KD in CA Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Why do you have so much disdain for american workers? Oh, look who's resorting to moronic sound bites in lieu of anything resembling an intelligent response. Now tell us again how we shouldn't pigeon hole you as another brainless left winger. Or else explain how the 'American workers' at Hostess are better off now.
IDBillzFan Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Why do you have so much disdain for american workers? Are you kidding? Look at the options in front of those American workers. They're free now to start their own company. Make their own product. Make payroll. And then treat their employees the way they believe they should be treated. Not sure what's stopping them. Oh, wait. Now I remember. A bunch of union thugs told almost 19,000 that giving up their livelihood will help them make a point that no one cares about.
/dev/null Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Why do you have so much disdain for american workers? Have you stopped beating your wife?
outsidethebox Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Oh, look who's resorting to moronic sound bites in lieu of anything resembling an intelligent response. Now tell us again how we shouldn't pigeon hole you as another brainless left winger. Or else explain how the 'American workers' at Hostess are better off now. I really don't care what you call me. I am just trying to have a discussion without all the name calling. Are you capable of that?
3rdnlng Posted November 18, 2012 Author Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) Why do you have so much disdain for american workers? Now there you go again. Are you adding LA to your list of TYTT, Meaza and myself as one of the people hating on the common working man? Even the Teamsters wouldn't side with the Bakery Union. They chose to strike over an 8% pay reduction and reduced company participation in their pension fund. In return they were going to end up with 25% of the stock. They decided they didn't like this deal and refused to come back even after being told the company would shut down if they didn't come back to work. They made their choice. Why complain, it was their choice? Edited November 18, 2012 by 3rdnlng
outsidethebox Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Have you stopped beating your wife? I am not going to respond to that. My belief is labor comes before capitol , without labor you have no capitol Now there you go again. Are you adding LA to your list of TYTT, Meaza and myself as one of the people hating on the common working man? Even the Teamsters wouldn't side with the Bakery Union. They chose to strike over an 8% pay reduction and reduced company participation in their pension fund. In return they were going to end up with 25% of the stock. They decided they didn't like this deal and refused to come back even after being told the company would shut down if they didn't come back to work. They made their choice. Why complain, it was their choice? I don't believe management should ask the work force to take a paycut, while they get huge raises.
KD in CA Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I really don't care what you call me. I am just trying to have a discussion without all the name calling. Are you capable of that? You are trying to have a "discussion" by contributing a silly ad hominem response to LA's post? Thanks for proving my point.
Chef Jim Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) Exec severance! How long can somebody live on 2.55 MILLION... Almost ALL don't make that in a lifetime! We're not talking about somebody, we're talking about someone with a decent income/lifestyle. So let's do some math shall we? He made $2.55 million but didn't take that home. He probably had nearly 50% sucked out in taxes (yeah government). That leaves him $1.275 million to invest (and that would only be if he spent none of his take home pay). At a conservative rate of 5% return that gives him a whopping annual income of $63,750. You do realize that in order to replace our income we all have to be a millionaire? Oh that's right you're a lefty, you don't understand personal accountability. Edited November 18, 2012 by Chef Jim
/dev/null Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I am not going to respond to that. My belief is labor comes before capitol , without labor you have no capitol And without capitol there is no need for labor If labor feels they are treated unfarily, they can strike If capitol feels it is no longer in their interest to continue operations, they can shut down
outsidethebox Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 You are trying to have a "discussion" by contributing a silly ad hominem response to LA's post? Thanks for proving my point. Why don't you ask dev/nel when he asked if I stopped beating my wife. Is that an ad hominem responce?
IDBillzFan Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 My belief is labor comes before capitol , without labor you have no capitol And thanks to the union, 18,500 people are now free to labor for no capital. How's that working out for them and their families?
/dev/null Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Why don't you ask dev/nel when he asked if I stopped beating my wife. Is that an ad hominem responce? Because he understood that my post was a sarcastic response to yours
outsidethebox Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Because he understood that my post was a sarcastic response to yours Yeah that must be it.
KD in CA Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Yeah that must be it. That fact that you fail to understand that makes you sound even dumber than you already have in this (and every other) thread. Blather on with your left wing union talking points while continuing to display your ignorance of basic economics. Maybe next you can tell us how public employee unions aren't bankrupting NY State. CEOs must be to blame for that one, huh?
Doc Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 That fact that you fail to understand that makes you sound even dumber than you already have in this (and every other) thread. Blather on with your left wing union talking points while continuing to display your ignorance of basic economics. Maybe next you can tell us how public employee unions aren't bankrupting NY every State. CEOs must be to blame for that one, huh? Fixed it for you.
3rdnlng Posted November 18, 2012 Author Posted November 18, 2012 I am not going to respond to that. My belief is labor comes before capitol , without labor you have no capitol I don't believe management should ask the work force to take a paycut, while they get huge raises. You stumbled into being partially and technically correct. It took labor to build the Capitol Building, but it also took capital to purchase the building materials.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 and you wonder how your CEO candidate and his Ayn Rand fan boy sidekick lost. First of all, Mitt Romney was not "my candidate". I've made this abundantly clear. Secondly, regardless of your politics, what I said is an absolute truth. Labor and laborers are nearly 100% fungible, and you can't repeal the law of supply and demand.
VABills Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I am not going to respond to that. My belief is labor comes before capitol , without labor you have no capitol I don't believe management should ask the work force to take a paycut, while they get huge raises. Labor was going to get a paycut but long term benefits by receiving 25% of the company in stock. Part of the problem you have is worrying so much about today, that you and a lot of lefties have no vision for the future.
Doc Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Libs having no vision for the future and/or taking no responsibility for their actions? Say it ain't so!
3rdnlng Posted November 19, 2012 Author Posted November 19, 2012 http://washingtonexaminer.com/ding-dong-hostess-is-dead-and-wicked-union-did-it/article/2513727?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral The Teamsters, which represented a third of Hostess's workforce, had a different take. In a scathing press release last week, they sided with the Hostess management, saying the liquidation was "not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic, but the certain outcome" of the bakers' strike. This was, they added, "based on conversations with our financial experts, who, because the Teamsters were involved in the legal process, had access to financial information about the company." It further alleged that the bakers union chose "not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process," ignored warnings from the bankruptcy judge and did not fully inform its members of how dire the situation was before they voted to strike.
Recommended Posts