess Brands indicated that if it couldn’t resume normal operations by 5 p.m. EST on Thursday, Nov. 15 that it would have to begin the liquidation process. Teamster Hostess members and all Hostess employees should know this is not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic, but the certain outcome if members of the BCTGM continue to strike. This is based on conversations with our financial experts, who, because the Teamsters were involved in the legal process, had access to financial information about the company.

....


The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist. Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.

....

That strike is now on the verge of forcing the company to liquidate – it is difficult for Teamster members to believe that is what the BCTGM Hostess members ultimately wanted to accomplish when they went out on strike. We may never know unless the BCTGM members, based on the facts they know today, get to determine their fate in a secret ballot vote. Teamster members would understand that the will of the BCTGM Hostess membership was truly heard if that was the case.
This was the statement the teamsters released on the day of the deadline. I take a statement against interests--in this case a statement by a union critical of another union for not recognizing the state of the company they were striking against--as strong evidence that the bakers union was in the wrong. The teamsters did the right thing by negotiating hard for the best deal that maintained the viability of the company over a difficult 18 month period, only to be undone by another incompetent union that waited until the very last minute to speak up and insist they could get a better deal. Thanx to the incompetence and greed of one union, 18,000 people lost their jobs.
And no one in management took a pay cut. In fact, they raised their salaries in this period.

The bakers' fault?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:12 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 08:51 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 05:31 PM)themanchicken Wrote:  Given that Hostess hasn't made a single healthy food product for DECADES (management decision, not worker decision), I don't think we're all missing out much.

These workers were asking for something reasonable, were negotiating in good faith with a management who did surprise lock-outs and intimidated their workers... if only there were criminal penalties for violating the NLRB rights of workers. These workers were verbally assaulted and harassed by their managers, but since it happened during business hours at work there are no criminal penalties.
Actually, this time it really was the fault of the bakers union.

The company had been in bankruptcy for a reason. And after a long negotiation, the teamsters agreed to the new contract which saw the unions getting a 25% equity stake in the company and two seats on the board in exchange for reduced salaries and pension contributions. In a move which surprised all involved, the bakers union, instead of holding a ballot to vote on the contract, rejected the contract on voice vote nearly unanimously. This was after the bakers union failed to participate or object to any part of the negotiations they allowed the teamsters to lead. This was two month ago when the company made it clear that they saw no option other than liquidating the company if there was no deal. (ref http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/20...al/?iid=EL )

And in further evidence to the real situation here, the teamsters pleaded with the bakers union to sign onto the deal as the last and final deadline was communicated by the company that the strike end Thursday at end of business or the company could no longer afford to operate and would liquidate:
http://www.teamster.org/content/teamster...te-hostess

Quote: On Wednesday, Nov. 14, Hostess Brands indicated that if it couldn’t resume normal operations by 5 p.m. EST on Thursday, Nov. 15 that it would have to begin the liquidation process. Teamster Hostess members and all Hostess employees should know this is not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic, but the certain outcome if members of the BCTGM continue to strike. This is based on conversations with our financial experts, who, because the Teamsters were involved in the legal process, had access to financial information about the company.

....


The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist. Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.

....

That strike is now on the verge of forcing the company to liquidate – it is difficult for Teamster members to believe that is what the BCTGM Hostess members ultimately wanted to accomplish when they went out on strike. We may never know unless the BCTGM members, based on the facts they know today, get to determine their fate in a secret ballot vote. Teamster members would understand that the will of the BCTGM Hostess membership was truly heard if that was the case.
This was the statement the teamsters released on the day of the deadline. I take a statement against interests--in this case a statement by a union critical of another union for not recognizing the state of the company they were striking against--as strong evidence that the bakers union was in the wrong. The teamsters did the right thing by negotiating hard for the best deal that maintained the viability of the company over a difficult 18 month period, only to be undone by another incompetent union that waited until the very last minute to speak up and insist they could get a better deal. Thanx to the incompetence and greed of one union, 18,000 people lost their jobs.
In 2004 the hostess workers did make concessions to keep the company in business so time goes by and the top execs pay multiplies many times that of the workers so we get to 2012 where the top execs knew that the company was going down STILL GAVE THEMSELVES RAISES AS THEY ASKED THEIR WORKERS TO MAKE MORE CONCESSIONS.

Why wouldn't the top execs take the same cuts as the workers????


NEXT
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:12 PM
The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
I blame the shelf life of Twinkies.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:16 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 08:51 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Actually, this time it really was the fault of the bakers union.

The company had been in bankruptcy for a reason. And after a long negotiation, the teamsters agreed to the new contract which saw the unions getting a 25% equity stake in the company and two seats on the board in exchange for reduced salaries and pension contributions. In a move which surprised all involved, the bakers union, instead of holding a ballot to vote on the contract, rejected the contract on voice vote nearly unanimously. This was after the bakers union failed to participate or object to any part of the negotiations they allowed the teamsters to lead. This was two month ago when the company made it clear that they saw no option other than liquidating the company if there was no deal. (ref http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/20...al/?iid=EL )

And in further evidence to the real situation here, the teamsters pleaded with the bakers union to sign onto the deal as the last and final deadline was communicated by the company that the strike end Thursday at end of business or the company could no longer afford to operate and would liquidate:
http://www.teamster.org/content/teamster...te-hostess

This was the statement the teamsters released on the day of the deadline. I take a statement against interests--in this case a statement by a union critical of another union for not recognizing the state of the company they were striking against--as strong evidence that the bakers union was in the wrong. The teamsters did the right thing by negotiating hard for the best deal that maintained the viability of the company over a difficult 18 month period, only to be undone by another incompetent union that waited until the very last minute to speak up and insist they could get a better deal. Thanx to the incompetence and greed of one union, 18,000 people lost their jobs.
And no one in management took a pay cut. In fact, they raised their salaries in this period.

The bakers' fault?
It's important to remember two things here: 1) when you're talking about these people as "bakers," they are workers. These people go to work, they bust their ass, and they deserve the ability to make a decent living. 2) the people who went into bankruptcy didn't lose their shirts here. They ran away from the company because their margins were being threatened. They weren't going to lose money... they were simply going to make LESS profits. The company walked away from the business because they would rather lose their business than treat their workers well.

~ themanchicken
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes themanchicken's post
16-11-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:12 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  I blame the shelf life of Twinkies.
It's like that one Stride gum ad where they said it lasted so long that nobody bought more than one pack. Hah!

Seriously though, Hostess' product was unsafe for human consumption long-term. Sure, you could survive one, but if you routinely consumed their products it would undoubtedly harm your health.

~ themanchicken
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes themanchicken's post
16-11-2012, 09:23 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  And no one in management took a pay cut. In fact, they raised their salaries in this period.

The bakers' fault?

So the managers raised their dough and due to the baker's Pride, everyone ended up with no bread.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: