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.
Competative buisnesses can pay living wages. The fact of the matter is, companies are maxamizing proffits at the expense of their employees. Apple could have doubled the salary of all of their employees and they would have still turned in record proffits last year. Lots of companies are paying employees less than ever while turning record proffits.
Ford also had a lot of puritanical rules and basically employed a (not-so-secret) secret police to enforce them. He didn't just want to create more consumers for his products, he wanted to create the "right kind" of consumers.
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.
First of all, some background, just so we understand each other. I took two years of economics in college. The year of lower division work required for all business majors, and an additional year of upper division electives. I'm not telling you this because I believe I'm an expert (I'm clearly not), or to imply a position of authority (which I do not occupy), but so you understand I'm not just talking about my ass.
Second...I don't believe that profit is bad, or that we should adopt a some sort of non-competitive model. I believe competition is important and healthy, because it maximizes productivity. However, maximized productivity is only part of the picture. Things like distribution of wealth and how we choose to reward labor vs. capital matter. People matter. Wealth is not an end unto itself. In other words, the ethical underpinnings of capitalism rest upon the resultant wealth benefiting everyone -- not just the very richest. Otherwise, what the hell is the point?
Third, I'm also quite aware that competition is not a panacea. It is a mathematical fact that in some cases everyone working in their own self-interest does not produce the best outcome. I'm aware that costs get externalized in a way that is not transparent to the market. That information is imperfect. That some investments simply can't be made efficiently by individuals or small groups. That rational people often aren't.
Assuming anyone who sports that bumper sticker (which I would gladly put on my car, BTW, because I read it as "people before profits") is ignorant, or worse, actively out to destroy wealth is simply a mistake. Because I am neither.
As for Hostess -- the employees had already agreed to wage concessions, only to see the board greatly increase the compensation of senior management. That sort of focus on rewarding short-term cost savings at the expense of long-term health is what put the company in hot water, not the some stubbornness on the part of rank-and-file employees.
Yup, that is why I don't purchase Pathfinder products. They don't care about workers. They ship their production overseas so that they can line their pockets. Why not bump the price of their materials up by $5 and pay some hard working unionized American to print their material. Nope, money is all that matters.
Also remember Machiavelli's work "the prince" was probably political satire, well reasoned, but it's likely Machiavelli was Stephen Colbert before Stephen Colbert. Anytime you find yourself nodding in agreement with Machiavelli you probably need to take a step back . . . as you might anytime you find yourself agreeing with Satan in Milton's "Paradise Lost".
It is better to reign in Galt than to serve at Paizo!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ford also had a lot of puritanical rules and basically employed a (not-so-secret) secret police to enforce them. He didn't just want to create more consumers for his products, he wanted to create the "right kind" of consumers.
I hear he was a templar.
I would strongly suggest you entertain what the union workers had to say on the subject. This is not exactly "work for less" its a 50 percent pay cut over time- you are literally making less each year. Few are the people who would take this in stride.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.
Would you have a link handy?
All I can seem to find is crap like "Some sources claim...". I would think this information wouldn't be too hard to get for a publicly traded company especially if they are restructuring.
Perhaps my search Fu is weak.
From what I could tell, as per usual, all sides were pretty close-mouthed about the proposed concessions.
I think--think, mind you--that Freehold's quote about 50% is what production was down to because of the strike.
Since the Hostess's side was put in the OP, here's the official Bakers Union page.
Those at usually meant to be enjoyed with strong, bitter beverages.
Good point. Problem is that I can't always have such a drink with them. Also - the sheer caloric intake requires I get really active, which doesn't always happen and so instead I'm sitting there wired. ;-)
Not to taunt the bear, but I am finding it amusing that we are discussing the merits of snack foods and cultural habits while the rest of the thread turns into a capitalism/unionism/greed debate.
Just saying. Carry on.
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.Because the opposite "Profits not People!" is so much better.
That was a pretty good book, actually.
Those at usually meant to be enjoyed with strong, bitter beverages.Good point. Problem is that I can't always have such a drink with them. Also - the sheer caloric intake requires I get really active, which doesn't always happen and so instead I'm sitting there wired. ;-)
Not to taunt the bear, but I am finding it amusing that we are discussing the merits of snack foods and cultural habits while the rest of the thread turns into a capitalism/unionism/greed debate.
Just saying. Carry on.
I never really ate Hostess products. Count me as part of the Little Debbie crowd.
But, really, I prefer crackers and potato chips for my junk food. If union workers drive Cheez-Its out of business, I will join the counterrevolution.
Vive le Galt (for now)!
Twinkies is a strong business and business is good, therefor I have a good feeling Twinkies will survive under new management/company. It was the clowns that ran the company is what killed them.
