The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2012, 09:24 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
Lets take bets on how much longer it is til this guy Bryan S spouts the classic all encompassing defense of capitalism....

"The workers can choose to get another job"

I bet in 2 or less more of his posts he will say that or imply that.


BET
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:27 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:12 PM)I and I 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.
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
Once again, lies from the left. I don't mean you, but what was probably your source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11...-downfall/

The same google search reveals the lie about an unwillingness to address executive pay:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ho...dw8xSPoPKN
Quote: Facing an internal revolt, Hostess Brands will roll back pay raises it doled out to top managers just months before filing for bankruptcy.

The maker of Twinkies and Ding Dongs is slashing pay for its four highest-paid managers to $1 apiece until Hostess emerges from Chapter 11 or Dec. 31, whichever comes first.

In addition, CEO Gregory Rayburn said four junior execs will see their salaries reset to the amounts they were paid before last summer’s huge pay hikes.

“Those raises were the product of an assessment by our compensation committee and an independent compensation consulting firm and were meant to create stability while we sought to restructure the company,” Rayburn said in a letter to employees yesterday. “We are in different circumstances today.”

The move came after the company’s creditors slammed Hostess in court papers for jacking up managers’ salaries in July after it had already hired restructuring lawyers. Hostess hired advisers in March 2011 but didn’t file for bankruptcy until January.
It is clear the executives had to be shamed into the pay cuts--by their evil, corporate creditors--but they cut their pay none-the-less. Notice it was the creditors, not the unions, that forced the executives to undo their pay raises. And this was in April, by the way--long before things blew up.

So yes, it was the greedy, incompetent bakers union that caused the company to close doors. Ignore the criticism from their union coworkers in the Teamsters union if you wish, but by doing so you ignore the plain facts. I know lefties find it hard to listen to a conservative point of view, and that was why I quoted so much of the statement released by the Teamsters (and again, it was a warning about this impending closure right on the eve of the deadline).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
16-11-2012, 09:29 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:24 PM)I and I Wrote:  Lets take bets on how much longer it is til this guy Bryan S spouts the classic all encompassing defense of capitalism....

"The workers can choose to get another job"

I bet in 2 or less more of his posts he will say that or imply that.


BET
Try critical thinking for a change. You might find you enjoy the experience Smile I suppose you think the Teamsters are just right wing stooges, eh?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:35 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 09:12 PM)I and I Wrote:  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
Once again, lies from the left. I don't mean you, but what was probably your source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11...-downfall/

The same google search reveals the lie about an unwillingness to address executive pay:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ho...dw8xSPoPKN
Quote: Facing an internal revolt, Hostess Brands will roll back pay raises it doled out to top managers just months before filing for bankruptcy.

The maker of Twinkies and Ding Dongs is slashing pay for its four highest-paid managers to $1 apiece until Hostess emerges from Chapter 11 or Dec. 31, whichever comes first.

In addition, CEO Gregory Rayburn said four junior execs will see their salaries reset to the amounts they were paid before last summer’s huge pay hikes.

“Those raises were the product of an assessment by our compensation committee and an independent compensation consulting firm and were meant to create stability while we sought to restructure the company,” Rayburn said in a letter to employees yesterday. “We are in different circumstances today.”

The move came after the company’s creditors slammed Hostess in court papers for jacking up managers’ salaries in July after it had already hired restructuring lawyers. Hostess hired advisers in March 2011 but didn’t file for bankruptcy until January.
It is clear the executives had to be shamed into the pay cuts--by their evil, corporate creditors--but they cut their pay none-the-less. Notice it was the creditors, not the unions, that forced the executives to undo their pay raises. And this was in April, by the way--long before things blew up.

So yes, it was the greedy, incompetent bakers union that caused the company to close doors. Ignore the criticism from their union coworkers in the Teamsters union if you wish, but by doing so you ignore the plain facts. I know lefties find it hard to listen to a conservative point of view, and that was why I quoted so much of the statement released by the Teamsters (and again, it was a warning about this impending closure right on the eve of the deadline).
So after 2004 when the workers did make concessions the top execs continued to make better pay, and you are shocked that the workers didn't buy the same bit?

And how did the workers cause the plant to close down? Who filed for bankruptcy? And why exactly should workers take pay cuts so their bosses can maintain profit margins?

Those evil workers wanting a living wage, how dare they....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:45 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:29 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 09:24 PM)I and I Wrote:  Lets take bets on how much longer it is til this guy Bryan S spouts the classic all encompassing defense of capitalism....

"The workers can choose to get another job"

I bet in 2 or less more of his posts he will say that or imply that.


BET
Try critical thinking for a change. You might find you enjoy the experience Smile I suppose you think the Teamsters are just right wing stooges, eh?
It must be right to be the only guy with the right answer. "The Teamsters" aren't a homogenous group of people. They're a vary diverse group, and it's important to remember that while unions are a great means for organizing workers, their leadership tends to be reactionary and often quite conservative.

