meazza Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Unions bad!! Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh Cut the salary of all the workers producing the product while giving major raises to the higher-ups. Yup, it's the unions fault. Take your lowered wages and love it! Nothing wrong with private unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Nothing wrong with private unions. I agree. I do have some problems with public unions as I'm sure you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I agree. I do have some problems with public unions as I'm sure you do. Public unions shouldn't exist. Private unions should exist but I don't believe they should get special treatment from the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Public unions shouldn't exist. Private unions should exist but I don't believe they should get special treatment from the government. I think public unions could work, but in a lot of places, they are out of control. They can basically demand anything and get it. It's sad that private unions have really died so much. The American worker hasn't seen their real income increase in years even while their productivity has increased greatly over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I think public unions could work, but in a lot of places, they are out of control. They can basically demand anything and get it. It's sad that private unions have really died so much. The American worker hasn't seen their real income increase in years even while their productivity has increased greatly over time. Real income hasn't increased because the economy is not doing well. Businesses are cutting the fat which is where profits are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Real income hasn't increased because the economy is not doing well. Businesses are cutting the fat which is where profits are coming from. This is over more than the last 5 years. I'm talking 20-30 years in the making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) A lot of people lost their job and all you could come up with is that? I have no problem with private sector unions and they dug their own grave. Lets hope those toll Booth operators get what's coming to them. I think you underestimate toll booth operators... The mission critical protocols wouldn't be in place if we were that expendable... Heck, thanks to the war on terror, we can't even be A-76'd and then contracted out... My job has been deemed "inherently gov'tal." Oh well nice try... And if it comes to the worst... Mission critical, "essential personnel" (I can't even get Christmas off) are the last to go in the DoD... If that... We will be the last to go... Anway, I may not strike... Risk a snarl w/the national economy? Before being hired, I had to sign a non-strike agreement or be fired on the spot. Heck, while I am working they can't even come arrest (say a warrant) until relief is found... Forbes: Hostess Exited Bankruptcy Because Of "Substantial Concessions By The Two Big Unions." Forbes explained that Hostess was able to exit bankruptcy in 2009 for three reasons, including that "substantial concessions" were made "by the two big unions" -- the Teamsters and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. Forbes further explained that "annual labor cost savings to the company were about $110 million" and that "thousands of union members lost their jobs." [Forbes, 7/26/12] Last July, the court documents said, the compensation committee of Hostess's board approved an increase in then-chief executive Brian Driscoll's salary from to $2.55 million from around $750,000. The company had hired restructuring lawyers in March 2011, the creditors said, and filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 11. Besides Mr. Driscoll, "other executives' salaries were increased by from 35% to 80%," the creditors said. The documents said that Mr. Driscoll subsequently renounced a portion of the increase while "other executives did not appear to have done so." Besides Mr. Driscoll, two other executives who saw their salaries increase have also left the company, according to the spokesman.[The Wall Street Journal, 4/4/12] How does the CEO get a raise from 750K to 2.55 million in this economy... Were they tanking the company from the get go and covering their azz with a nice compensation package? You know how many people that would have kept working if the CEO took a reasonable salary. Edited November 17, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I think you underestimate toll booth operators... The mission critical protocols wouldn't be in place if we were that expendable... Heck, thanks to the war on terror, we can't even be A-76'd and then contracted out... My job has been deemed "inherently gov'tal." Oh well nice try... And if it comes to the worst... Mission critical, "essential personnel" (I can't even get Christmas off) are the last to go in the DoD... If that... We will be the last to go... Anway, I may not strike... Risk a snarl w/the national economy? Before being hired, I had to sign a non-strike agreement or be fired on the spot. Heck, while I am working they can't even come arrest (say a warrant) until relief is found... How does the CEO get a raise from 750K to 2.55 million in this economy... Were they tanking the company from the get go and covering their azz with a nice compensation package? You know how many people that would have kept working if the CEO took a reasonable salary. No. Nor do you. So, let's do the math. $2.55 million - $750k = $1,505,000 which divided equally amongst the 18,000 hard working twinkie producing blue collar workers is exactly $83.61. That's eighty three dollars and sixty one cents. Now, how many of those 18,000 aforementioned workers would have kept working "if the CEO took a reasonable salary" for an extra $84.61? I ask you. Never mind the fact that the dude kept the company afloat for two years and kept paying those workers $30k+ each year. That's irrelevant - right? It's over for Hostess. The union members had a choice and they made theirs. They killed the company. It's a lot like the American electorate. They had a choice and now they're going to have to live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) No. Nor do you. So, let's do the math. $2.55 million - $750k = $1,505,000 which divided equally amongst the 18,000 hard working twinkie producing blue collar workers is exactly $83.61. That's eighty three dollars and sixty one cents. Now, how many of those 18,000 aforementioned workers would have kept working "if the CEO took a reasonable salary" for an extra $84.61? I ask you. Never mind the fact that the dude kept the company afloat for two years and kept paying those workers $30k+ each year. That's irrelevant - right? It's over for Hostess. The union members had a choice and they made theirs. They killed the company. It's a lot like the American electorate. They had a choice and now they're going to have to live with it. Why are you protecting the fat cats? Read what I said... How many people would that have kept working is what I said. NOT divided between all 18,000. Rougly if that 2.5 million was brought to 200K as a "reasonable salary" that would have left 2.2 million left... 44 people @ 50k a year could have been left working. (say @ 50k) 44 people (and their families) work a year for what the CEO makes. That is the math... I am not talking about dividing it equally among all 18,000. Just saying that one guy is hogginig 44 jobs. Still @ a "reasonable" 200k a year... That CEO is making 4 times 50k... Not a 50 times! 50 times... And there is a lot more @ stake for them NOT to tank the company on purporse... Maybe they struggle to keep the company going since there is then no personal "golden parachute." Edited November 17, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 No. Nor do you. So, let's do the math. $2.55 million - $750k = $1,505,000 which divided equally amongst the 18,000 hard working twinkie producing blue collar workers is exactly $83.61. That's eighty three dollars and sixty one cents. Now, how many of those 18,000 aforementioned workers would have kept working "if the CEO took a reasonable salary" for an extra $84.61? I ask you. Never mind the fact that the dude kept the company afloat for two years and kept paying those workers $30k+ each year. That's irrelevant - right? It's over for Hostess. The union members had a choice and they made theirs. They killed the company. It's a lot like the American electorate. They had a choice and now they're going to have to live with it. That's it, $83 was the difference. Damn that evil CEO for working likely 100 hour weeks dealing with the workers, talking with investors, banks, other cpmpanies about a merger. But hey those workers worked their 40 hour week. It's tough working 40 hours. That CEO likely missed many children/grandchildren school plays, baseball, football, parent teacher conferences, etc... But he's the problem. Why are you protectiing the fat cats? Read what I said... How many people would that have kept working is what I said. NOT divided between all 18,000. Rougly if that 2.5 million was brought to 200K as a "reasonable salary" that would have left 2.2 million left... 44 people @ 50k a year could have been left working. (say @ 50k) 44 people work a year for what the CEO makes. That is the math... I am not talking about dividing it equally among all 18,000. Just saying that one guy is hogginig 44 jobs. And the other 17,956 employee? 44 couldn't even probably turn on the machines each day, let alone make a !@#$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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2012 Author Share Posted November 17, 2012 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. 18000 less members paying union dues. Damn, what are the dems going to do for campaign contributions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) The CEO probably put in double or triple the hours, with all of the thought leadership. And that is why they are getting 4 times the average of 50k for double and triple hours... Sounds reasonable when you can keep 44 people and families afloat while NOT purposefully tanking the company because they can spend the rest of their lives living off the 2.55 million. 18000 less members paying union dues. Damn, what are the dems going to do for campaign contributions? A lot of shouldas and couldas here... Lets cross that bridge in 2016... All things point to, even without those dues... The exclusionary Repubs still get their azzes handed to them! These of course are all simple rounded numbers and things I used as example are pretty simple when dividing up the hog's share of the slop. In no way I am suggesting that would have saved the company... At least 44 families would have been feed for a year and the pig CEO would have equal incentive to get his azz out on the street tomorrow and also look for a new job... Edited November 17, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 And that is why they are getting 4 times the average of 50k for double and triple hours... Sounds reasonable when you can keep 44 people and families afloat while NOT purposefully tanking the company because they can spend the rest of their lives living off the 2.55 million. A lot of shouldas and couldas here... Lets cross that bridge in 2016... All things point to, even without those dues... The exclusionary Repubs still get their azzes handed to them! These of course are all simple rounded numbers and things I used as example are pretty simple when dividing up the hog's share of the slop. In no way I am suggesting that would have saved the company... At least 44 families would have been feed for a year and the pig CEO would have equal incentive to get his azz out on the street tomorrow and also look for a new job... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2012 Author Share Posted November 17, 2012 And that is why they are getting 4 times the average of 50k for double and triple hours... Sounds reasonable when you can keep 44 people and families afloat while NOT purposefully tanking the company because they can spend the rest of their lives living off the 2.55 million. A lot of shouldas and couldas here... Lets cross that bridge in 2016... All things point to, even without those dues... The exclusionary Repubs still get their azzes handed to them! These of course are all simple rounded numbers and things I used as example are pretty simple when dividing up the hog's share of the slop. In no way I am suggesting that would have saved the company... At least 44 families would have been feed for a year and the pig CEO would have equal incentive to get his azz out on the street tomorrow and also look for a new job... Well if I remember correctly, Hostess had 130 million invested in it just a few years ago, you know to keep it afloat? Why would 44 more families used as feed help keep Hostess afloat any better? Besides, what would you put on the ingredients label? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 What do the CFO and COO make too? How many families does that feed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 And that is why they are getting 4 times the average of 50k for double and triple hours... Sounds reasonable when you can keep 44 people and families afloat while NOT purposefully tanking the company because they can spend the rest of their lives living off the 2.55 million. A lot of shouldas and couldas here... Lets cross that bridge in 2016... All things point to, even without those dues... The exclusionary Repubs still get their azzes handed to them! These of course are all simple rounded numbers and things I used as example are pretty simple when dividing up the hog's share of the slop. In no way I am suggesting that would have saved the company... At least 44 families would have been feed for a year and the pig CEO would have equal incentive to get his azz out on the street tomorrow and also look for a new job... This is exactly what I picture in my mind when I've responded in the past to LA's entreaty to the Lefties to explain how BO plans "to grow the economy from the middle out". Face it. You're a communist. You want everyone to earn a certain amount - regardless of their contribution. I put the Lefty figure at $50k a year. No one should be paid less. If anyone earns more - the government confiscates everything over $50k and redistributes it to everyone else that doesn't earn it - because it's "fair". Right? Communist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Well if I remember correctly, Hostess had 130 million invested in it just a few years ago, you know to keep it afloat? Why would 44 more families used as feed help keep Hostess afloat any better? Besides, what would you put on the ingredients label? I am not talking about keeping Hostess afloat or saving the company... I am talking about keeping a family afloat (prior years the fat cats were collecting their bloated salary) for at least a year. Again, the fat cats can make 4 times as much... Which gives them incentive to not tank the company and live personally off the lion's share... 200k still doesn't mean they need to look for a job tomorrow... BUT they would have to soon. Heck, whole families are living off 50 and getting by. This is exactly what I picture in my mind when I've responded in the past to LA's entreaty to the Lefties to explain how BO plans "to grow the economy from the middle out". Face it. You're a communist. You want everyone to earn a certain amount - regardless of their contribution. I put the Lefty figure at $50k a year. No one should be paid less. If anyone earns more - the government confiscates everything over $50k and redistributes it to everyone else that doesn't earn it - because it's "fair". Right? Communist! How can I be a communist... The CEO is working maybe double/triple the average work the normal workers work... YET, they are making 4 times the amount. A communist, I would think wants everybody equal. Talking Twinkies here... A dieing, unhealthy food choice. Edited November 17, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I am not talking about keeping Hostess afloat or saving the company... I am talking about keeping a family afloat (prior years the fat cats were collecting their bloated salary) for at least a year. Again, the fat cats can make 4 times as much... Which gives them incentive to not tank the company and live personally off the lion's share... 200k still doesn't mean they need to look for a job tomorrow... BUT they would have to soon. Heck, whole families are living off 50 and getting by. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) 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. He was making 750 prior to the 2.55 million... That is only a cut in a little more than a 1/2... Heck give them the original 750 and keep 22 familes afloat... Seems they had incentive to tank the company and live comfortably... Just a year ago they were livinig off 750. Edited November 17, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) He was making 750 prior to the 2.55 million... That is only a cut in a little more than a 1/2... Heck give them the original 750 and keep 22 familes afloat... Seems they had incentive to tank the company and live comfortably... Just a year ago they were livinig off 750. 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. Edited November 17, 2012 by VABills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts