Another victory for the unions!

[CPCFTW]

So where does it end then? If one group allows its wages to be rolled back again and again, that sets the precedent for other groups, and other employers to demand their wages be rolled back. How far back do you want to roll back worker wages and benefits? Until we're all living in slums with no health care, sick leave, safety regulations or pensions?

It ends when we have full employment and demand for employees exceeds supply.

Unions just artificially inflate prices and unemployment these days.

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. became the world's largest manufacturing nation without "free" healthcare and other benefits.

[Shady]

It ends when we have full employment and demand for employees exceeds supply.

Unions just artificially inflate prices and unemployment these days.

Exactly. Apparently some people still don't understand the concepts of labour demand, and business profitability. Hostess wasn't going to be profitable at the current labour costs. That's why they asked for wage rollbacks. No salary is set in stone. Salaries are all based on the profitibility of a business and/or industry. In good times they can rise, in bad times they can fall.

Unions have to pick their battles. When labour demand is high, and unemployment is low, unions have more power. When the economy is weak, and labour demand is low, they have very little power at all.

All they're managing to do is shut down businesses, and send people who would otherwise have jobs, to the unemployment line. See Caterpiller in London, Ontario. Apparently jobs paying 20, 30, and even some at 40 dollars an hour wasn't good enough for them in the current economy. So now they have none. Heckuva job unions. Heckuva job.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Shady

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly. Apparently some people still don't understand the concepts of labour demand, and business profitability. Hostess wasn't going to be profitable at the current labour costs. That's why they asked for wage rollbacks. No salary is set in stone. Salaries are all based on the profitibility of a business and/or industry. In good times they can rise, in bad times they can fall.

Apparently, only the workers' salaries are, not managements':

Hostess Brands’ management gave themselves several raises, all the while complaining that the workers who actually produced the products that made the firm what money it did earn were grossly overpaid relative to the company’s increasingly dismal financial position.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/11/16/who-killed-hostess-brands-and-twinkies/

Apparently jobs paying 20, 30, and even some at 40 dollars an hour wasn't good enough for them in the current economy. So now they have none. Heckuva job unions. Heckuva job.

"20, 30, and even some at 40 dollars an hour??"

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.

.... "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."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-workers/

[bush_cheney2004]

Hostess Brands was a failing business, so did the unions think they were going to make things better by striking to keep pay and benefits? This is not logical. I think the bakers were just trying to preserve whatever would be left in pension benefits after liquidation.

[TimG]

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.

Sounds like like shutting down Hostess was a rational business decision on the part of the union. Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG

[punked]

Sounds like like shutting down Hostess was a rational business decision on the part of the union.

No point in working for pennies when your business model is the problem. If you are going to be out of work in a year anyway what is the point? This has very little to do with the Union or the management really for that matter. It is much like the paper industry in Canada. It has a product that is in demand but just as in demand as it use to be and every year seems to bring about more market decline. The writing was on the wall and has been for a long time the company went through how many bankruptcies in the last 3 years? 2 or was it 3? Seriously the conservatives on this board are being silly, AND the progressives on this board are also not seeing the forest through the trees. It wasn't a question of if Hostess would fail it was just a question of when.

[CPCFTW]

Apparently, only the workers' salaries are, not managements':

Hostess Brands’ management gave themselves several raises, all the while complaining that the workers who actually produced the products that made the firm what money it did earn were grossly overpaid relative to the company’s increasingly dismal financial position.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/11/16/who-killed-hostess-brands-and-twinkies/

"20, 30, and even some at 40 dollars an hour??"

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.

.... "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."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-workers/

He better hope there is a large demand for bakers.

[Guest American Woman]

He better hope there is a large demand for bakers.

He's a receiving clerk ....

[bush_cheney2004]

Hostess products were very popular....at the baked goods thrift store (expired dates).

[CPCFTW]

He's a receiving clerk ....

Oh my mistake.. He'll easily get over 30k in this economy as a receiving clerk

[Shady]

"20, 30, and even some at 40 dollars an hour??"