~ 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, 09:46 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 09:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Once again, lies from the left. I don't mean you, but what was probably your source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11...-downfall/

The same google search reveals the lie about an unwillingness to address executive pay:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ho...8xSPoPKNIt is clear the executives had to be shamed into the pay cuts--by their evil, corporate creditors--but they cut their pay none-the-less. Notice it was the creditors, not the unions, that forced the executives to undo their pay raises. And this was in April, by the way--long before things blew up.

So yes, it was the greedy, incompetent bakers union that caused the company to close doors. Ignore the criticism from their union coworkers in the Teamsters union if you wish, but by doing so you ignore the plain facts. I know lefties find it hard to listen to a conservative point of view, and that was why I quoted so much of the statement released by the Teamsters (and again, it was a warning about this impending closure right on the eve of the deadline).
So after 2004 when the workers did make concessions the top execs continued to make better pay, and you are shocked that the workers didn't buy the same bit?

And how did the workers cause the plant to close down? Who filed for bankruptcy? And why exactly should workers take pay cuts so their bosses can maintain profit margins?

Those evil workers wanting a living wage, how dare they....
You have the timing a bit wrong here. According to the news postings, the CEO was paid $750k until right before they filed bankruptcy again. It was a clear attempt by the company to try to pay their management a retention bonus as they prepared to file again for bankruptcy--which the story I posted made clear would be improper and was therefore challenged by creditors.

You are so right--it is so much better to have no job at all rather than one with a 8% pay cut. That is such a thoughtful, caring attitude towards those poor workers who would have had to otherwise suffer the indignity of full employment. Now that the company's assets and brands will be sold--no doubt to a large foreign company like Mexico's Bimboo--perhaps the bakers union employees could emigrate to Mexico where those jobs will be sure to permanently relocate?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:47 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 09:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Once again, lies from the left. I don't mean you, but what was probably your source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11...-downfall/

The same google search reveals the lie about an unwillingness to address executive pay:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ho...8xSPoPKNIt is clear the executives had to be shamed into the pay cuts--by their evil, corporate creditors--but they cut their pay none-the-less. Notice it was the creditors, not the unions, that forced the executives to undo their pay raises. And this was in April, by the way--long before things blew up.

So yes, it was the greedy, incompetent bakers union that caused the company to close doors. Ignore the criticism from their union coworkers in the Teamsters union if you wish, but by doing so you ignore the plain facts. I know lefties find it hard to listen to a conservative point of view, and that was why I quoted so much of the statement released by the Teamsters (and again, it was a warning about this impending closure right on the eve of the deadline).
So after 2004 when the workers did make concessions the top execs continued to make better pay, and you are shocked that the workers didn't buy the same bit?

And how did the workers cause the plant to close down? Who filed for bankruptcy? And why exactly should workers take pay cuts so their bosses can maintain profit margins?

Those evil workers wanting a living wage, how dare they....
Bowing

~ themanchicken
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:50 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:46 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 09:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  So after 2004 when the workers did make concessions the top execs continued to make better pay, and you are shocked that the workers didn't buy the same bit?

And how did the workers cause the plant to close down? Who filed for bankruptcy? And why exactly should workers take pay cuts so their bosses can maintain profit margins?

Those evil workers wanting a living wage, how dare they....
You have the timing a bit wrong here. According to the news postings, the CEO was paid $750k until right before they filed bankruptcy again. It was a clear attempt by the company to try to pay their management a retention bonus as they prepared to file again for bankruptcy--which the story I posted made clear would be improper and was therefore challenged by creditors.

You are so right--it is so much better to have no job at all rather than one with a 8% pay cut. That is such a thoughtful, caring attitude towards those poor workers who would have had to otherwise suffer the indignity of full employment. Now that the company's assets and brands will be sold--no doubt to a large foreign company like Mexico's Bimboo--perhaps the bakers union employees could emigrate to Mexico where those jobs will be sure to permanently relocate?
when is cutting pay of the common worker a good thing? And what economic fantasy land do you live in to think that it was necessary to cut wages to even stay in business?

You seem to think that the cut was necessary to stay in business.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:51 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 09:45 PM)themanchicken Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 09:29 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Try critical thinking for a change. You might find you enjoy the experience Smile I suppose you think the Teamsters are just right wing stooges, eh?
It must be right to be the only guy with the right answer. "The Teamsters" aren't a homogenous group of people. They're a vary diverse group, and it's important to remember that while unions are a great means for organizing workers, their leadership tends to be reactionary and often quite conservative.
Some lefties won't listen to anything coming from a conservative, so I cited the Teamsters as a source that you might actually consider on the merits of their criticism. By don't just take their word for it--the bankruptcy court judge in the case also agreed that the pay cuts negotiated over an 18 month long process also ruled that the new contracts were the only way to maintain solvency.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:51 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 05:31 PM)themanchicken Wrote:  
(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.
I am not gonna have my Twinkies because of those mother fuckers! Dodgy

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: