A victory for union workers everywhere.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-17-12, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Whether it was bad management due to terrible business decisions or if was the result of a crashing market doesn't matter, the point is it wasn't the workers fault. You love to say management makes the rules, then fucking nut up and take responsibility for your failures, too, because had the business been saved they sure as hell would have taken credit for it. But no, a lot of executives can't take the blame and pass it off. It's the workers are making too much or a declining market or blah blah blah. Bunch of excuses from them and it's never their fault. Nope, they were running a flawless business and if the workers had only been paid poverty-level wages this never would have happened!

Unions give one unified, loud voice to all employees instead of a bunch of tiny, quiet whispers. People should absolutely have the right to negotiate with their employer and a union will get better results than a single person. There has been a decline in unions in this country and that's why it's no wonder that middle class pay has stay stagnant for decades now and the income gap is growing almost exponentially at this point. The decline in the ability of lower-wage people to collectively bargain has hurt them and the country. Without that, we get what we have with Walmart right now. A race to the bottom with extremely low, poverty-level wages and forcing them onto state aid. But hey, I'm sure you're happy to have to pay for that through taxes because their employers pay them shitty wages and no benefits!

Businesses are unethical and amoral machines that only care about the bottom line. And that's fine, that's what they are meant to be. But let's not pretend they give two shits about anything other than that, though. That's where the need for regulations come in. Child labor laws, employee safety laws, minimum wage laws, environmental protection laws, etc. So this idea that employees should just bend over and be at the whim of their employer is, to me, ridiculous because as a worker you are selling your employer your labor. Businesses can negotiate for their other resources, they should have to negotiate for their labor costs, too. Unions all a collective group to do that and they are what built the middle class in this country.

Reading this has explained a few things. First you really dont know much about business. Second you dont know much about managing one much less managing one that is filled with union workers. Third you will ALWAYS defend the employee.

The fact they ran thru 7 CEO's is telling they knew there was an issue that needed to be resolved and they were trying multiple avenues to find the solution.

Unions have an upside for the workers and the company but more for the workers. However they brought the unions to the table in yet another effort to find a resolution to the issue. The teamsters of all the unions found the solution exceptable. I doubt you have ever had to deal with the teamsters but rest assured they are not the ones easily swayed at the table. Then the other union decided it wasn't good enough.

The workers were part of the problem pay and benefit wise in a market that is rapidly shrinking. The business knew it, the teamsters knew it, and the employees knew it. No one is saying they are the CAUSE of the problem but reaching an agreement was a condition for everyone to maintain their employment. As such this union may not have been the cause of the business problems but they are the cause for the business closing.

You keep spouting your claims of business being unethical and amoral machines. Have you put that thought process toward the employees? They are just as unethical and amoral as the business. The only difference is the amount of money at the end of the year.

Shit i'll use myself as an example. When im on a flooring job as a sub for myself i average between 75 and 125 an hour. When i go in at an hourly rate for some it matches the lower end. However there are jobs i take at 25 hour. Do you think i work at the same level for 25 an hour as i do 125 an hour? Hell no. I work above that level but far from my potential. A common phrase i hear from other peoples employees and i even caught myself saying it is "You want to pay me x dollars an hour you get x dollars an hour work".

I even busted my own employees telling other people i hired to slow down or we'll be going home early. Heres my problem with it and why i think they are retarded. I understand at an hourly rate you get into a grove and choose to stay there. That mentality carries from one job to the other. My guys however were paid by the day not the hour. So if you show up when and where i tell you to you make your 150 a day. Why would anyone be concerned with going home at 12 instead of 5 if your rate remained the same?

Thats is an employee mentality. The conservation of the self instead of the company. Its just as unethical and amoral as the company.

**WickedTribe** · 11-17-12, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Very true, but I bet not all of the 18,500 employees find work elsewhere, at least not quickly. For those that do find work this will likely be no big deal. For those that don't, well, I am sure they will still be happy with the fact that they held their ground.

Defending what is right is easy when you don't lose anything, but it doesn't mean as much. They considered it wrong that Hostess was slashing their pay while giving huge pay increases to their upper management, and they fought against it.

**-Lazarus-** · 11-17-12, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Whether it was bad management due to terrible business decisions or if was the result of a crashing market doesn't matter, the point is it wasn't the workers fault. You love to say management makes the rules, then fucking nut up and take responsibility for your failures, too, because had the business been saved they sure as hell would have taken credit for it. But no, a lot of executives can't take the blame and pass it off. It's the workers are making too much or a declining market or blah blah blah. Bunch of excuses from them and it's never their fault. Nope, they were running a flawless business and if the workers had only been paid poverty-level wages this never would have happened!

