Discussion in 'Community Board' started by tvguy, Nov 16, 2012.
and now a 100% reduction.
Log in or Sign up to hide this advert.
Well it is better then nothing until I found another job!
You're right, 100% reduction. But if they gave in, what's to say that it would not get worse. You (collective you) can't always give in because every time you do, they get more powerful. At what point do you need to stand up for yourself. All companies do is try to reduce, reduce reduce to make higher profits. The more you give in the more they reduce.
But that is sacrificing the long term for the short term and it is always better to think long term. When your company is in trouble you have to make concessions or be willing to risk losing everything. It just is what it is.
You do what you have to do. You make changes to your life style.
Personnally, a 8% reduction in pay is a whole lot better than what they are going to get with unemployment. That will be more like a 60 to 80% pay cut. A benefit reduction - insurance (?) - I would rather have to pay more than not have any, seeing as you don't have an employer sponcered plan any more.
Yep. But if the company is in bankruptcy you can't tell me that this wasn't already the likely outcome. Hostess has been headed this way a long time.
I said that I think it should have been worked out, if possible w/out a strike. It sucks for all involved.
Workers are hoping that the brand will be sold & they will return to their jobs.
It was a no-win situation.
Yup, the Teamsters recognized the issues & agreed to the wage cuts, but the baker's union wouldn't. Now they're all unemployed. My instinct is they will emerge from bankrupcy with an all non-union staff making less than half of what they made before. Those 17% cuts don't look so bad now
That's absolutely the stance to take with a healthy employer rolling in profits. It's the wrong stance to take with a company in bankrupcy. The correct stance is to suck it up, take the concessions, and sharpen your resume while you search for a better place to work.
So would I but they saw differently. I never said the union was right. I think it was a no-win situation for all.
It's ok to have compassion & feel badly for people out of work.
Not that it matters much to me, I don't buy their products.
I'm not crazy about Hostess products. But I do always buy a box of cupcakes for my daughter to keep in her class. She has a nut allergy so she can't eat birthday treats that the other kids bring in. I guess she's going to be eating a lot of Rice Krispie Treats.
I do the same thing for my DD. Even if they sell the brand there is a possibility the new factory won't be peanut free.
Striking when your company is already in financial trouble, really wasn't going to have a good ending for them. It was a very short-sighted move on their part.
So does Capitalism need some Socialism to survive? Doesn't everyone have the right to try and fight for what is best for themselves?
Capitalism is everyone fighting for what's best for themselves. Socialism is fighting for a common good. At least, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
Exactly. I think the union is largely to blame in this. I wonder how many of the workers would have rather settled than have it come to this? No matter what the differences between the company's proposals and the unions demands, wouldn't a JOB have been better than this?
The company called their bluff. I wonder if we'll start hearing this more now?
(For the record, I belong to a union, and we have been working without a contract since April 1, 2011)
I agree. My point is that some posters wanted workers to take concessions so the company survives, which is socialism. The company decided to shutdown instead, which points toward Capitalism (best for the company). I just want people to realize what they are advocating.
I thought I heard on the news that this company took the money from the employees 401K ( I think that is what they said) (NOPE IT WAS PENSIONS) that they put in weekly and it is NO where....what did they do with it...they didnt put in anything and they didnt show where the money is...
To me that is stealing...
and we belonged to a union for the last 35 and a half years...they do good things and protect the workers...so I wont say anything about unions..vs non-unions...
If this is not right..please let me know ...I believe this is what I heard...
If that's true that is horrid!
Except that's not what those things are or mean, at all.
This is sad and the blame is squarely on the single union, imo. The Teamsters made a deal because they looked into the company's books and saw this wasn't a ploy. The smaller union acted like it was. Good plan.
Not that I buy it but Wonder Bread is iconic and so are Twinkies and so many of their other products.
Guess Tennessee was right - "There's a box of Twinkies in that grocery store. Not just any box of Twinkies, the last box of Twinkies that anyone will enjoy in the whole universe. Believe it or not, Twinkies have an expiration date. Some day very soon, Life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go empty."
I know it's not exactly. I just find it ironic when some people say others should take less for the greater good. Anyway, don't want to go down a forbidden road.
Personally, the less crap food in circulation the better.
Separate names with a comma.