I never said that this was only the employees faults. You're just jumping to conclusions because I said I think they made a stupid mistake.So, anybody who disagrees with you has a childish Randian worldview(yes, I'm using the same silly strawman argument that you used earlier)? ;)Nope -- only those displaying a childish Randian worldview can fairly be said to have one. Unlike others in this thread, I did not generalize.
However, I will do so now: Anyone ignorant of publicly-available information about the financial condition of the company -- which shows it has been looted by venture capitalists -- shouldn't be commenting, because doing so makes them appear foolish.
Or did the CEO offer the unions a deal he knew they couldn't accept, knowing he'd still get his $1.75 million in bonuses?
Please justify a CEO getting a bonus when he was unable to avoid bankruptcy.
And why couldn't they accept it? I'll say it more plainly: I'm not going to say any more about who I think was right or wrong. I just think it was short sighted of the union to let the ship burn down without at least getting a little more out of it first. If they had simply put in extra effort for while and job hunted while on their reduced wages they could have come out with better jobs AND better money. And if Hostess had really dropped their pay rates so low that no one would work for them then they would have just gone bankrupt anyway.
Though, maybe I'm a little biased, and simply got lucky when I was able to succeed at my 'job hunt and work at the same time' plan, lol.
Job hunting is a full time job.You can't live on a 50% paycut.They can't live on no pay either. If they were smart, they would have taken the reduced pay while looking for a new job instead of destroying the company on the spot.
TRUTH!
I accepted my "absolute last resort, safety, fallback, plan Z" job 2 1/2 years ago telling myself, well, I'll just work there over the summer or until I find something better.
Still there. Hating every moment of it.
The employees should refuse to negotiate, take severance pay, and then buy the company when it goes under.
I never said that this was only the employees faults. You're just jumping to conclusions because I said I think they made a stupid mistake.So, anybody who disagrees with you has a childish Randian worldview(yes, I'm using the same silly strawman argument that you used earlier)? ;)Nope -- only those displaying a childish Randian worldview can fairly be said to have one. Unlike others in this thread, I did not generalize.
However, I will do so now: Anyone ignorant of publicly-available information about the financial condition of the company -- which shows it has been looted by venture capitalists -- shouldn't be commenting, because doing so makes them appear foolish.
Or did the CEO offer the unions a deal he knew they couldn't accept, knowing he'd still get his $1.75 million in bonuses?
Please justify a CEO getting a bonus when he was unable to avoid bankruptcy.
And why couldn't they accept it? I'll say it more plainly: I'm not going to say any more about who I think was right or wrong. I just think it was short sighted of the union to let the ship burn down without at least getting a little more out of it first. If they had simply put in extra effort for while and job hunted while on their reduced wages they could have come out with better jobs AND better money. And if Hostess had really dropped their pay rates so low that no one would work for them then they would have just gone bankrupt anyway.
Though, maybe I'm a little biased, and simply got lucky when I was able to succeed at my 'job hunt and work at the same time' plan, lol.
So you want to ignore the fact that the company is raising pay for its wealthiest members, but asking its poorest to sacrifice more. I just want to hear the justification of that.
Why should a factory worker take a pay cut when the CEO is still getting a $1.75 million bonus? If the unions need to take a pay cut, the CEO should be giving up the bonus as well. Seems fair to me.
So you want to ignore the fact that the company is raising pay for its wealthiest members, but asking its poorest to sacrifice more. I just want to hear the justification of that.
Why should a factory worker take a pay cut when the CEO is still getting a $1.75 million bonus? If the unions need to...
*shrugs* I will honestly say though that it would have been more fair for the higher ups to take pay cuts as well. However, that doesn't change my opinion on the actions of the employees.
That's fine, it's just dumb to lay the blame at the unions feet alone, when the management is clearly not willing to do what it takes to save the company themselves.
Uh, you just generalized Randian viewpoints as being childish. I'm not fond of Randian beliefs because they are too Libertarian for my liking(I'm a conservative) but I don't feel a need to insult their view. I remember you were the same way over the Tea Party. For some reason people such yourself and a few others on this board have a need to ridicule or demonize anybody that has a different viewpoint than your own. I just don't get it. *shrugs*
Negative, ghost-rider. I characterized one person's view as childish and Randian, though in hindsight I think I was missing a comma.
