# Unions kill the twinkie?



## billc (Nov 15, 2012)

Hmmm...even in the zombie apocalypse some joy was found in those golden, cream filled cakes by Tallahassee...but no more.  The Unions may have killed them as surely as a zombie bite...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/14/Unions-May-Kill-Off-The-Twinkie




> *Union workers may permanently kill off the iconic Twinkie. Hostess  Brands, Inc., the company that makes Twinkies, announced on Wednesday  that it will ask a bankruptcy judge to allow it to shut down and sell  off its assets as soon as November 20, if union workers do not end their  strike by Thursday.
> *
> 
> The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers  International Union, whose members make up nearly a third of the  company's workforce, has been on strike at plants across the country  protesting "pay cuts that Hostess" won the right to impose in bankruptcy  court.
> ...



I know, why doesn't obama nationalize the twinkie?


Oh no, they got San Bernadino too...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/14/How-San-Bernardino-Went-Bankrupt




> [h=2]How does a city of 200,000 people go bankrupt? In the case of San  Bernardino, CA, the answer is unsustainable pension obligations pushed  by union-backed politicians.
> [/h] San Bernardino declared bankruptcy in July,  citing "an immediate cash flow issue," but the collapse has been a long  time coming and was not the result of a single decision or mistake.  Elected officials consistently chose to offer public-sector unions  overly-generous benefits, both in terms of salaries and pensions, even  as the tax base of the city was shrinking.
> Between 1997 and 2010, the salary of a city firefighter doubled to just shy of $150,000. Firefighters and police routinely took advantage of rules which allowed them to be paid for a percentage of accrued sick leave and vacation hours:
> In 2009, patrol lieutenant Richard Taack retired at the age of 59, after 37 years of service. He took home $389,727 that year, including $194,820 in unused sick time and $33,721 for unused vacation time, according to city payroll records. Shortly after Taack retired - on an annual lifetime pension of $128,000 - he was hired part-time by Penman's city attorney's office, at $32 an hour.​ Asked about these payouts, the head of San Bernardino's firefighter  union told Reuters, "If you call in sick, you're a bad employee. So my guys don't call in sick. Then you get all this time you are owed - and you get vilified."
> ...


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 15, 2012)

Do you even check this stuff for accuracy?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 15, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Do you even check this stuff for accuracy?



I believe this is accurate.  I saw on the mainstream news the other day.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/twin...trikes-persist/story?id=17725053#.UKUny6qFlZo

It's not that unusual for unionized workers to push employers to the point of bankruptcy.  Now we will have to see if the union will back off their demands or if the manufacturer will close.


----------



## cdunn (Nov 15, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe this is accurate. I saw on the mainstream news the other day.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/twin...trikes-persist/story?id=17725053#.UKUny6qFlZo
> 
> It's not that unusual for unionized workers to push employers to the point of bankruptcy. Now we will have to see if the union will back off their demands or if the manufacturer will close.



Well.. I also have to ask what the ownership's role in this is. I note that Hostess is owned by hedge funds; they may be following the Romney anti-business model of purchasing a healthy company with debt, saddling the company with that debt and as many fees as possible, declare bankruptcy so they can run off with the pension fund, and leaving a smoldering mess for the banks to sell off and recoup their loan money from. We only have a small part of the story.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Well.. I also have to ask what the ownership's role in this is. I note that Hostess is owned by hedge funds; they may be following the Romney anti-business model of purchasing a healthy company with debt, saddling the company with that debt and as many fees as possible, declare bankruptcy so they can run off with the pension fund, and leaving a smoldering mess for the banks to sell off and recoup their loan money from. We only have a small part of the story.



bingo.  there's always two sides to the story.  Unions would not be necessary if we could actually trust employers, especially big corporate employers, to treat their employees well, give them good pay and benefits and good working conditions.  But alas, history has proven that largely we cannot trust them.  So Unions continue to have a role to play.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2012)

Other than potential jobs lost, the world would be a better place without the Twinkie.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 15, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Well.. I also have to ask what the ownership's role in this is. I note that Hostess is owned by hedge funds; they may be following the Romney anti-business model of purchasing a healthy company with debt, saddling the company with that debt and as many fees as possible, declare bankruptcy so they can run off with the pension fund, and leaving a smoldering mess for the banks to sell off and recoup their loan money from. We only have a small part of the story.



I'll go along with that.  However, either way, there was truth to the story that Billcihak posted in this case.  I happen to agree with him here; but that's my own political leanings showing through.  I do not know the truth of the issue; I do know that the story itself is true.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 15, 2012)

Unions do sometimes take things to far, being a collection of people.  Flying Crane is right though, without them, worker's rights would be non-exsistant and they still have an important role to play in modern American bussiness.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 15, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Unions do sometimes take things to far, being a collection of people.  Flying Crane is right though, without them, worker's rights would be non-exsistant and they still have an important role to play in modern American bussiness.



Unions were once far more important to workers than they are today, IMHO.  I think they are largely irrelevant in these times, and often a serious impediment to a business' ability to compete in world markets; unions depend heavily on protected markets and that's not something I've ever been in favor of.  However, they do still play a role, no matter how small.  I'll agree with that.  The rest we'll have to chalk up to philosophical differences; I personally have no use for 'em.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 15, 2012)

No time to investigate right now - but I wonder what the union demands were and if they weren't more affordable than bankruptcy?  I guess, if the top VIPs get to keep the pensions for the workers, likely not.  Sounds like just what a union is supposed to keep from happening, no?  Who administrates the trust for that union, I wonder?


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe this is accurate.  I saw on the mainstream news the other day.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/twin...trikes-persist/story?id=17725053#.UKUny6qFlZo
> 
> It's not that unusual for unionized workers to push employers to the point of bankruptcy.  Now we will have to see if the union will back off their demands or if the manufacturer will close.


This is a bit of a chicken/egg thing.  While the company is struggling, can that be attributed to the unions?   What I mean is, the company was struggling, they filed for bankruptcy and received authorization from the hearings to cut pay.  It's the pay cuts that created the labor crisis, which put them in this situation.  So, laying this all at the unions is a bit of a stretch, unless the unions were directly responsible for the financial woes that led Hostess to file for bankruptcy in the first place.  

The unfortunate thing here is that the bankruptcy of the company put them in a position where they cut salaries by 8% (or 9%...  can't remember from the news article today).  If management can't make a compelling case to labor that it's in their best interest to accept the cut and in good faith return to work, the company may very well go under.  I don't get the sense that they're bluffing, but if labor believes that to be the case, then this could very well be taken to the tipping point.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2012)

Unions may be irrelevant in a lot of cases, but the fact that they do continue to exist, I believe, helps hold employers in check.  Knowing that their employees could unionize if the become dissatisfied enough, and knowing how that would complicate things for the employers may go a long way to encouraging employers to be as good to employees as possible, without needing to brandish the cattle prod.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 15, 2012)

I think what REALLY killed the twinkie is the knowledge that it will not rot for over 10 years....


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> I think what REALLY killed the twinkie is the knowledge that it will not rot for over 10 years....



Twinkies don't have a shelf life.  They have a Half-Life.


----------



## rlobrecht (Nov 15, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> the world would be a better place without the Twinkie.



As a child of the '70s, I will have to respectfully disagree.  I may not have eaten a Twinkie in 20 years, but I have some very fond memories of them.

Rick


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 15, 2012)

Deep fried twinkies are absolutely delicious.   

No matter how this turns out, this will not be the end of the Twinkie and the other recognizable Hostess brands.  If they go defunct, the brand will be sold to another company and we'll continue to see Twinkies, Ho-Hos and what not, at our grocery stores.  Might be a good opportunity for Bimbo Foods USA, the current purveyer of Mrs. Baird's, Sara Lee, and Orowheat breads.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm thinking too big to fail.  I'm thinking we need a bakery bail out.

In the interest of honoring our beloved Twinkie, I'll post a few of my favorite recipes, culled from my Twinkie Cookbook.

*Twinkie Pancakes:*

Serves 4 to 6

6 Twinkies
4 Cups Pancake Batter
Butter/Margarine/Syrup (optional)

Slice the twinkies into 8 thin disks.  Prepare the pancakes just as you would normally, but add three twinkie slices to each pancake prior to flipping.

*Twinkie Burrito:  *Serves 4

4 flour tortillas, warmed (10 or 12 inch)
1/2 to 3/4 cups chocolate syrup
4 twinkies
2 cups sliced strawberries (or substitute 1/2 cup strawberry preserves)

Drizzle the chocolate sauce in the tortilla and roll it up with a twinkie and 1/4 cup strawberries.  Nom, nom.

*Twinkieclair

*10 twinkies, halved lengthwise.
1 (3.4 oz) package instant vanilla pudding
2 cups milk
1 (8 oz) conatiner cool-whip, thawed
1 (16 oz) container chocolate frosting

Arrange half of the twinkies in an 8x8 baking dish, cut side up.

Combine the pudding mix and milk in a bowl and stir according to package directions.  Fold in the whipped topping and spread over the twinkies.

Arrange the remaining twinkines on top, cut side down.

Soften the frosting in the microwave (remove foil first) and drizzle over the twinkies.  Refrigerate until firm (about 1 hour).


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2012)

Steve said:


> I'm thinking too big to fail. I'm thinking we need a bakery bail out.
> 
> In the interest of honoring our beloved Twinkie, I'll post a few of my favorite recipes, culled from my Twinkie Cookbook.
> 
> ...



feed them to young children and watch the ensuing chaos...


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2012)

Imagine a Tiramisu with twinkies instead of lady fingers.   Twinkimisu!

1 package vanilla instant pudding
1 3/4 cups Milk
1/4 cup amaretto
1 cup strong coffee, warm (not hot)
1 tbsp sugar
1/4 cup Kahlua
2 cups Cool Whip (thawed)
10 twinkies
unsweetened cocoa for dusting

Combine pudding mix, milk and amaretto.  Mix and then set aside until thick.

In a seperate bowl, combine coffee, sugar and Kahlua.  Mix until sugar is dissolved, then refrigerate until cool.

