[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by jamest91

Oh yes because clearly ALL businesses that go under or fall in to financial crisis are due to absolutely nothing but owners trying to swoop up extra money. Heaven forbid that someone thinks there may be other factors to other businesses being placed in their situations because of a group "fighting" for their member's rights and higher pay, etc.

There are infinite factors that lead to the demise of companies.

What surprises me is that you are thinking its okay for a CEO to award himself a couple million as the company goes bankrupt it "because he can", but it is bad for a union to not accept company demands "because they can". Do you see the hypocrisy?

You also seem to forget that the company is not the only one participating in the free economy. Union members spend their money and contribute too.

I am not necessarily defending union actions in every situation, we have seen the harm the teachers union did over pay that was already adequate. But the FACTS show that the rich are indeed getting richer and working class wages are stagnating. So when I see people defend the supply side in every situation, such as yourself repeating standard "unions are bad" talking points, it gives me a little insight into how the American population has let it happen.

[jamest91]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

There are infinite factors that lead to the demise of companies.

What surprises me is that you are thinking its okay for a CEO to award himself a couple million as the company goes bankrupt it "because he can", but it is bad for a union to not accept company demands "because they can". Do you see the hypocrisy?

You also seem to forget that the company is not the only one participating in the free economy. Union members spend their money and contribute too.

I am not necessarily defending union actions in every situation, we have seen the harm the teachers union did over pay that was already adequate. But the FACTS show that the rich are indeed getting richer and working class wages are stagnating. So when I see people defend the supply side in every situation, such as yourself repeating standard "unions are bad" talking points, it gives me a little insight into how the American population has let it happen.

Please do not start putting words in my mouth that I don't say. I never in any way, shape, or form said that I support what the Hostess CEOs were doing. Actually, if you look back to my previous posts, I even state that I see what they were doing as bad. I also express that I believe Hostess probably went under from mostly bad business management.

However, within the statement you quoted, it is clear that I also believe that Hostess went bankrupt from mostly bad business, but there were also other contributing factors, one of which could definitely be union control.

[FreeEnterprise]

And still you guys are ignoring the fact that Obamacare is hurting your take home pay...

Even when it is abundantly obvious.

The article ignored the massive new costs for their healthcare. THAT is part of their pay.

Just because you have to lower your take home pay (whatever dollar amount per hour you make) You STILL have to include your benefits in that amount.

So you can't say you make "$11.00" per hour, because if the company has a nice healthcare plan, guess what, that costs about another $14.00 per hour now as a result of Obamacare...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2165383.html

Just because YOU don't see the money, the company is still paying it...

And plenty of companies will be doing this as a result. There is a reason people aren't paid as much in Europe, because their healthcare is "free". Oh wait, no it isn't... But, all the talks on here are ignoring the massively increasing costs of healthcare under Obamacare. Which will only continue to skyrocket, meaning companies will either cut hours, or cut pay, just to keep paying the same amount they were before Obamacare. As by law they now HAVE TO offer healthcare... So the "cadillac" plans will go away, and EVERYONE will pay a much higher rate. IF you have a job that is...

Welcome to your liberal utopia. Guess voting in people that know how to spend your money better than you do, wasn't such a good idea, huh...

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

And still you guys are ignoring the fact that Obamacare is hurting your take home pay...

Even when it is abundantly obvious.

The article ignored the massive new costs for their healthcare. THAT is part of their pay.

Just because you have to lower your take home pay (whatever dollar amount per hour you make) You STILL have to include your benefits in that amount.

So you can't say you make "$11.00" per hour, because if the company has a nice healthcare plan, guess what, that costs about another $14.00 per hour now as a result of Obamacare...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2165383.html

Just because YOU don't see the money, the company is still paying it...

And plenty of companies will be doing this as a result. There is a reason people aren't paid as much in Europe, because their healthcare is "free". Oh wait, no it isn't... But, all the talks on here are ignoring the massively increasing costs of healthcare under Obamacare. Which will only continue to skyrocket, meaning companies will either cut hours, or cut pay, just to keep paying the same amount they were before Obamacare. As by law they now HAVE TO offer healthcare... So the "cadillac" plans will go away, and EVERYONE will pay a much higher rate. IF you have a job that is...

Welcome to your liberal utopia. Guess voting in people that know how to spend your money better than you do, wasn't such a good idea, huh...

I liked it when you disappeared...

[Rampager2000]

Take a thread about Twinkies and spread your personal agenda not pertaining to the topic at all.

Yep, what I expected FE to do.

[AlphaNeo36]

His cryptic posts remind me of that autotrader nut of yesteryear. Thankfully, he doesn't post here anymore.

[Rhino1XL]

But....... He's correct.

[blueshifty]

There has been some pretty good discussion here and I will say that there are a few points that stand out to me.

The American Dream - The original dream (that got people on the boat) was freedom of religion. We later also adopted the notion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" which was revised to "happiness." It seems clear to me that the idea materialism predates the industrial revolution and was part of the framework of our country.

The term "base pay" is a fabrication for people to compare apples and oranges while thinking it is a fair comparison. I am a salaried employee in a large defense company. I have extremely competitive heath care, retirement and base pay. I was pursuing another opportunity in the oil industry where the base pay looked a lot better on paper, however, when I added in the employee contributions to retirement (401(k)) and heath care, coupled with paid time off I quickly figured out that "total compensation package" is a much more fair comparison. Moral of the story is that when making a management decision you look at the total cost of an employee and that, unfortunately, Obamacare is relevant to the discussion even though it is not causally linked IMO.

Take this back to my first job out of college... I actually designed industrial baking equipment. I was not a union's best friend. The problem is that I could could design a machine that made 150 jobs obsolete, however, many times union negotiations ended with the company only reducing the (unskilled) workforce by 75-100. That hurt the return on investment of the machines and made it more difficult for us to deeply penetrate the market. That industry is surprisingly manual and most of those jobs can easily be replaced with machines. The people we are talking about were a bad long-term investment for the company anyway. Sure I feel bad for the families, but in a capitalist society our goal isn't to employee people... employment is a byproduct of the pursuit of profit.


All that mostly to say that the primary purpose of a union is to leverage a bulk of the workforce (skilled and unskilled are lumped together) against a specific agenda. Unfortunately for Hostess the capital investment was not made soon enough to remove the power from the unions and so the people who should be easily replaceable actually aren't. The learning point from this is that Hostess management made the mistake that allowed this to happen long ago. You always set aside money for your progression that allows you flexibility to change with the market. Management made the mistake, the union did what it should've (which is acting in it's constituents best interest) and the company failed.



BTW, when we talk about economic mobility I'd like to know the key to moving up is... I have moved up in salary more than the $25k that was discussed earlier in salary, but my standard of living has been relatively unchanged. At times capitalism almost seems like a repackaged caste system with a lottery for random winners to move up.

[FreeEnterprise]

Originally Posted by Rhino1XL

But....... He's correct.

Exactly...


Interesting union strike, which could likely affect your electronic gifts to be hard to come by in the next month...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...commends%22%7D

"Stephen Berry, lead negotiator for the shipping lines and cargo terminals, said the clerical workers have been offered a deal that includes "absolute job security," a raise that would take average annual pay to $195,000 from $165,000, 11 weeks' paid vacation and a generous pension increase."

And the union said NO...