Nor do I feel a need to ridicule or demonize "anyone who has a different viewpoint than my own." I'm not the one who characterized the entire union as "not smart", or "the class warfare crowd" as ignorant of basic economics. There are plenty of conservatives -- on this board and elsewhere -- with whom I disagree, but I respect their opinions because they're well considered and supported by data. Others, however, hold opinions which they cannot defend, and those people deserve to be taken to task.
But we can do this forever. You're clearly harboring a grudge over my opinion of the Tea Party, so I'm not going to convince you I'm anything but the hypocrite you imagine me to be.
|
Yesterday I had some Hostess Orange Cupcakes for the first time in years. I always preferred those to Twinkies.
So good. Yet so bad for you.
Heard from the clerks that people had been coming in earlier that day, hoarding all the Twinkies they could grab. Ebay's going to get even more ridiculous in the next few months, isn't it.
Twinkies aren't going away any time soon. They peaked over $500 on eBay today for a case.
Down with twinkies!
Vive Le Zinger!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't live on a 50% paycut.They can't live on no pay either. If they were smart, they would have taken the reduced pay while looking for a new job instead of destroying the company on the spot.
Oh wait, I forgot about unemployment checks. No wonder they simply let the company die.
At some point the argument for taking another pay cut because "a bad job is better than no job" just doesn't work any more.
How many pay cuts should the line workers accept while management drastically improves it compensation? Is it right for the unions to reward gross mismanagement while failing to defend a living wage for their members? Concessions might make sense if the company were well managed and might survive, but that seems all but imposable in this case.
At some point unemployment looks like a much smarter choice than a dead end company job. I'm not convinced that the bakers union voted against its own interests here.
Yes those evil Republican vulture capital ..oh:The first use of the word "Republican" in this thread is in your post.
Thanks for pointing that out Cpt. Obvious!
I'm not sure why that is germaine to the price of eggs in Irvine, but whatevs.
|
Yes those evil Republican vulture capital ..oh:The first use of the word "Republican" in this thread is in your post.
Thanks for pointing that out Cpt. Obvious!
I'm not sure why that is germaine to the price of eggs in Irvine, but whatevs.
Oddly enough, we are opposed to all corporate abuses of workers Patrick. Not just those perpetrated by people outside our political affiliation.
Thanks for pointing that out Cpt. Obvious!
I'm not sure why that is germaine to the price of eggs in Irvine, but whatevs.
I don't know, maybe because you were implying that Republicans were being blamed? By, you know, typing what others have but inserting the word "Republican?"
As for belaboring the obvious -- welcome to my life. It eventually becomes hard to tell the difference between "should be obvious" and "obvious."
You can't live on a 50% paycut.They can't live on no pay either. If they were smart, they would have taken the reduced pay while looking for a new job instead of destroying the company on the spot.
Oh wait, I forgot about unemployment checks. No wonder they simply let the company die.
You really should look at how the paycut was set up. It would be demoralizing for anyone to work under.
Oddly enough, we are opposed to all corporate abuses of workers Patrick. Not just those perpetrated by people outside our political affiliation.Yes those evil Republican vulture capital ..oh:The first use of the word "Republican" in this thread is in your post.
Thanks for pointing that out Cpt. Obvious!
I'm not sure why that is germaine to the price of eggs in Irvine, but whatevs.
Agreed.
Little Debbie is working hard to replace these for you.
CupCakes = Chocolate Cupcakes
Ding Dongs = Cocoa Cremes
Twinkie = Cloud Cakes
Fruit Pies = Snack Pies (in Apple, Cherry, Chocolate, and Lemon)
I appreciate the suggestions. Some of Little Debbie's products are good, but for some reason the taste isn't the same. Maybe it's the way the recipe is done. Maybe it's about familiarity. Always felt like the chocolate flavor especially wasn't as good - especially so with Ding Dongs vs. Cocoa Cremes. But the Snack Pies are a good fallback.
Also - another bummer - Dollie Madison goes down with the Hostess ship as well. So, no more Zingers either.
On the other hand - I am in a regional market where Mexican-based Bimbo is available. I understand they might buy the rights to the Twinkie brand. While I don't care for many of their products (pure sugar in alot of their products makes them too sweet), they make some good donettes and a chocolate Twinkie knock-off.
How do you feel about Drake's cakes, such as Ring Dings, Yodels and Drake's Fruit Pies? How do those compare to Hostess' Ding Dongs and fruit pies?
