RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs

RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/17/2012 4:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subspaceseven You focus on the contract....look at their sales...that is why they are going under.....that is why WS will not loan them anymore money....blame the union if you must... Show me the same cuts they are asking the union to make being made by the very people who ran up the debt????? You can't because they are getting raises... They have also turned down several offers to be purchased, but the voted against them...because corp bonus would be cut... so blame the factory worker while the white collar workers will get their full pay and retirement Hostess sales declined as consumers in the 1980s and '90s shied away from carbohydrate villains like snack cakes and white bread. Attempts to come up with new products didn't pan out. It didn't help that the company had roughly $450 million in debt by 2004. In September of that year, Hostess declared bankruptcy. Enter the cast of moneymen. After five years -- unusually long for a reorganization -- the company became a private entity, having won concessions from the unions and new capital from investors. The deepest pocket: Ripplewood Holdings, a PE firm based in midtown Manhattan that reportedly once managed $4 billion in capital. It's even harder to sell products when you have people that refuse to show up for work or are blocking the trucks coming and going.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 4:12:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael How come republicans dont mind CEO bargaing for more money, often for performance that would get a union baker,fired but,object to bakers negotiating,for more? And,it was decades of bad management,that caused,the problems that as usual get blamed on,unions. We don't mind management bargaining for higher wages (we just usually give it to them before they even ask). As to the rest of the employees....we love saying no to them hahahahahahahahahahahahaahah.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 4:14:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: Except the 1,000s of workers making and shipping them and who are now out of job you mean? I am still waiting on suggestions on what these almost 20,000 people should/will do. Look for a new job.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 4:19:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy I am sure the Union protectionist will try and obfuscate this thread but attacking the nutritional valve of Wonderbread and Hostess HoHos but here is a classic example of a Union selling its rank and file down the drain. The Teamsters understood in this economy concessions had to be made but for some reason The Baker's decided they wanted Hostess shut down, their assets sold off and a fraction of their rank and file, rehired down the line for less money and less benefits. 18,500 people without a job Let's hear a hardy well done for the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union! Lets hold hands and sing the Internationale! Merry Christmas! OH... and for the people who might try and hijack over the nutritional value of a Twinkie... Somebody else will be making and selling them along with the rest of the Hostess line. UNION STRIKE KILLS CUPCAKE KING Once again your insipid moronic post gives us a clear insight into your refusal to accept the 13th. ammendment to the u.s. constitution. Thompson, you never cease to amaze me.

Lucylastic -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 4:22:06 PM)
In Canada, Saputo Inc., the country’s largest snack cake maker, and George Weston Ltd. already own the rights to some Hostess brands. Weston’s senior vice-president of investor relations, Geoffrey Wilson, said the company is not interested in any Hostess assets that might come up for sale. But Weston is keen on continued investment in and marketing of Wonder Bread, for which it owns the Canadian rights, rights that are not affected by events south of the border, he said. “It’s a very good seller. It’s a very important brand to us,” he said. Meanwhile, dairy giant Saputo – whose ownership of the Canadian rights to the Hostess brand name is also not threatened by the liquidation – isn’t saying whether it might take a look at some of the Hostess brands and facilities. The breakup of Hostess certainly represents an opening for rivals eager to gain market share, said Lionel Ettedgui, president of Saputo’s bakery division. “This will create opportunities for all the players in the market,” he said. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/hostess-shuttering-us-business-but-canada-unaffected/article5365001/

selfbnd411 -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 4:23:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Under normal circumstances I would agree. Continuing to strike after being told of the companies willingness to close the business is a little unusual and will have something to do with how they are dealt with by the Labor Board. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works. It isn't a matter of a few commissioners getting together and deciding whether Person A gets unemployment based on whether his or her actions are "reasonable." It's an agency applying a clearly defined legal code to a particular situation. In the case you cited, you failed to read the entire section of the applicable code. Subsection 3 clearly states that: "(3) Any disqualification imposed under this section shall end when the strike or lockout is terminated." (Washington State) The strike is either terminated or it is not terminated. It seems rather difficult to argue that the strike is not terminated even though the company is no longer in existence. If you believe otherwise, then you must either cite an appropriate section of code or a relevant legal precedent that sustains your point. Which is a long way of saying...Thanks for playing! :) Added: Wisconsin's unemployment law is similar to Washington State's. A striking employee is ineligible for unemployment aid as long as the strike is active. http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2011/108/108.04.html