I was referring to Caterpillar.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh my mistake.. He'll easily get over 30k in this economy as a receiving clerk

He'll get more on unemployment. Did you miss that part?

[bush_cheney2004]

He'll get more on unemployment. Did you miss that part?

Yes, that is certainly part of job termination calculus. These workers knew or should have known that the party was over.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, that is certainly part of job termination calculus. These workers knew or should have known that the party was over.

I can't imagine anyone agreeing to have their salaries cut by almost 50%, along with benefits, and be willing - and evidently grateful - to keep working for a company whose management was getting raises. I would have done the same thing as the workers under the circumstances, especially since it was inevitable that they would likely be out of jobs in the (near) future anyway. Who is going to accept a pay cut from 48k to 25k minus benefits? How pathetic do people think the Hostess workers are that they should just accept this? - and be grateful for the job?

[CPCFTW]

He'll get more on unemployment. Did you miss that part?

Nope.. But for how long?

[punked]

Nope.. But for how long?

Considering this is the third time in three years they asked him to a pay cut because they couldn't make any money he will get for about as long as hostess could have stayed afloat anyway.

[sharkman]

bcsapper:

Less melamine.

I love the smell of melamine in the morning.

Edited November 17, 2012 by sharkman

[Bryan]

Unions are a cancer. They have only themselves to blame when all those people lose their jobs, AND all those retired people lose their pensions. Let's see the union step up and pay those people. No, they'd never do that because they don't ever GIVE anything, they just take. The union bosses will keep THEIR jobs.

It's ridiculous the power unions have, OF COURSE you should be able to fire people for not doing the job they are asked to do, or for not accepting the terms the employer dictates. Just because you have a right to assemble, doesn't mean you should have the right to hold a company hostage.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Bryan

[Wilber]

I can't imagine anyone agreeing to have their salaries cut by almost 50%, along with benefits, and be willing - and evidently grateful - to keep working for a company whose management was getting raises. I would have done the same thing as the workers under the circumstances, especially since it was inevitable that they would likely be out of jobs in the (near) future anyway. Who is going to accept a pay cut from 48k to 25k minus benefits? How pathetic do people think the Hostess workers are that they should just accept this? - and be grateful for the job?

Seems that management was intent on milking as much as they could out of the company before it went bust and wanted the employees to pay for it. They weren't willing to go along.

[Merlin]

Seems that management was intent on milking as much as they could out of the company before it went bust and wanted the employees to pay for it. They weren't willing to go along.

Well, the union won, you should be happy and proud.

[Shady]

I can't imagine anyone agreeing to have their salaries cut by almost 50%, along with benefits, and be willing - and evidently grateful - to keep working for a company whose management was getting raises. I would have done the same thing as the workers under the circumstances, especially since it was inevitable that they would likely be out of jobs in the (near) future anyway. Who is going to accept a pay cut from 48k to 25k minus benefits? How pathetic do people think the Hostess workers are that they should just accept this? - and be grateful for the job?

I'd rather have a job at 25k, so that I have at least some income, while I look for another job, instead of having no job at all. But that's just me personally. I don't know how others feel.

[Bryan]

I'd rather have a job at 25k, so that I have at least some income, while I look for another job, instead of having no job at all. But that's just me personally. I don't know how others feel.

No kidding. Even if you have no intention of staying at the job at that pay, I'd much rather have it while looking for the next job.

[Guest American Woman]

I'd rather have a job at 25k, so that I have at least some income, while I look for another job, instead of having no job at all. But that's just me personally. I don't know how others feel.

You do understand that unemployment, which pays more money than you'd be making, would be income while you were looking for another job, right? - And free you up to put more time and effort into looking for a job.

Seems that management was intent on milking as much as they could out of the company before it went bust and wanted the employees to pay for it. They weren't willing to go along.

Agreed.

Edited November 17, 2012 by American Woman

[Shady]

You do understand that unemployment, which pays more money than you'd be making, would be income while you were looking for another job, right?

Yes, but why use up unemployment benefits when you still have a job? I'd save those benefits for if or when the current job ended before I was able to find a better one. It's just common sense. But again, that's just my opinion.