(As someone who keeps kosher and never tried Hostess products, I'm genuinely curious.)
First off - Drake's is also a Hostess divison, according to Wikipedia. So, they may also be going away, depending on what happens.
Growing up, Drake's was never as available as Hostess, Dolly Madison, or Little Debbie. So I didn't try many of their products until I was an adult and found them more common on the East Coast when I moved.
Again - part of it is familiarity, so the taste isn't the same. To me, the Ring Ding was OK, but the Boston Creme version of it was good.
Yodels I didn't care for, but the HoHo (Hostess' version) was never a favorite of mine either. The Fruit Pies are good - but different; flakier maybe. I think the lack of lard used by Hostess' version is what makes the difference.
When it comes to Drake's, the thing they do well was the Coffee Cakes to me. Those were delicious and great as a snack - with coffee naturally. ;-)
...Mexican-based Bimbo...
Bimbo? Wow, talk about your language-based branding failures... :P
And why couldn't they accept it? I'll say it more plainly: I'm not going to say any more about who I think was right or wrong. I just think it was short sighted of the union to let the ship burn down without at least getting a little more out of it first. If they had simply put in extra effort for while and job hunted while on their reduced wages they could have come out with better jobs AND better money. And if Hostess had really dropped their pay rates so low that no one would work for them then they would have just gone bankrupt anyway.
2 things.
One, it's not quite so simple as "the union". They voted on it and the vote was close. As was the Teamster's vote earlier, though in the other direction. It was a close call. Many people probably following your line of thoughtTwo, and this is where I spout unsupported theory: People are not rational profit maximizers. People tend to reject deals they perceive to be unfair to them, even when that means they lose out. See the literature on the Ultimatum Game.
two players interact to decide how to divide a sum of money that is given to them. The first player proposes how to divide the sum between the two players, and the second player can either accept or reject this proposal. If the second player rejects, neither player receives anything. If the second player accepts, the money is split according to the proposal. The game is played only once so that reciprocation is not an issue.
offers of less than 20% are often rejectedIn this case the perception that management & the owners were not playing fair: second bankruptcy filing, their own bonuses, canceling the pension fund, lack of promised investments, etc., may well have pushed some union members to vote to "punish" them even against their own short term economic interests.
tl;dr People get pissed off when someone's screwing them over and they push back, even if it's not the logical thing to...
I'd also add that, in a unionized shop, going on strike doesn't necessarily mean "sink the ship."
I didn't hear about any of this through official IBT channels (big surprise, you never hear about the losses) but I am kind of surprised the Teamsters aren't doing more. We just went through this same venture capitalist smash and grab at YRC Freight and Hoffa and Ken Hall pulled off some kind of succesful campaign about Wall Street, blah blah blah, I don't really details. There were concessions made, but I believe they kept their pension. (And, parenthetically, what kind of f!@!ing Teamsters shop gives up their pension?!?)
But then again, they just won reelection last year and are safe for another six years. It's possible there's nothing salvageable from it, and if that's the case then I agree with, I think it was, Citizen Meatrace. Sink the ship, take the severance and get on with your lives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At some point the argument for taking another pay cut because "a bad job is better than no job" just doesn't work any more.
How many pay cuts should the line workers accept while management drastically improves it compensation? Is it right for the unions to reward gross mismanagement while failing to defend a living wage for their members? Concessions might make sense if the company were well managed and might survive, but that seems all but imposable in this case.
At some point unemployment looks like a much smarter choice than a dead end company job. I'm not convinced that the bakers union voted against its own interests here.
Libertarians and Communists agree--Strike!!!
That's fine, it's just dumb to lay the blame at the unions feet alone, when the management is clearly not willing to do what it takes to save the company themselves.
Yep, I wasn't trying to say that it was all the unions faults. I was just thinking that they didn't seem to be helping themselves much either.
Though, for all I know most of them are collecting unemployment checks now, and if that's the case then I guess they actually made the smarter decision XD
Most of the time, you cannot collect unemployment while on strike. It's different from state to state, and, of course, if the union is friendly with the local state government (wink, wink)...but I think most of the time it isn't allowed.
Also, you'll note that there is this "winding down" process. Part of that is going to be paying out, hopefully, hefty sums of severance pay money. This usually also further complicates going on unemployment...which of course, was paid into by their former employer for just this possible circumstance.
Again - part of it is familiarity, so the taste isn't the same. To me, the Ring Ding was OK, but the Boston Creme version of it was good.