I would strongly suggest you entertain what the union workers had to say on the subject. This is not exactly "work for less" its a 50 percent pay cut over time- you are literally making less each year. Few are the people who would take this in stride.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.
Would you have a link handy?
All I can seem to find is crap like "Some sources claim...". I would think this information wouldn't be too hard to get for a publicly traded company especially if they are restructuring.
Perhaps my search Fu is weak.
I'm looking man...but I can't find the original quote. I truly hate to say "take my word for it," as this IS the internet, but for now, I must. I'll keep looking. It was a diminishing return over at least three years, resulting in a 50% pay cut at the end. Something like going from making 48K one year, to 35K the next year, to 24K the last year. Not at all something most people would stick around for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes those evil Republican vulture capital ..oh:The first use of the word "Republican" in this thread is in your post.
You're quibbling over kibbles.
Everybody knows who you are referring to when you wax douchisophically over virtual Randian kindergartners and then say "BTW--you still lost the election." But, please; continue to pretend that you're the only adult in the room or whatever it is you're doing.
Re: twinkies,......I don't mean to hurt anybody's feelings here, but they are substandard fare, AND they are not healthy. Healthy sells nowadays. If your stuff's NOT healthy, it better be tasty to a big group of people, or you're dead.
And they made wonder bread. I can't take a crap for days after I eat a piece of wonder bread. It's garbage.
They needed to reinvent themselves or die. It's evolution. Whoever messed whatever up doesn't matter, without evolution of product it was just a matter of time.
So, I doubt the union was responsible for how bad a twinkie sucks. All they wouldn't do is take a financial hit for how bad a twinkie sucks.
The only hope was to make a twinkie not suck. That's management's job.
I'm looking man...but I can't find the original quote. I truly hate to say "take my word for it," as this IS the internet, but for now, I must. I'll keep looking. It was a diminishing return over at least three years, resulting in a 50% pay cut at the end. Something like going from making 48K one year, to 35K the next year, to 24K the last year. Not at all something most people would stick around for.I would strongly suggest you entertain what the union workers had to say on the subject. This is not exactly "work for less" its a 50 percent pay cut over time- you are literally making less each year. Few are the people who would take this in stride.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.
Would you have a link handy?
All I can seem to find is crap like "Some sources claim...". I would think this information wouldn't be too hard to get for a publicly traded company especially if they are restructuring.
Perhaps my search Fu is weak.
I'm inclined to believe you. This is consistent with my my experience in manufacturing. Line workers and immediate supervisors work their asses off to increase productivity and yield without raises for a couple of years then the company sells the plant or off shores the work. Line workers get pink slips and the executives get bonuses.
I don't have many details, but find it hard to blame the union for not grabbing it's ankles yet again.
I'm surprised that more unions don't try to become major share holders so they can add that influence to collective bargaining.
Ironically I think companies where employees become the majority shareholders may be the best way for the workers to own the means of production.
I'm not a fan of workers becoming majority shareholders, but I think they should have shares as part of their benefits/salary.
I haven't eaten a Twinkie since I was a kid.
I'm sorry for the people who have lost their livelihood.
That said, I'm really surprised at the number of dungeoneers here who take such an interest in the particulars of a company a great many people might not even have realized was still in business (since so few of us, apparently, eat any of its products). I mean to say that it's odd to read so many comments that clearly indicate some of you have researched the finer details of this particular bankruptcy.
At any rate, I've already far exceeded my total possibly interest in any of this.
(Snarky, I know.)
Everybody knows who you are referring to when you wax douchisophically over virtual Randian kindergartners and then say "BTW--you still lost the election." But, please; continue to pretend that you're the only adult in the room or whatever it is you're doing.
The election barb was cheap; for that, I apologize. I will not, however, apologize for calling Objectvism juvenile -- because it is (as was calling me a douche -- but whatever).
If you're actually interested in communication, I refer you to my longer post a little way up thread. Alternatively, feel free to continue vilifying me -- or whatever it is that you're doing. :)
COMMUNIST! :)
Lol! No MINARCHIST! I very much in favor of voluntary forms of community action like trade unions, VFDs, food banks and so forth.
Although I am in favor or workers owning as many shares of the means of production as they wish to purchase.
Maybe I'm reading too many of DA's links. O_o
Everybody knows who you are referring to when you wax douchisophically over virtual Randian kindergartners and then say "BTW--you still lost the election." But, please; continue to pretend that you're the only adult in the room or whatever it is you're doing.
I will not, however, apologize for calling Objectvism juvenile -- because it is (as was calling me a douche -- but whatever).
Out of curiosity, what part of Objectvism do you feel is childish?
Out of curiosity, what part of Objectvism do you feel is childish?