Unions give one unified, loud voice to all employees instead of a bunch of tiny, quiet whispers. People should absolutely have the right to negotiate with their employer and a union will get better results than a single person. There has been a decline in unions in this country and that's why it's no wonder that middle class pay has stay stagnant for decades now and the income gap is growing almost exponentially at this point. The decline in the ability of lower-wage people to collectively bargain has hurt them and the country. Without that, we get what we have with Walmart right now. A race to the bottom with extremely low, poverty-level wages and forcing them onto state aid. But hey, I'm sure you're happy to have to pay for that through taxes because their employers pay them shitty wages and no benefits!

Businesses are unethical and amoral machines that only care about the bottom line. And that's fine, that's what they are meant to be. But let's not pretend they give two shits about anything other than that, though. That's where the need for regulations come in. Child labor laws, employee safety laws, minimum wage laws, environmental protection laws, etc. So this idea that employees should just bend over and be at the whim of their employer is, to me, ridiculous because as a worker you are selling your employer your labor. Businesses can negotiate for their other resources, they should have to negotiate for their labor costs, too. Unions all a collective group to do that and they are what built the middle class in this country.

First of all the union has their share of the blame. I agree is wasn't the worker's fault. It was in large part the union's fault though. Workers should be able to trust unions to serve their best interests, and for a long, long time they did just that. The problem is lately you hear more and more about unions being a part of the woes of a company and it's just an objective thing, not just management complaining. another example is the U.S. auto industry and unions going overboard and forcing a car company to provide insurance to employees and their extended family members even after leaving employment with that company, for life, even past the point where it is going to put them out of business to do so.

As with any other job, companies like Hostess will have to hire and pay CEO's a competitive salary. It's not really Hostess' fault if that salary is 1.2 million. I read the article you linked earlier and you neglected to include the fact that the CEO offered to reduce his and every executive's salary to $1 until the company came out of bankruptcy during negotiations with the union. It took shareholder pressure before he made that offer, but he made it. I wouldn't call that the action of a greedy, incompetent bastard. As a matter of fact if I'm a union rep and I hear the CEO say my people have to take a pay cut for the company to survive, and then offer to take $1 a year while working the problem out, I would believe them and not think they are a greedy liar. I think in this example the workers got screwed by an incompetent union that wasn't working in their best interests and management that was incapable of managing perception among its workers. The problem is though that perception in a union shop is usually dominated by the union - so I have to give a little more blame to the union on this one.

The sad thing is that in addition to all the lost jobs, these executives will probably move on to other jobs quickly and be just fine themselves. To me that is a double screw to the workers at Hostess.

**-Lazarus-** · 11-17-12, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Defending what is right is easy when you don't lose anything, but it doesn't mean as much. They considered it wrong that Hostess was slashing their pay while giving huge pay increases to their upper management, and they fought against it.

The only problem with your statement is that executive management offered to reduce all their pay to $1 a year until the bankruptcy restructure was complete. So that kind of sounds like BS when I look at it objectively.

**CivilWars** · 11-17-12, 09:01 AM

Some of you have asked when is enough truly enough. How about 7 years ago when they cut your pay the first time, and yet the company still struggled. If you aren't looking for a new job for 7 years then you have nobody to blame but yourself. If you looked for 7 years, but found nothing better, then maybe you aren't worth what you are making now.

For the record, as I have already said, I don't blame the unions for the death of Hostess. I do blame them for the immediate loss of 18, 500 jobs in the holiday season in one of the worst economies in our history. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I would love to see a poll if the union workers who voted no in 6-12 months to see if their jobs truly weren't worth saving.

**Fovezer** · 11-17-12, 09:14 AM

Well, death, that's one of the biggest stretches I've read on these forums. Instead of trying to make a good argument, you resorted to the old false equivalency claim. "If A is B, then C is B!" I understand you got offended that I called businesses amoral and unethical, but I'm not talking about your one-man operation. You running your operation doesn't mean you have a clue how big business operates, and it shows plain as day. I'm talking about businesses that put paying dividends to their shareholders above both the well-being of the company and the employees, not tiny businesses that don't employ enough people to have to worry about unions.

If Hostess went through 7 CEO's "trying to find a solution," then either they are incompetent at hiring good people or there was no solution. Either way it's apparent they were doomed to failure. Hostess was already going to close plants and lay off people anyways and most of the workers felt that the pay cuts weren't worth it anymore. And if you knew anything about unions, you'd know that the Teamsters represented the drivers who made more than the bakers and were more likely to accept it, and they just BARELY approved it. Only 53.6% voted in favor. Hostess wasn't going to last much longer even if this passed.