cloudboy -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 5:34:32 PM)
I read about this in the NYT today. The Baker's union simply stopped negotiating with Management, fed up with the humiliations of making concessions to bad management. The union just stopped accepting and returning calls to management. Also, the trend of Americans shying away from processed foods has hurt the demand for Hostess products, but this trend seems at odds with the explosion of obesity in the USA. Its not like Coca Cola is in dire straights, although Tasty Cakes went through a distressed sale of its operation because of revenue problems. ----------- Its hard to blame American workers for wanting better jobs; the question is -- are there any federal policies that might help shore up America's middle class beyond more progressive income taxes? -------- quote: I don't think they will. Here's why: I read that their salary when IB went bankrupt the first time almost 10 years ago was $48000/yr. Remember, these are skilled workers (bakers by trade), not box stuffers. The company's ultimatum was for a salary of $22,000/yr. $22,000/yr is not much over McDonald's pay. In the workers' best case scenario, they can get another baker's job. Maybe not a $48k/yr job, but certainly above minimum wage. Win. In the worst case, they get the lowest paying job they can get--running the fryolator at McDonalds. Pay? $22,000/yr. Not a win, but nothing has been lost. selfbnd411 Thanks for posting some hard information about the subject, this really helps put things in perspective. quote: Because that's not how it works in the corporate world. If a company's sales go south, in Hostess's case, or the company does something illegal and gets fined billions, like a Fortune 500 company I used to work for, the shareholders and upper management will not allow themselves to lose income. Instead, they make up the difference by laying people off, expecting the remaining employees to do 2x the work at 80% the pay, all while raising prices for customers. Everybody has to pay for upper management's mistakes.... except for upper management. Well stated. My wife's company routinely feels that it can ask more from its employees without upping their compensation.

SeekProperty2Own -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 5:46:16 PM)
Of course the adjustments to the BMI that made millions obese literally overnight might have something to do with those exploding obesity rates. Just like the rising Autism rates probably have a lot to do with the fact that the definition of the diagnosis was expanded so more children would be able to qualify for therapies and assistance. Funny how when a category is expanded to include more people, more people fall into the category.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 5:48:23 PM)
quote: that made millions obese literally overnight Really? Millions became obese overnight? Really?

SeekProperty2Own -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 5:57:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: that made millions obese literally overnight Really? Millions became obese overnight? Really? Yes, they changed the BMI. So one day their height-weight ratio was classified as "over weight" and then the next day they were classified as "Obese" without them gaining a single pound.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 6:05:56 PM)
lol.... the medical community never does anything overnight. The implemented a method known to science since the 19th century. Is it flawed? Yup. But no one made those people obese overnight....

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 6:32:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: that made millions obese literally overnight Really? Millions became obese overnight? Really? It happened last Tuesday.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 6:43:29 PM)
hahahaha They were obese before last tuesday... they just were able to lie to themselves more more conviction.

farglebargle -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 7:20:44 PM)
Stop talking horseshit. BMI is, and always has been defined as: Mass in kilograms divided by the square of Height in metres Science. It works, bitches! Or are you whining about how the US revised it's inaccurate guidelines to be in line with -- you know -- everyone else? Standards only work if there's only a single one of them. And shit. If you're hanging everything on BMI, you deserve whatever fallout occurs. Only a nitwit doesn't clearly understand it's limitations.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 7:23:59 PM)
But a football player with a high BMI isnt necessarily obese. Same with a body builder.

farglebargle -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 7:26:10 PM)
Again, that's a known limitation, and anyone who worries about that limit isn't using BMI correctly in the first place. You know. A statistical guideline, not a useful metric for anything related to weight management.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 7:31:11 PM)
Ah but many were using it when it suited their purposes... such as insurance companies for example.

farglebargle -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 7:40:59 PM)
Insurance companies are like vampires. If you don't invite them into your home, they have no power over you. That said, no-one covered by a group-health policy ever needs to worry about what their insurer thought about their BMI. And anyone not covered by a group, and getting insured on their own certainly has the adequate resources to have their own support staff to ensure sustainable weight management. After all, it's only like a hundred dollars a week...

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 7:45:37 PM)
Ok... you missed the point. I wasnt talking about those who are truly obese. I was talking about those who come across obese as a result of BMI. And, yes, even in a group plan, let the claim be high enough and they will look for any excuse to drop.

farglebargle -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/17/2012 7:53:20 PM)
BMI doesn't make you obese. Fat makes you obese. BMI can be a useful guideline for discussing that. But again, if someone is using BMI wrong, they're nitwits. If you do business with someone who uses BMI wrong, please consult the sentence immediately preceding this one. Caveat Emptor. That said, I'm all for regulating insurers to make sure they don't do stupid shit.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625