Line baking sheet with wax paper and then arrange the twinkies in a single layer.  Drizzle the coffee mixture over each twinkie so that it soaks in.

Fold the whipped topping into the pudding mixture.  Spoon 1/3rd of this into the bottom of an 8x8 baking dish.

Arrange the twinkies evenly over the pudding, and spoon the remaining pudding over the top of the twinkies.  Refrigerate and then dust the top with the cocoa.  


Or, take 6 twinkies and cut them in half, lengthwise.  Then make a chocolate bundt cake batter.  Pour half of the batter into the bundt pan and then arrange the twinkie halves vertically, evenly spaced around the pan. Pour the remaining batter over so that the twinkies are completely covered and bake.  Mmmm... twinkie filled bundt cake.  

Twinkie Smoothie:

2 Twinkies, 2 scoops vanilla ice cream and 1 cup frozen strawberries.  Blend until smooth.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 15, 2012)

Steve? Have you tried any of these concoctions?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> the world would be a better place without the Twinkie.



There's no need for blasphemy.


----------



## Carol (Nov 15, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Steve? Have you tried any of these concoctions?



Who knew twinkies could be so versatile?


----------



## Steve (Nov 16, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Steve? Have you tried any of these concoctions?



I've tried them all...  The Twinkie bundt cake is my go to for pot lucks at work.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2012)

And that would be it for Hostess.  Well played, unions, well played.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324556304578122632560842670.html



> Updated November 16, 2012, 9:06 a.m. ET
> Twinkie Maker Hostess to Close
> By RACHEL FEINTZEIG
> 
> ...



So now they can picket empty buildings.  Super.  So smart.  Having no job is so much better than twisting your employer's nards until they bleed.

Oh well.  Maybe more companies will be forced out of business by the greedy corrupt unions and then the employees will come to their senses and tell the unions to get lost.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 16, 2012)

I never liked Twinkies, I tried to..... but I just never liked them






 And after I read the Ingredients, I was not all that upset I never liked them

Enriched wheat flour, sugar, corn syrup, niacin, water, high fructose corn syrup, vegetable and/or animal shortening  containing one or more of partially hydrogenated soybean, cottonseed and canola oil, and beef fat, dextrose, whole eggs, modified corn starch, cellulose gum, whey, leavenings (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate), salt, cornstarch, corn flour, corn syrup, solids, mono and diglycerides, soy lecithin, polysorbate 60, dextrin, calcium caseinate, sodium stearoyl lactylate, wheat gluten, calcium sulphate, natural and artificial flavors, caramel color, yellow #5, red #40.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2012)

SO, the best I could discern, is that its mostly a He Said She Said situation:

Hostess is blaming the union for pushing them outta buisness

The Union is citing years of financial mismanagement by Hostess.

MY PERSONAL OPINION is that its probably a combination of the two.

My real concern is for the 18000 new mouths our tax dollars are gonna need to take care of.


----------



## clfsean (Nov 16, 2012)

Yay Unions!!! Way to go!!! Enjoy your strike fund all the way to the unemployment line... ****tards. Hope you're satisfied. 

Now... what do the rest of us do at county fairs or visiting Scotland for Fried Twinkies?? Now what???


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2012)

http://hostessbrands.com/Closing.aspx



> Hostess Brands is Closed.
> We are sorry to announce that Hostess Brands, Inc. has been forced by a Bakers Union strike to shut down all operations and sell all company assets. For more information, go to hostessbrands.info. Thank you for all of your loyalty and support over the years.
> 
> HOSTESS BRANDS TO WIND DOWN COMPANY AFTER BCTGM UNION STRIKE CRIPPLES OPERATIONS
> ...



So all taxpayers get to fund employer mismanagement and union greed.  Yay.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 16, 2012)

Steve said:


> Imagine a Tiramisu with twinkies instead of *lady fingers*. Twinkimisu!
> 
> 1 package vanilla instant pudding
> 1 3/4 cups Milk
> ...



You use okra in Tiramisu?


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You use okra in Tiramisu?



?????? Huh?????

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2012)

But we need unions to protect our jobs. /sarcasm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2012)

How bad is it when the TEAMSTERS! say you screwed up?


> "The  Teamsters union, which represents 7,500 Hostess workers, has been  sharply critical of the smaller Bakers' decision to strike, saying it  was forcing the company to the cusp of liquidation. The Teamsters said  Thursday that the Bakers' union should hold a secret ballot on the  company's offer, rather than the voice votes that were held in union  halls around the country that authorized the decision to strike.
> 
> "It  is difficult for Teamster members to believe that is what the [Bakers'  union] Hostess members ultimately wanted to accomplish when they went  out on strike," said the Teamsters' statement. "
> http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



So, according to the above link, this is what was offered. It seems fair to me, especially when the option is '0'. 
==


> The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first  year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up  3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
> 
> Hostess  also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the  employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered  concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion  of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors


----------



## Steve (Nov 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You use okra in Tiramisu?





shesulsa said:


> ?????? Huh?????
> 
> Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


Yeah.  What shesulsa said!  Huh?? 

http://www.joyofbaking.com/Ladyfingers.html  Lady fingers:  



I LOVE okra... in gumbo and also fried.  But not in my tiramisu.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 16, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> Other than potential jobs lost, the world would be a better place without the Twinkie.