Yes, I will always defend the worker. I've seen, from personal experience, union members make tons of concessions. They make them all the time, but there is a limit to how much employees can take before it becomes unbearable. You are always defending the employers, though, and this thread was started to blame the worker. Workers goals are to earn a decent wage so they can live comfortably. There isn't anything amoral or unethical about that.

**Fovezer** · 11-17-12, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

As with any other job, companies like Hostess will have to hire and pay CEO's a competitive salary. It's not really Hostess' fault if that salary is 1.2 million. I read the article you linked earlier and you neglected to include the fact that the CEO offered to reduce his and every executive's salary to $1 until the company came out of bankruptcy during negotiations with the union. It took shareholder pressure before he made that offer, but he made it. I wouldn't call that the action of a greedy, incompetent bastard. As a matter of fact if I'm a union rep and I hear the CEO say my people have to take a pay cut for the company to survive, and then offer to take $1 a year while working the problem out, I would believe them and not think they are a greedy liar. I think in this example the workers got screwed by an incompetent union that wasn't working in their best interests and management that was incapable of managing perception among its workers. The problem is though that perception in a union shop is usually dominated by the union - so I have to give a little more blame to the union on this one.

LOL, yeah, I'm sure all the union members were talking about how awesome and benevolent the CEO was for offering that! This is so naive, no one believes that. Especially after watching other executives get pay raises! So how do you think workers feel when they are asked to take ANOTHER pay cut while watching the executives get pay raises? Yeah, I'm sure they are just thrilled about it!

**deathgodusmc** · 11-17-12, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Well, death, that's one of the biggest stretches I've read on these forums. Instead of trying to make a good argument, you resorted to the old false equivalency claim. "If A is B, then C is B!" I understand you got offended that I called businesses amoral and unethical, but I'm not talking about your one-man operation. You running your operation doesn't mean you have a clue how big business operates, and it shows plain as day. I'm talking about businesses that put paying dividends to their shareholders above both the well-being of the company and the employees, not tiny businesses that don't employ enough people to have to worry about unions.

If Hostess went through 7 CEO's "trying to find a solution," then either they are incompetent at hiring good people or there was no solution. Either way it's apparent they were doomed to failure. Hostess was already going to close plants and lay off people anyways and most of the workers felt that the pay cuts weren't worth it anymore. And if you knew anything about unions, you'd know that the Teamsters represented the drivers who made more than the bakers and were more likely to accept it, and they just BARELY approved it. Only 53.6% voted in favor. Hostess wasn't going to last much longer even if this passed.

Yes, I will always defend the worker. I've seen, from personal experience, union members make tons of concessions. They make them all the time, but there is a limit to how much employees can take before it becomes unbearable. You are always defending the employers, though, and this thread was started to blame the worker. Workers goals are to earn a decent wage so they can live comfortably. There isn't anything amoral or unethical about that.

How does me agreeing that businesses are just as unethical and amoral as their employees lead to me being offended by you calling businesses those things?

I was part of a union before i moved to florida. I know how they work. I even tried to get the teamsters here for flooring.

You blinded by your faultless defense of workers. Like i said before your last post was more then enough to see how much insight you have to unions and business. We need not go past that.

**Fovezer** · 11-17-12, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

How does me agreeing that businesses are just as unethical and amoral as their employees lead to me being offended by you calling businesses those things?

What other reason would you have to make the false equivalency unless you were offended by what I said?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I was part of a union before i moved to florida. I know how they work. I even tried to get the teamsters here for flooring.

You blinded by your faultless defense of workers. Like i said before your last post was more then enough to see how much insight you have to unions and business. We need not go past that.

I know more than enough about unions and the fact that you think you know everything about corporate business because you run a one-man self-employed business is hilarious to me. What did you do, talk to a CEO at McDonald's?

**deathgodusmc** · 11-17-12, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

What other reason would you have to make the false equivalency unless you were offended by what I said?

I know more than enough about unions and the fact that you think you know everything about corporate business because you run a one-man self-employed business is hilarious to me. What did you do, talk to a CEO at McDonald's?

What false equivalencies? You mean where i pointed out employees and companies actually share the same goal?

You do know i am a 1 man operation right now but was a 16 man operation also employing other subcontractors and their employees on sites in 4 different states at the same time before right? LOL your starting to be sad. I will be right back on top once construction bounces back. So my experience im gonna go out on a limb and say is far superior then you working for someone. But thats just a guess. lol