Yodels I didn't care for, but the HoHo (Hostess' version) was never a favorite of mine either. The Fruit Pies are good - but different; flakier maybe. I think the lack of lard used by Hostess' version is what makes the difference.
Thanks!
(I'm surprised you didn't care for the Yodels. It always seemed to me that the smaller cake content, and therefore the higher creme ratio, made them better to appease that sugar craving. They seemed the most popular Drake's cakes back in my high school days, from my limited perspective.)
Drake's is also a Hostess divison, according to Wikipedia. So, they may also be going away, depending on what happens.
What a pity.
But then, maybe I could use that as an excuse to stock up, when I should otherwise be cutting down on junk food. :)
That's fine, it's just dumb to lay the blame at the unions feet alone, when the management is clearly not willing to do what it takes to save the company themselves.Yep, I wasn't trying to say that it was all the unions faults. I was just thinking that they didn't seem to be helping themselves much either.
Though, for all I know most of them are collecting unemployment checks now, and if that's the case then I guess they actually made the smarter decision XD
And given that a judge has forced the company into mediation, they may still get another chance. Possibly even a better deal.
Yeah, I was thinking that myself, but we'll see.
...Mexican-based Bimbo...Bimbo? Wow, talk about your language-based branding failures... :P
LOL - I know. The name is associated with their corporate mascot - a cartoon, white bear. I think it is more the equivalent to say Tony the Tiger with cereal or Ronald MacDonald with Hamburgers.
So, they've got money to pay bonuses to keep execs on, but not enough to pay severance pay?!?
That doesn't sound right at all.
Anyway, it's amazing what a little class struggle can get you.
News just mentioned them going back into negotiations and some sort of help to prevent the company going out of business. Wasn't paying too much attention.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, no no, Pluto belonged to Mickey, I don't know if Stooge McDuck had a dog.
Yes, his butler Duckworth was an anthropomorphic dog.
And so this isn't completely un-tangential,
I think Marvel and DC should start running some "Save our Hostess" adds a-la the classic one page spreads in the 70's where a hero defeats a villain by tossing him some Hostess snacks.
Greed is chaotic and evil
Untrue. That's like saying "Money is the root of all evil.", when that's a misquote of "Love of Money is the root of all evil." Greed is a powerful functionary for the development of the individual, who strives to obtain what he does not have, and of the society, which also gathers resources and seeks to protect them.
Greed is no more chaotic and evil than lust, or pride. It is a part of human existence. A tool for those with good and lawful intent. As with all human existence, it is difficult to place any qualifiers or descriptors, as what is done with that existence depends on the the actions of the individuals or group of individuals who possess it.
Perhaps what was originally intended was to say that 'Some uses of greed are chaotic and evil.', just as some uses of greed are good and lawful.
We must understand the nature of supply and demand, supply and price, demand and price, as these are basically the science of greed, the end result of which is the flow of resources from one person to another (often more ambitious and driven) person.
Working in retail, selling fine jewelry, it's quite a stirring philosophy to observe the market price of certain merchandise fluctuate with the political and economic times. The price is determined, generally, by what the market will bear. Unless the government interferes.
Hmmm...I think I'd actually say that ambition can good, but greed is just plain evil.
The pure sugar is why I buy them- tastes better to me.
Little Debbie is working hard to replace these for you.
CupCakes = Chocolate Cupcakes
Ding Dongs = Cocoa Cremes
Twinkie = Cloud Cakes
Fruit Pies = Snack Pies (in Apple, Cherry, Chocolate, and Lemon)
I appreciate the suggestions. Some of Little Debbie's products are good, but for some reason the taste isn't the same. Maybe it's the way the recipe is done. Maybe it's about familiarity. Always felt like the chocolate flavor especially wasn't as good - especially so with Ding Dongs vs. Cocoa Cremes. But the Snack Pies are a good fallback.
Also - another bummer - Dollie Madison goes down with the Hostess ship as well. So, no more Zingers either.
On the other hand - I am in a regional market where Mexican-based Bimbo is available. I understand they might buy the rights to the Twinkie brand. While I don't care for many of their products (pure sugar in alot of their products makes them too sweet), they make some good donettes and a chocolate Twinkie knock-off.