Hmmm...off the cuff (and we can talk about this more in PMs if you're really interested), I find the idea that there is a tiny group of creative, driven people (the so-called makers) and a huge group of people who live off the fruits of the maker's labor (the so-called takers) childish. We're all "takers" and "makers" at different times, but the one thing we share in common is that none of us would be where we are without each other. NO ONE is solely responsible for producing anything. Consequently, the argument that taxation is theft is especially juvenile. It's nothing more than screaming "MINE!," cloaked in the trappings of philosophy.
I like chocolate milk!
I'm not a fan of workers becoming majority shareholders, but I think they should have shares as part of their benefits/salary.
Employee ownership combined with good governance systems in the company are extremely effective. One of the biggest retailers in the UK is employee owned and has managed to lay off a lower percentage of its employees than competitors or other industries while maintaining wages and benefits and also staying in the black as far as profits.
Employee ownership increases the stakes the employees have in the company. Morale, pride, trust all increase, which lowers employee turnover. Less turnover means that money spent training and improving your workforce pays off more over time.
On Fortune's list of 100 best companies to work for you see a decent number of employee owned business, and businesses that use similar practices to them, like profit sharing.
Paying employees more with profits instead of giving them to shareholders means fewer layoffs during economic downturns, because their pay is flexible. It also requires transparency about the companies expenses and revenue and if that transparency spills over to other aspects you get more trust as well.
As for taxes, I watched An Inconvenient Tax on Hulu the other day. It was interesting, with some good information in it. I hadn't heard the stats on some of the tax breaks before, like mortgage interest, where only 2% of the benefit goes to the bottom 52% who own homes, it makes sense, just haven't heard it talked about much.
COMMUNIST! :)Lol!
Maybe I'm reading too many of DA's links. O_o
Another successful subversion brought to you by Cultural Marxism!
I don't want to belong to any club that doesn't accept my member.
I don't want to belong to any club that doesn't accept my member.
I'll happily club your member.
I just cruise Paizo looking for places to drop Annie Hall links.
I'm not a fan of workers becoming majority shareholders, but I think they should have shares as part of their benefits/salary.Employee ownership combined with good governance systems in the company are extremely effective. One of the biggest retailers in the UK is employee owned and has managed to lay off a lower percentage of its employees than competitors or other industries while maintaining wages and benefits and also staying in the black as far as profits.
Employee ownership increases the stakes the employees have in the company. Morale, pride, trust all increase, which lowers employee turnover. Less turnover means that money spent training and improving your workforce pays off more over time.
On Fortune's list of 100 best companies to work for you see a decent number of employee owned business, and businesses that use similar practices to them, like profit sharing.
Paying employees more with profits instead of giving them to shareholders means fewer layoffs during economic downturns, because their pay is flexible. It also requires transparency about the companies expenses and revenue and if that transparency spills over to other aspects you get more trust as well.
It also provides some defense from the equity firms that run corporations like this Hostess debacle.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Irontruth and DA in the same thread. perhaps something is wrong with me, or the apocalypse is coming shortly. ;)
Another successful subversion brought to you by Cultural Marxism!COMMUNIST! :)Lol!
Maybe I'm reading too many of DA's links. O_o
Maybe I need to go fondle my guns to get my head right. ;)
It also provides some defense from the equity firms that run corporations like this Hostess debacle.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Irontruth and DA in the same thread. perhaps something is wrong with me, or the apocalypse is coming shortly. ;)
In a way, it's actually the conservative argument against welfare, just applied to another aspect of life. People are going to work harder and take care of something more when they have an ownership stake.
In a way, it's actually the conservative argument against welfare, just applied to another aspect of life. People are going to work harder and take care of something more when they have an ownership stake.It also provides some defense from the equity firms that run corporations like this Hostess debacle.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Irontruth and DA in the same thread. perhaps something is wrong with me, or the apocalypse is coming shortly. ;)
I agree.
It also saddens me that my fellow conservatives have such an entrenched automatic hostility to all unions. I suppose it's to be expected to some degree given the unions overwhelming loyalty to the Democratic party here in the US, and I can identify with the frustration with public sector unions. I don't think public sector unions provide any where near as much value to their members as trade unions.
However, this seems to cause a big blind spot to the value that trade unions provide to their members and the nation. Good trade unions provide value to their members (especially in the construction trades) by providing good portable health and pension benefits, and they provide value to the nation through good apprenticeship programs that train skilled and safe craftsmen in a time when vocational programs have largely disappeared from public education.
Even some companies have embraced trade unions here in Colorado when they realized how much the company saved when the union took over health care costs as part of the union dues. The line workers got a net pay raise, and the company save money even though they raised pay to union scale, and the union gained about 250 members.
This all varies tremendously depending on region in the US, and the trade union system certainly isn't perfect, but it seems unwise to me for conservatives to almost totally write off unions as bad.