Exactly... what did we lose? Diabetes?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 16, 2012)

$450 million in debt killed the Twinkie.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> $450 million in debt killed the Twinkie.



Aaaand who is responsible for that debt?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Nov 16, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Aaaand who is responsible for that debt?
> 
> Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2



*Not* the union......

Perhaps the fault lies with those of us who cut back on Twinkies, Zingers,Ho_Hos, and fruit pies....:lfao:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> *Not* the union......
> 
> Perhaps the fault lies with those of us who cut back on Twinkies, Zingers,Ho_Hos, and fruit pies....:lfao:



And maybe this helped



> In March 2012, Brian Driscoll resigned from his position as CEO. Gregory Rayburn, who had been hired and named Chief Restructuring Officer only nine days earlier, assumed the leadership position. Fortune reported that unions within the organization had been unhappy with Driscoll's proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million "long term compensation" package. Additionally, *the court had discovered that Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year prior*



But then they went and solved the problem 



> In an effort to restore relations, Rayburn cut the salaries of the four  top Hostess executives to $1, *to be restored on January 1 the following  year*.


----------



## billc (Nov 16, 2012)

​

​[h=3]*Zombieland - The Last box of Twinkies*[/h]*by laughingstockdvd &#8226; 2 years ago &#8226; 22,086 vie*


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2012)

Questionable move by the union indeed in this case.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Nov 16, 2012)

Pabst Blue Ribbon is looking at buying them.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 16, 2012)

They'll end up selling the brands, but the jobs will move, most likely, to where the buyers are. So while it may create some jobs at point B, the people at point A have still managed to make themselves unemployed.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2012)

Yeah--they'll sell off the names but those names could be slapped on anything.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 16, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Yeah--they'll sell off the names but those names could be slapped on anything.



Possible, but unlikely. When you buy a Twinky, you want a *Twinky*, by damn! 

Buying the brand will include buying the recipe, and slapping the name on something else would be a debacle along the lines of "New Coke"...


----------



## bluewaveschool (Nov 16, 2012)

New Coke was a no lose situation.  People flocked to the new product, which sucked only slightly less than Crystal Pepsi.  When it didn't pan out, they switched back to 'classic' coke and sales took off.  Either New Coke was going to be a winner, if not they had plan B ready to go.


----------



## cdunn (Nov 17, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> They'll end up selling the brands, but the jobs will move, most likely, to where the buyers are. So while it may create some jobs at point B, the people at point A have still managed to make themselves unemployed.



There's still a good chance that whoever buys the bakeries/factories will also want to put them back into business, if not to produce twinkies and wonder bread, then to make something else - And the expertise that makes it run is still valuable, whoever owns it. If the landscape looks good, it may well have been worth it to get some truly execrable owners out of the business.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 17, 2012)

People are asking outrageous prices for Twinkies on Ebay...
If you buy a box for $5, and sell it for $100, that is a pretty damn good return on investment...
I wonder if the local Wal Mart still has any...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 17, 2012)

Big Don said:


> People are asking outrageous prices for Twinkies on Ebay...
> If you buy a box for $5, and sell it for $100, that is a pretty damn good return on investment...
> I wonder if the local Wal Mart still has any...


Oy... can't people wait six months? While you wait for that, eat spoonfulls of sugar!


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 17, 2012)

And for the white collars it will be just another day of business.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Nov 17, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Oy... can't people wait six months? While you wait for that, eat spoonfulls of sugar!



a cup of cake frosting....


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 17, 2012)

granfire said:


> a cup of cake frosting....


Now that could kick ***!


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> And for the white collars it will be just another day of business.



It's good to be the king.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 17, 2012)

arnisador said:


> It's good to be the king.



For the king.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2012)

No more Twinkies! Stoners across the country turn Republican.


----------



## billc (Nov 17, 2012)

Hmmm...not greedy Republicans after all...but greedy democrats...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...nore-heavy-democrat-involvement-hostess-manag



> And here comes the Hostess twist: because *Tim Collins of Ripplewood, was a prominent Democrat, a position which allowed him to get involved in the first bankruptcy process in the first place, due to his proximity with the Teamsters' long-term heartthrob Dick Gephardt (whose consulting group just happens to also be an equity owner of Hostess).*
> In other words, the traditional republican-_cum_-PE scapegoating strategy here will be a tough one to pull off since the narrative collapses when considering that it was a Democrat who rescued the firm, only to see it implode in a trainwreck that has resulted in the liquidation of a legendary brand, and 18,500 layoffs.
> But it only gets better. Because the full cast of characters involved here is quite stunning, as David Kaplan summarized so well recently:
> _*Ripplewood is run by Tim Collins, 55, who's been at the center of other famed PE transactions. Known as a brilliant capitalist-philanthropist-networker, he's an eclectic character: a Democrat in an industry of Republicans ...*_
> _*... Ripplewood's foray into Hostess was partly enabled by Collins's connections in the Democratic Party. He wanted to explore deals with union-involved companies and sought the help of former congressman (Dick) Gephardt*, who in 2005 founded the Gephardt Group, an Atlanta consulting firm that provides "labor advisory services." In his 2004 presidential bid, Gephardt -- whose father was a Teamsters milk truck driver -- was endorsed by 21 of the largest U.S. labor unions; in 2003, Collins was one of 19 "founding members" of Gephardt's New York State leadership committee._​The rest of the story at CNNMoney is one of owners trying to do what they can to save a business, sometimes less than perfectly. Management got union concessions to emerge from bankruptcy the first time, but for a variety of reasons, it wasn't enough, and another round of negotiations was attempted last year. When it became clear that the impasse had no chance of being resolved except under duress, the company filed for bankruptcy again. Now it's not coming back.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...ocrat-involvement-hostess-manag#ixzz2CWAK553T