The pure sugar is why I buy them- tastes better
LOL - Your Mileage May Vary. ;-)
I love me some pure cane sugar instead of corn syrup as well. And some Latino sweets are simply awesome in their sweetness (especially those fresh at a bodega). However, I find that some Latino sweets are too sweet - they lose all the flavor under the avalanche of sugar.
Greed is chaotic and evilUntrue. That's like saying "Money is the root of all evil.", when that's a misquote of "Love of Money is the root of all evil." Greed is a powerful functionary for the development of the individual, who strives to obtain what he does not have, and of the society, which also gathers resources and seeks to protect them.
Greed is no more chaotic and evil than lust, or pride. It is a part of human existence. A tool for those with good and lawful intent. As with all human existence, it is difficult to place any qualifiers or descriptors, as what is done with that existence depends on the the actions of the individuals or group of individuals who possess it.
Perhaps what was originally intended was to say that 'Some uses of greed are chaotic and evil.', just as some uses of greed are good and lawful.
We must understand the nature of supply and demand, supply and price, demand and price, as these are basically the science of greed, the end result of which is the flow of resources from one person to another (often more ambitious and driven) person.Working in retail, selling fine jewelry, it's quite a stirring philosophy to observe the market price of certain merchandise fluctuate with the political and economic times. The price is determined, generally, by what the market will bear. Unless the government interferes.
Greed is one of the classic seven deadly sins. Along with pride and lust, so I guess it does make sense to say "Greed is no more chaotic and evil than lust, or pride."
Greed is usually understood not as any desire to "obtain what he does not have", but the "the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort."
As such, it doesn't actually drive most people's economic decisions or the economy as a whole.
As such.
If you define the terms that way, you may be correct. Machiavelli once wrote "The wish to acquire more is admittedly a very natural and common thing; and when men succeed in this they are always praised rather than condemned. But when they lack the ability to do so and yet want to acquire more at all costs, they deserve condemnation for their mistakes."
And it is the first sentence which I have associated with greed, that it is characterized by drive and ambition towards the acquirement of goods and productivity over a long period of time; and primarily stability for the self and for loved ones. But greed at all costs (as in the second sentence), this is truly destructive. And if greed is such a destructive need, I would say it has become something other than greed, which to me seems a valid motivator for the acquisition of wealth. So greed, by itself, is not evil. Nor is lust, nor is pride. But the human thought and action that is based on those driving motivations can be either productive or destructive. All of them can be blinding. And I would say that Blinding Greed, Blinding Lust, and Blinding Pride (often called Hubris) are indeed destructive, chaotic, and evil. Likewise human motivations that are used to enlighten the human condition. Enlightening Greed, Enlightening Lust, and Enlightening Pride are productive, lawful, and good.
Lust, greed and pride?
Sounds like a party!
The pure sugar is why I buy them- tastes betterLOL - Your Mileage May Vary. ;-)
I love me some pure cane sugar instead of corn syrup as well. And some Latino sweets are simply awesome in their sweetness (especially those fresh at a bodega). However, I find that some Latino sweets are too sweet - they lose all the flavor under the avalanche of sugar.
those at usually meant to be enjoyed with strong, bitter beverages.
|
Mismanagement ---likely ...
However, those "evil corporate raiders" kept the Co. going for the last few yeas and thus saved the jobs of those working at the Co.
I am always amazed how the class warfare crowd fails to understand the basic economic idea of:
No profit = No Business = No jobs!!!
If the option is work for less or don't work at all it is insane to choose the later. Welcome to union dominated America. We'd rather not work because the government will surely take care of us.
The "class warfare crowd?"
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”― Warren Buffett
As for "failing to understand the basic economic idea" -- I don't think that is the problem. Maybe you should try something other than assuming anyone who disagrees with you is a moron?
I saw a bumper sticker today. It read "People not Profits!" How can I not assume that that is based on emotion and not knowledge. I hope the person driving that car is ignorant of economics. If that person actually is educated then the situation is much much worse. An ignorant person can be forgiven for being ignorant. A person that knows how economics works and then purposely supports an anti-competitive model is willfully economically destructive. It might make us feel good about ourselves to say we care about and support people, but when our actions actually cost jobs (like supporting the idea that profit is bad and venture capitalists are "evil corporate raiders")then our actions actually injure the very people we purport to care about.
If there are better jobs out there than Hostess then the workers can and should go get a better job. But Hostess is neither evil nor wrong to insist on making a profit. No Profit = No jobs.
Funny. The nonprofit I worked for employed me just fine.