VABills

You know the other thing is, not only were these workers offered to retain their jobs granted at a pretty significate pay cut, but the union membership would have received 25% of the stock for their concesssions. Way to make sure the whole story is know liberals.

Probably. They probably forced that no additional employees were laid off and therefore the coporation had no money to hire the required staff, just so a guy can pour flour for 50K a year. Priorities.

Wasn't there a port star who was flexible enough to do the same and got famous for it?

Solient Green and Twinkies are people?

You keep focusing on 22 and 44. That's not the answer. The answer was he was trying to make money for the investors (which by law he is required to do), as well as save all 18,000 jobs. I am sure that flour pourer has the thought leadership to negotiate those deals with the money folks, deal with the unions and still operate the company. But no way a 2.25 million CEO probably can't pour flour. And what's justice is the fact that anyone who was on strike will not get unemployment benefits. HAHAHA, these guys may think they got it all figured out. They no longer have a job and now without thinking about it they get no unemployment. This is that whole concept of if you don't like your job, keep the one you got and look for another.

He's not making money just like the communists in the union. Guess he can go take that other job now. Let's give this 12 months and see who comes out of this looking better. And 22 nor 44 is going to keep an 18,000 person company going.

200K isn't a good salary in some markets. Why should this guy live on 1/10th of the same salary as he was? What about his creditors? Again, he probably wouldn't have stayed if the board told him to take a cut, and likely he knew WTF he was doing and had offers to go elsewhere which is why he likely got a raise.

It's likely the pib CEO who had the thought leadership did have another job. That's why he was paid by the board to stay. You just live in your union worker mentality without any concept of how the real world works.

That's it, $83 was the difference. Damn that evil CEO for working likely 100 hour weeks dealing with the workers, talking with investors, banks, other cpmpanies about a merger. But hey those workers worked their 40 hour week. It's tough working 40 hours. That CEO likely missed many children/grandchildren school plays, baseball, football, parent teacher conferences, etc... But he's the problem. And the other 17,956 employee? 44 couldn't even probably turn on the machines each day, let alone make a !@#$ing tweenkie, Maybe it takes 18,000 people to run the business. Otherwise don't you think they would have cut some jobs to save others. Maybe keeping salaries even? The fact is these guys probably knew their sales, profit pargin, knew what it took to operate and said, here's what we can pay. The CEO probably put in double or triple the hours, with all of the thought leadership. Why should he take 200K when he likely could have gone somewhere else for 5 million? He was trying to save all 18,000 jobs, not just 44. The union doesn't understand profits, investors, etc... So they are gone with the employees. Good for them. That evil CEO is no longer making 2 million also.

From CNN: Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance. "The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages." Since when does unemployment pay $25K. Get another job but keep your current one. Now you got nothing idiot, and you've helped 18,000 of your fellow HOHO and Tweenkie maker also collect unemployment. Way to take even more money out of my pocket.

We don't need no stinken moderator. And certainly not one of your ilk.

The other issue you have though is the government is taking an "extra 5%" out of the investors pockets. They don't like that. They will make it back. That extra money will be through higher prices on products. Guess who pays that? The poor and middle class when they buy products from companies that have investors. Trust em the only people that will pay are folks like you and me, because these folks will not loss money whether by extra taxes or more regulations. They will just pass it on to us. That's why gas prices are so high. That's why car prices keep going up (you have to have airbags says the government so up go prices to pay to add them in).

What's the difference?

Ask the secret service.

That will be too late. Those people will have divested and either paid down debt, or moved money overseas if they still want to invest.

Right, but don't you see, we are basically 45 days from having no marginal tax rate. People who don't want to get hit with more than 15% and certainly not the full 40% plus and bailing on the market. That is money lost from the economy. Jobs lost and government without a longterm source of income either from the investor or the people employed by those investments. it's a lose lose sitution and the only ones making it are the ones hoarding.

Getting drunk and shooting takers?

If I invest a $1,000,000 dollars. Let's say I earn $100,000 this year. At 15% that's $15,000 in taxes. At 23% that's $23,000. $23,000 is roughly 50% more than $15,000. Therefore if I am one to reinvest, I have only $77,000 to reinvest or spend instead of $85,000. Either way the government just took $8,000 out of the economy. The affect with $8,000 I can hire a construction worker for 3 months. Without $8,000 that construction worker doesn't have a job. Now think about the trillions invested. How many jobs have been lost just because people are divesting and taking the sure 15% right now and holding everything else without risk, until this is worked out. If I wait until next year that maybe only $57,000 left after taxes are paid. Add to that, if I can make over seas investment with little or no taxes, guess where my money goes. They get the new jobs. And the US government gets no money.

Well I disagree. You're basically taking 50% of income off the table for re-investment. That lack of money to re-invest will continue to hurt the jobs market. Second, when people in vest, they buy goods and services to support the investment. The goverment makes full tax rates on those salaries. This also will limit the small time investor looking to make some extra cash in the market. I know it's a great talking point that Romney only paid 15%, but how many jobs were created by the investments. How much extra taxes were collected by the investments in companies where jobs were created and money earned through sales? In the current economy it's probably better to drop it to 10% and ensure it stays there for 10 years or more. That would drive people out to invest and get jobs going. But keep threatening to eliminate the marginal tax rate for long term investimates like the Dems and Obama are and people keep divesting.

They can go to Maryland and get married to each other now.

That's too high. Anything beyond 17% and people will take money out. Why should the government reap the rewards when I risk, but assume no risks themselves. People on the left like to take without consideration of this fact.

Again, if I don't know and choice is 15% now or 43.8% next year. I am divesting. Even 20%, I can pull now at 15% and then hold and pretty much ensure no losses for 4 years. With current interest at 1% basically, the incentive just isn't to invest right now. Trying to make them invest to earn income won't work under these scenerio won't work until the government, both fed and states make it worth the risk. The government just wants to collect the money. Putting all the risk on the people with the money. Isn't going to happen.

Make it advantageous to invest. My point though is if it isn't advantageous then the money people have is already taxed. If the incentive isn't there to risk their money they won't. The concept of risk reward has to be introduced. What's wrong with 15% ? The problem is a lot of money has been divested because that rate is going away currently. If a rich person is going to be taxed at 40% next year, why not divest now at 15%. They need to find a way to make up lost 25% if they stay invested for one more year. As Chef shared before energy companies live with 7% ROI, that means it would take 3.5 years to make up the difference and assuming the current tax and spenders in DC don't screw them even more. It's going to have to stay at or near 15% or people will pull their money with no risk at 15% now, hold it until the next administration comes in. They gain nothing by investing and risk more over the 4 years.

What happened?

And if they hoard money they already earned, then they aren't paying taxes. That is something you feeble minded liberals just don't get. It's called income taxes, not savings taxes. They paid the tax already. In fact them hoarding money is good for the dollar value and investments. Trust me when a rich person has money, they don't lock it in a safe somewhere. It's put into safe investments. Again, make it worth their while to invest those dollars instead of trying to take what has already been taxed. Lower taxes on any long term investments they make because that is how the economy grows. By investing and building and coping up with "things" that people want and will spend money on. Money that people will have when these rich people invest their money and put people to work because corporations have money to build things people want. Keep bitching about rich people hoarding money, but don't make it worth their while and you won't get more money from them. They'll just hole up with their already taxed money, and watch the economy tank. They've already made theirs they could give a **** if John, Judy, or Jose have a job and money. Again, they've already paid taxes on the money they've earned. You aren't getting anymore until they invest it and make more money.