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2012)

Found on Facebook.




> Take  a look at the top salaries of the Baker's union. These folks won't be  out of a job or have a lower salary.....But But But Those Greedy Owners
> 
> Overall Political Contributions to:
> Democrats: $1,474,204.00 (99.73 %)
> ...



It's good to be high up in the Union.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2012)

Those salaries look a bit high for an organisation with only eighty thousand contributors (unless I failed in my read-a-website-at three-in-the-morning-fu ).  Where do the funds come from?


----------



## Scott T (Nov 17, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Found on Facebook.
> View attachment 17415
> 
> 
> It's good to be high up in the Union.



Yes it is, especially if you can deliver good paying jobs to the membership. With my annual gross pay because of the union, I have absolutely no problem with the President of my Local making in excess of 200-250+ per year.

Performance-based pay is different than getting high amounts for killing a company.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2012)

Good question.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 17, 2012)

I just thought of something extremely important...

Now that the Twinkie is roasting in Hell, does that mean I have to give up my favourite nickname for the dear departed Twinfist?


----------



## Carol (Nov 17, 2012)

Scott T said:


> I just thought of something extremely important...
> 
> Now that the Twinkie is roasting in Hell, does that mean I have to give up my favourite nickname for the dear departed Twinfist?



Only if/when people forget the reference


----------



## billc (Nov 18, 2012)

Thoughts on the blame game...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/who-killed-the-twinkie.html?currentPage=all


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 18, 2012)

And I am still waiting for someone to explain to me where the money comes from ... :tap tap tap ... hello ... surely someone must know:.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 19, 2012)

If you are a union boss, and your strategy results in 18,000 unemployed, no longer dues paying members, do you get to keep YOUR job?

Or take a pay cut?


Dave Hopper


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2012)

Carol said:


> Only if/when people forget the reference



Or change the name to Cloud Cake


----------



## cdunn (Nov 19, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> And I am still waiting for someone to explain to me where the money comes from ... :tap tap tap ... hello ... surely someone must know:.



$0.94 per biweekly paycheck from the union members.


Also; the Hostess "Deal" as explained by one of the bakers who voted the deal down:



> In 2005 before concessions I made $48,000, last year I made $34,000. My pay changed dramatically but at least I was still contributing to my self-funded pension.
> 
> In July of 2011 we received a letter from the company. It said that the $3+ per hour that we as a Union contribute to the pension was going to be 'borrowed' by the company until they could be profitable again. Then they would pay it all back. The Union was notified of this the same time and method as the individual members. No contact from the company to the Union on a national level.
> 
> ...



Frankly, if my boss came to me and told me I was going to take a 50% pay cut over seven years, I'd quit too.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Frankly, if my boss came to me and told me I was going to take a 50% pay cut over seven years, I'd quit too.



Now add to that your boss had recently given himself an 80% raise..... and now have the same thing that happened at Hostess.


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2012)

Hush, you guys.  It's the union's fault!  Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2012)

Steve said:


> Hush, you guys.  It's the union's fault!  Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant!



:duh: Sorry....GREAT HORNYTOADS!!! Ooh rackin' frackin' Unions


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 19, 2012)

Oh, but it's a business.  The whole purpose behind business is to turn a profit. 

Right?

Let's all just conveniently forget about the fact that businesses provide a little thing called infrastructure.  If a company is weak - AND THE ONLY REASON IT'S WEAK IS THAT THE CEOS AND EXECUTIVES ARE FILTHY EFFING RICH - this gives a great reason to war with unions because, Gawd forbid, we create and foster an economic system where we pay people enough to buy the products we make.

Did we forget about that?  That if we don't have enough money to buy the products we make ... we have to buy products OTHER countries make.  And when we can't sell US made products to other countries ... where does that put us domestically AND globally?

This is not republican nor democrat - this is abject greed and unchecked executive practices.  So what do you do about this kind of thing?

So the choices, as things stand now,seem to be either to cow-tow and swallow crap-*** wages and keep getting butt-raped by the wealthy for the sake of less money, less or no insurance, less security OR shut down companies like this and lose what money you can get.  This doesn't affect those who own and those who sell because they will sell ... or buy ... and start up again and then the next step begins.

Question is what will the next step be?  