I'm not a fan of workers becoming majority shareholders, but I think they should have shares as part of their benefits/salary.Employee ownership combined with good governance systems in the company are extremely effective. One of the biggest retailers in the UK is employee owned and has managed to lay off a lower percentage of its employees than competitors or other industries while maintaining wages and benefits and also staying in the black as far as profits.
Employee ownership increases the stakes the employees have in the company. Morale, pride, trust all increase, which lowers employee turnover. Less turnover means that money spent training and improving your workforce pays off more over time.
On Fortune's list of 100 best companies to work for you see a decent number of employee owned business, and businesses that use similar practices to them, like profit sharing.
Paying employees more with profits instead of giving them to shareholders means fewer layoffs during economic downturns, because their pay is flexible. It also requires transparency about the companies expenses and revenue and if that transparency spills over to other aspects you get more trust as well.
It also provides some defense from the equity firms that run corporations like this Hostess debacle.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Irontruth and DA in the same thread. perhaps something is wrong with me, or the apocalypse is coming shortly. ;)
This is why I come to these boards. We are stronger when we can see where we agree moreso than where we disagree.
In a way, it's actually the conservative argument against welfare, just applied to another aspect of life. People are going to work harder and take care of something more when they have an ownership stake.It also provides some defense from the equity firms that run corporations like this Hostess debacle.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Irontruth and DA in the same thread. perhaps something is wrong with me, or the apocalypse is coming shortly. ;)
It's a nice thought, but in general they don't pay line workers enough to grab a controlling interest. And if you don't have a controlling interest, all you're doing is putting all your investment eggs in one basket that management can still kick over.
And the ownership stake thing is mostly a scam too. It's set up to make you think you're interests lie with management and the owners. To make you work the extra time or accept the lousy contract because your shares will go up. You're not going to own enough shares and they're not going to go up (and stay up) enough to make up for what you lose in direct compensation.
Things like startups are a different situation. There you're getting in on the ground floor, with a chance that the stock will really take off. Though even there you can easily get screwed. I knew people working in the tech bubble in the 90s. Millionaires on paper, broke when the bubble burst before they could cash in.
These are very good points. (Holy crap now I'm agreeing with thejeff.)
It's hugely important that one doesn't put their retirement eggs into one basket. Stock of the company one works for needs to be a separate thing from ones retirement accounts. I've had friends who were heavily invested in their company, and when the company folded when they were in their fifties they not only lost their job of decades they also lost virtually all of their retirement savings at the same time.
That being said, I still think the employee owned model has great merit. It promotes a culture of ownership and investment, and it provides some degree of defense from hostile takeover. I suppose this works better in industries with large numbers of line workers to buy stock and diffuse risk, and I'm not suggesting that it is a panacea, but I still think it can be a very good model.
Holy Ho Hos people! I didn't mean to start a political debate. I'm just bummed that I can't find Ding Dongs or Twinkies anymore.
In a way, it's actually the conservative argument against welfare, just applied to another aspect of life. People are going to work harder and take care of something more when they have an ownership stake.It also provides some defense from the equity firms that run corporations like this Hostess debacle.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Irontruth and DA in the same thread. perhaps something is wrong with me, or the apocalypse is coming shortly. ;)
It's a nice thought, but in general they don't pay line workers enough to grab a controlling interest. And if you don't have a controlling interest, all you're doing is putting all your investment eggs in one basket that management can still kick over.
And the ownership stake thing is mostly a scam too. It's set up to make you think you're interests lie with management and the owners. To make you work the extra time or accept the lousy contract because your shares will go up. You're not going to own enough shares and they're not going to go up (and stay up) enough to make up for what you lose in direct compensation.
Things like startups are a different situation. There you're getting in on the ground floor, with a chance that the stock will really take off. Though even there you can easily get screwed. I knew people working in the tech bubble in the 90s. Millionaires on paper, broke when the bubble burst before they could cash in.
I don't know how it all works, but John Lewis Partnerships is the third largest company in th UK. The company is held in trust for the employees. They aren't traded publicaly, but use bonds and similar instruments to raise capital when necessary.
I think one of the major things about employee owned companies is how much of the profits are diverted to their pay checks. Profits being turned into bonuses means much more flexible pay, when times are good, pay is good. It reduces layoffs when times are bad, because people only get their base pay. While this creates some volatility for the employees, overall the trend seems to be healthy for the company and result in higher retention, so I'm guessing it works for the employees too.
REI is a coop, not sure exactly on the ownership, but I know they treat their employees well. They push profit based bonuses to every employee, down to cashiers and warehouse workers. Their base pay is in line with similar businesses, you get as much there as Target or Walmart, but they get the bonuses on top of that and more paid time off, plus other benefits. They've also spent over a decade on the top 100 places to work in the US.
"No struggle but the crass struggle" is pretty good.