Goodbye Twinkies? +Quote on "Entitlement Society"

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Rookies

Yep, for the rich owners, managers and investors. Thank you- Mr. Gekko.

As for the workers of those deep sixed companies- "let them eat cake"... on the dole.

Sounds "Fair & Balanced" to me.

Is the truth somehow reduced by the conversion to metric?
You post nonsense.

Here's he deal - Hostess offered jobs, they refused.
They do not deserve pity or unemployment.
Sell the rights and the brick and mortar to some who will re-open without a union.

Anyway your break up a union is a good way.

[HUSKER55]

HCAP, i think he is referring to #37

[Moniker]

The fact that anyone could support this kind of cut throat business practice while unemployment is a chief domestic concern makes my head spin. These greedy business moguls have no concern and no interest in the fate of the company, either outcome, liquidation or the employees simply accepting the salary cut benefits the owners and investors, so why should they care? I'll tell you why; because executives have a responsibility to their employees. This responisbility is completely disregarded when executives grant themselves hefty raises in the face of the company bankrupting, while expecting their workers to sacrifice their pay to save the sinking ship. Any person with a single rational, moral cell in their brain would know this is completely backwards.

So when these workers choose not to be handily bent over, and the higher ups shrug their shoulders and choose instead to make a killing by simply washing their hands of it, how exactly are the workers to blame? If they just take the lumps it sets a precedent, and the men and women who write their checks will just keep taking, and taking, until they hit rock bottom. (minimum wage) Is this supposed to be an acceptable outcome for people who have families to support and depend on the income they've grown accustomed to? My answer would be no, and so standing up against it becomes their only option, and as a result they risk losing their jobs, but it's a risk they have little choice in taking.

Through all of this however the biggest headscratcher to me is that people then blame unemployment and economic issues on the federal government. It's as though Americans are unaware exactly what a free economy is, and so expect the president to somehow fix everything, while at the same time shreiking "socialism!!!" whenever a commander in chief does attempt direct intervention. Can you say hipocracy?

In reality, as a part of a free economy, it is our responsibility as the consumers to hold these companies accountable when they attempt to abuse our fellow working class fellows. The simple fact is people are just too lazy, or just don't care enough, and so unions become the only viable option available a worker who is being taken advantage of.

So all that said it seems there are 2 ways these problems will ultimately be resolved. Human nature itself changes so that more executives start fulfilling their resposibility to their workers first, and their own pocket second - or we, as members of a free economy fulfill our responsibility to hold these executives accountable for their selfish business practices that come at the cost of American jobs.

Neither seem likely in my eyes.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by hcap

I did not see the post. What #?

#37

"Are ya sure???? So would you be suggesting to just screw the company since they cant be profitable and control their executive pay? Let them fail? if so, I agree!!!!! By the way, did you see the USPS...??? A Failing company that can not remain competitive, pay off their debts, and continue to pay their execs hefty increases.......lmao


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/us-postal-service-loses-159-billion/



"Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, for instance, earned a base salary of $276,840, but even without a bonus or incentive payout, his overall compensation came to $512,093, compared with $384,229 in 2011, according to regulatory filings.
Fueling the rise was the fact that his retirement account grew by $186,536. A 37-year employee of the Postal Service, Mr. Donahoe was paid $4.76 per hour during his first job as a postal clerk.

Meanwhile, two other executives — Ellis Burgoyne, chief information officer, and Mary Anne Gibbons, general counsel — also received hefty increases in their retirement plans.

In fact, Mr. Burgoyne’s retirement plan grew by more than $270,000, bringing his total compensation to $510,505, slightly less than Mr. Donahoe‘s."

__________________

[Tom]

The fact that anyone could support this kind of cut throat business practice while unemployment is a chief domestic concern makes my head spin. These greedy business moguls have no concern and no interest in the fate of the company, either outcome, liquidation or the employees simply accepting the salary cut benefits the owners and investors, so why should they care? I'll tell you why; because executives have a responsibility to their employees

Cut throat?
"I'll show them....I'll go out of business!"

the crime here is that greedy labor chooses to take public money away from those who really can't find jobs. Walking away from a job today should be grounds for deportation. Here's a clue for you - employees have a responsibility to their employers. what did the union do to help out?

[HUSKER55]

I see where the cost of a stamp is going up a penney. I am having trouble imaging that is all that is needed to solve the problem. They should raise it a dime and get solvent so the taxpayers don't have to bail them out

They need to restructure and limit home deliveries to 2 or 3 times a week.

In fact if all employers used direct deposit I would be happy with one day a week. All of my bills come online.

Ya know, if USPS were to give big brown a run for their money I am not sold that that would not be a good idea.

Just curious, how many of the ads and what not do you use? For me, I'm thinking once a week or once every two weeks would be fine. But right now I think Hostess is just the tip of the ice berg

[Moniker]

Yes, cut throat. More to the effect of "I'll pay you less, or if you won't accept less pay I'll give your job to an overseas worker to make a buck." To hell with out economic issues and rising unemployment, it's all about their own checkbook. That "ME ME ME!" mentality that you branded union participators with is not a trait of unions, it unfortunately is a trait of our race.

Let me first say, before you confuse my opinion on unions, that I see them as at best a necessary evil brought into necessity in an attempt to level the playing field between employer and emplyoee. (a very commonplace opinion, I'm aware.) So that being their original purpose, they played that role well when it was most needed, but over the last century as the two sides (employer and employee) have played see-saw trying to tip the scales back in their own favor, it has only served to hurt the worker. The fault lies with both sides, not just the unions as you are so convinced.

So to answer your question "what did the unions do to help out?" I say very little in this instance, they very well may have done more to hurt than to help. This is however just one battle in an ongoing war between business owners and unions, and seeing as how the union obviously failed in it's job to protect it's member's jobs, it can be chalked up as a win for the business owners.

Now I pose a question to you:
Where to, do you suppose we deport these yella-bellied chumps who were unfortunate enough to be on the side of a losing union? My vote would be the isle of misfits from that old stop motion christmas film!

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

In fact if all employers used direct deposit I would be happy with one day a week. All of my bills come online.

There is a huge portion of the economy that does not have this option. They don't use a bank at all. The Latino community is one that doesn't use banks. Many many minorities don't use banks. There are several reasons why.

Large companies have gone to offering these employees debit style card accounts. The paycheck goes directly on the card they carry in their wallet. I am personally familiar with one company that offers this system at a cost of 2% to the employees. Almost all of the Latino employees would rather pay the 2% than allow their pay to go into a bank account.

[Actor]

This may be a digression but...

Isn't it possible that the market for Twinkies just isn't there any more? The country is more conscious of healthy foods than they were 50 years ago. Diabetes is on the rise.

And wasn't it Twinkies that caused the assassination of the mayor of San Francisco?

[Moniker]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

There is a huge portion of the economy that does not have this option. They don't use a bank at all. The Latino community is one that doesn't use banks. Many many minorities don't use banks. There are several reasons why.

Large companies have gone to offering these employees debit style card accounts. The paycheck goes directly on the card they carry in their wallet. I am personally familiar with one company that offers this system at a cost of 2% to the employees. Almost all of the Latino employees would rather pay the 2% than allow their pay to go into a bank account.

The company I work for offers that very "service" haha. I'm not aware of any charge since I've never bothered looking into it, I just use my local credit union.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Tom

Oh yes, and allow the rest of us who still go to work to pay for you while you do so.

Unemployment is insurance paid for by premiums. It doesn't cost you anything.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Large companies have gone to offering these employees debit style card accounts. The paycheck goes directly on the card they carry in their wallet. I am personally familiar with one company that offers this system at a cost of 2% to the employees. Almost all of the Latino employees would rather pay the 2% than allow their pay to go into a bank account.

I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between direct deposit to a checking account and having your pay do directly on a debit style card account.

Doesn't a bank handle the money either way?

[Moniker]

Originally Posted by Actor

This may be a digression but...

Isn't it possible that the market for Twinkies just isn't there any more? The country is more conscious of healthy foods than they were 50 years ago. Diabetes is on the rise.

And wasn't it Twinkies that caused the assassination of the mayor of San Francisco?

I'm sure it is a contributing factor, and the blame for something of that nature rests squarely on the shoulders of the owners. It's their responsibility to ensure the product's sales and advertising. So if this is the largest contributor to the company's failure, then the the people responsible (the executives, who receive the largest sum of the company's revenue) should at least be HELPING to compensate for the decrease in sales with their own slice of the pie, while at the same time devising a method to make their product more marketable for their own sake as well as their workers.

[Moniker]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between direct deposit to a checking account and having your pay do directly on a debit style card account.

Doesn't a bank handle the money either way?

The way that it's done, through my company at least, is that your check is essentially given to a credit card company (most likely visa or mastercard in some cases, but in this case I believe it's a small credit card company) and they handle the money directly, and supposedly do with it what they please.

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by Actor

Unemployment is insurance paid for by premiums. It doesn't cost you anything.

Like hell you say. The premiums come out of company funds. Those funds could be going to paychecks for people that are working.

Don't get me wrong, I think UE benefits are worthy, but not over 6 months worth. After a half a year, one needs to get going.