There are - apparently - countless people who WILL gladly take crap pay for crap jobs with no benefits.  But for how long?  And where exactly will THAT go?  Will that last long without unions?  Perhaps if those who will take crap pay for crap jobs are - by some people's accounts not native to the US would have protection of law and hide union in "minority" and "prejudice."

I think we're looking at a revolution. If we're not, then we're most assuredly in very, very serious trouble.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

I believe it was both:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-workers-and-management-both-caused-the-fall-of-hostess-2012-11

However, what difference does it make?  The jobs are gone now.  The union did not 'win' if the employees are now unemployed.  Blame it on management?  OK.  Blame it on the CEO?  Fine.  Now tell me how that pays for the employees' mortgages and car payments and how it buys groceries.

Everybody was to blame, everybody lost.  All that matters to the employees is that they have no jobs.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe it was both:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/how-workers-and-management-both-caused-the-fall-of-hostess-2012-11
> 
> ...



And what kind of jobs will they have in the future?


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 19, 2012)

cdunn said:


> $0.94 per biweekly paycheck from the union members.



I think perhaps you mistook the direction of my question, *CD* .  I obviously know how unions are funded - what I was saying is that with a membership of only 80k (and so an income for the union of about $1.9M), those Union leader salaries were awfully large ...

... so either the figures are wrong, they have been dipping into resources from times past or there is money coming in from elsewhere.  I was curious to know which of those was the one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> And what kind of jobs will they have in the future?



I don't know.  But I know what kind of jobs they got when the company folded, which is none.


----------



## cdunn (Nov 19, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I think perhaps you mistook the direction of my question, *CD* . I obviously know how unions are funded - what I was saying is that with a membership of only 80k (and so an income for the union of about $1.9M), those Union leader salaries were awfully large ...
> 
> ... so either the figures are wrong, they have been dipping into resources from times past or there is money coming in from elsewhere. I was curious to know which of those was the one.



Union dues for the BCTWGM local #85, in California, are ~$17.50 per month. Assuming that's representative of the rest of the locals, those salaries are about 10% of the annual union dues. There's no real need to draw on other resources.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 19, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I think perhaps you mistook the direction of my question, *CD* .  I obviously know how unions are funded - what I was saying is that with a membership of only 80k (and so an income for the union of about $1.9M), those Union leader salaries were awfully large ...
> 
> ... so either the figures are wrong, they have been dipping into resources from times past or there is money coming in from elsewhere.  I was curious to know which of those was the one.



Think the union's dirty, Suk? As in getting padded by a source other than the mob? Something's fishy in Denmark, I agree.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 19, 2012)

Maybe we'll start getting those Mexican made Twinkies.  I'm not a big devote of the originals  but one off the things I love about Mexico is that it reminds me very much of Jamaica in how they manufacture and use natural ingredients.  A Mexican twinkie made with real cake and icing made from sugar not HFCS is so much better.  Just like Mexican sodas that use real cane sugar, not since Jamaica have I had such great food, soda, burgers (even Mexican/Jamaican Burger King is miles better than then original).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2012)

Closest thing I ahve seen to a Chinese Twinkie






And I don't like Twinkies but I like this...actually I have seen soimethign closer, but it was in China and still a WHOLE lot better than a Twinkie

And for those that really miss a Twinkie you still have the Cloud Cake


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know.  But I know what kind of jobs they got when the company folded, which is none.



So ... shutting companies with corrupt big shots is not the answer? What is, then? Bending over even further? Pretty soon there'll be no more KY.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 19, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Union dues for the BCTWGM local #85, in California, are ~$17.50 per month. Assuming that's representative of the rest of the locals, those salaries are about 10% of the annual union dues. There's no real need to draw on other resources.



I see :nods:.

I was going on what you said earlier, Chris:

$0.94 per biweekly paycheck from the union members.

I did take that to be very low (UNISON rates are about £130 per annum) but I shrugged and reckoned you guys would know so I didn't check it further and just multiplied up - real life is giving me a kicking at present so I'm not as sharp as usual {however sharp that is :lol:}.


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Oh, but it's a business.  The whole purpose behind business is to turn a profit.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...


Those are job creators you're talking about!


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2012)

Ultimately, in this situation, Bill's right about the bottom line.  We have a lot of people who are probably NOT political who are out of jobs.  While they will all most likely qualify for unemployment, it's another bunch of people on the tax payer dime, which we can ill afford right now. 

I think that the chances are very good that the company assets will be purchased, including rights to the brand name, and that some (likely not all) of the factory/bakeries will be reopened.  

But, the larger issue about greed, outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs, a complete and utter reversal of the 'Buy American' mantras of the 80s and some absolutely shady business practices in which profits die out, companies file for bankruptcy, but miraculously continue to make a select few people even richer every single time.  That has to stop.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> So ... shutting companies with corrupt big shots is not the answer? What is, then? Bending over even further? Pretty soon there'll be no more KY.



You want a pay check or not?  If not, then not.  What they got is 'not'.  You can try telling your bank or landlord "I didn't bend over for the big shots" and see if they let you not pay your rent / mortgage.  Give it a try, maybe it will work...not.

In 2009, I took not one, not two, but three involuntary consecutive pay cuts.  You know what sucked about it?  EVERYTHING!  My life got a LOT more difficult, and I'm facing some serious legal repercussions today as a result of it.

However...

A) I could have quit, if I could have found another job.  No one forced me to remain with the company I was working for.
B) I could have joined the huge number of people who were let go through massive downsizing at the same time.

Principle, schminciple; I wanted a pay check.

Oooh, the 'big wigs' won.  No, I won because I didn't end up homeless and I kept our family fed and housed.

I have a much different outlook on ethics and principles when the choices are that clear.  Stay on strike and get no job, capitulate and keep your job, suffer some, and look for another job.

But hey, if you think you can eat moral victories, go for it.  Personally, I can't.  Simple as that.


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You want a pay check or not?  If not, then not.  What they got is 'not'.  You can try telling your bank or landlord "I didn't bend over for the big shots" and see if they let you not pay your rent / mortgage.  Give it a try, maybe it will work...not.
> 
> In 2009, I took not one, not two, but three involuntary consecutive pay cuts.  You know what sucked about it?  EVERYTHING!  My life got a LOT more difficult, and I'm facing some serious legal repercussions today as a result of it.
> 
> ...


I agree with you that there are two battles going on, one of principle and the other that is practical.  But the presumption you're making is that the big wigs had any intention of NOT liquidating and selling off the Hostess/Wonder Bread brands. 

So, the question isn't whether or not you can eat your moral victories.  It's whether or not compromising your ethics was worth one or two additional paychecks.  How much is integrity worth?  The answer is going to be different for EVERYONE and will even change from month to month.  I know that I'd put up with a huge amount of **** for my family.  Feeding them is priority number one, and trumps any kind of ethical battle I might have.  But, not everyone is me, and not everyone is in the same situation.  Also, if I could see the handwriting on the wall and had lost faith that my company was going to stay open even with an additional cut in pay and benefits, I might choose differently.  

Even on a practical level, unemployment becomes a strategic choice.  It's not NOTHING.  If going on unemployment and finding a different, potentially better job was an option, that MIGHT be the smart choice for me.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You want a pay check or not?  If not, then not.  What they got is 'not'.  You can try telling your bank or landlord "I didn't bend over for the big shots" and see if they let you not pay your rent / mortgage.  Give it a try, maybe it will work...not.
> 
> In 2009, I took not one, not two, but three involuntary consecutive pay cuts.  You know what sucked about it?  EVERYTHING!  My life got a LOT more difficult, and I'm facing some serious legal repercussions today as a result of it.
> 
> ...



And you think they will stop before you are out of house and home?

If that's what you think ... I believe you think wrong.  I think ... your job WILL go away. OR minimum wage will go away which means you REALLY won't be able to afford crap.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> And you think they will stop before you are out of house and home?
> 
> If that's what you think ... I believe you think wrong.  I think ... your job WILL go away. OR minimum wage will go away which means you REALLY won't be able to afford crap.



In the meantime, I can look for another job.  These are choices.  I make the choice that continues to bring in a pay check.  To me, this is a no-brainer; ethics don't mean jack if you can't eat them.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 19, 2012)

Steve said:


> I agree with you that there are two battles going on, one of principle and the other that is practical.  But the presumption you're making is that the big wigs had any intention of NOT liquidating and selling off the Hostess/Wonder Bread brands.



Yup. Their plan all along, make no mistake.



> So, the question isn't whether or not you can eat your moral victories.  It's whether or not compromising your ethics was worth one or two additional paychecks.  How much is integrity worth?  The answer is going to be different for EVERYONE and will even change from month to month.  I know that I'd put up with a huge amount of **** for my family.  Feeding them is priority number one, and trumps any kind of ethical battle I might have.  But, not everyone is me, and not everyone is in the same situation.  Also, if I could see the handwriting on the wall and had lost faith that my company was going to stay open even with an additional cut in pay and benefits, I might choose differently.



We are facing this every day too. Husband is a union worker. Ross Island Sand & Gravel is not paying their insurance premiums for the union workers ... but Robert Pamplin is a celebrated business owner whose success and riches grow and grow and grow. He's richer. But me and my family can't get the surgeries we need. I bet if we were on state we could.



> Even on a practical level, unemployment becomes a strategic choice.  It's not NOTHING.  If going on unemployment and finding a different, potentially better job was an option, that MIGHT be the smart choice for me.



It may come down to that here as well.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the meantime, I can look for another job.  These are choices.  I make the choice that continues to bring in a pay check.  To me, this is a no-brainer; ethics don't mean jack if you can't eat them.



I know what I can eat and what I can't, thank you.  If you have no interest in discussing necessary change and the truth behind the implosion of companies like Hostess, then ... go have a snack, I guess. You can eat that, right?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

Steve said:


> Even on a practical level, unemployment becomes a strategic choice.  It's not NOTHING.  If going on unemployment and finding a different, potentially better job was an option, that MIGHT be the smart choice for me.



Unemployment in my state pays a maximum of $362 per week. If there is a choice to make that involves me continuing to get a paycheck, that's the one I take.  I can more easily look for work while I have a roof over my head than otherwise.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> I know what I can eat and what I can't, thank you.  If you have no interest in discussing necessary change and the truth behind the implosion of companies like Hostess, then ... go have a snack, I guess. You can eat that, right?



I can't fight for social good while I cannot feed my family.  Look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  Eating comes first, then social justice later.  Everybody wants people to take a principled stand as long as it's not their own butts on the line.  My principled stand is for a paycheck, period, end of story.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 19, 2012)

How much did consumers making healthy food choices decide this outcome? Maybe it's not necessarily the union's fault. It could just be market conditions overwhelming the whole business.


----------



## granfire (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can't fight for social good while I cannot feed my family.  Look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  Eating comes first, then social justice later.  Everybody wants people to take a principled stand as long as it's not their own butts on the line.  My principled stand is for a paycheck, period, end of story.



But it's conceivable that due to no fault of your own you can find yourself backed into a corner of your debris hut.

That happened in essence with K Mart and Enron...CEOs playing fast and loose with company money, granting each other huge loans out of the business coffers only to generously forgive each other those dept....all on the back of the little guy.
Granted, there was not much the union could have done - I don't think....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

granfire said:


> But it's conceivable that due to no fault of your own you can find yourself backed into a corner of your debris hut.
> 
> That happened in essence with K Mart and Enron...CEOs playing fast and loose with company money, granting each other huge loans out of the business coffers only to generously forgive each other those dept....all on the back of the little guy.
> Granted, there was not much the union could have done - I don't think....



Again, blaming others is nice, and it might even be true.  It doesn't buy groceries either way.  You seem to think that standing firm and being unemployed is better than knuckling under and keeping your job.  Maybe in your world, not in mine.  Try "yeah, but the CEO is to blame" when you can't buy your groceries.  Perhaps the cashier will nod and give them to you for free.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 19, 2012)

It's all about making the best decisions for the stockholders. That's a legal requirement--taking care of the workers is 'merely' a moral requirement. That's capitalism, folks.


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Unemployment in my state pays a maximum of $362 per week. If there is a choice to make that involves me continuing to get a paycheck, that's the one I take.  I can more easily look for work while I have a roof over my head than otherwise.


I don't think you're taking the time to read and understand the bulk of my post, Bill.  

If your company said, "Hey, I need you to take a modest cut in pay this year, and that will get us back on our feet.  We'll make it up to you next year."  Then, a few months later said, "Hey, about that cut.  I also need to 'borrow' your pension funds.  I know that you contributed to those pensions out of your pay, so we'll DEFINITELY pay that back soon."  Then, "Yeah.  About that pay cut... you need to take another one."  And so on, and so on.  

How many times does this have to happen before you begin to doubt their integrity?  At what point, after steadily and consistently shaving away your pay and benefits do you believe that their intent is not to "save the company?"  At some point, it becomes clear that your paychecks WILL stop.  It's not a matter of 'if.'  At some point, it becomes clear that the plan all along was to file for bankruptcy and make a fortune, essentially cashing out.

So, then even when making decisions based upon Maslow's heirarchy of needs, you would be foolish NOT to make plans that include finding another place to work.  And in that situation, I would try to make strategic choices BEFORE those choices are made for me.  Staying with the company is one choice.  Leaving is another.

Edit:  Just want to be clear. I understand and appreciate BOTH of your points of view.  I don't disagree with you, Bill, but I also understand and agree with Shesulsa.  You are arguing as though your positions are mutually exclusive, but they aren't, IMO.  We are always balancing ethics against survival and of course survival comes first, but at the same time, looking back over the history of our country, our greatest leaps forward were always made by people willing to take a principled stand at the risk of great personal loss.  We may never be in a position to make that stand, or perhaps we have that opportunity and choose not to.


----------



## granfire (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, blaming others is nice, and it might even be true.  It doesn't buy groceries either way.  You seem to think that standing firm and being unemployed is better than knuckling under and keeping your job.  Maybe in your world, not in mine.  Try "yeah, but the CEO is to blame" when you can't buy your groceries.  Perhaps the cashier will nod and give them to you for free.



I thought you pounded us with reasonable argument! 
Show me where running a company into ruin is acceptable? Or something the little guy has to take?
Depleting the assets of the business is a grievous act IMHO on the side of the management.

Not to mention that you did not actually read/comprehend my post.
At one point there is nothing left to lose, you might as well fight. If you get a crumb of bread or nothing, at the end of the day you are about as well off in either case.



arnisador said:


> It's all about making the best decisions for the stockholders. That's a legal requirement--taking care of the workers is 'merely' a moral requirement. That's capitalism, folks.



Stockholder?
You are not in the same movie, mister!
This type of 'business' does not benefit stockholders either. They go bust along with the employees!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

Steve said:


> So, then even when making decisions based upon Maslow's heirarchy of needs, you would be foolish NOT to make plans that include finding another place to work.  And in that situation, I would try to make strategic choices BEFORE those choices are made for me.  Staying with the company is one choice.  Leaving is another.



Yes, I have read what you wrote, and I agree with the above statement. I don't think I have disagreed with it.  However, quitting in protest?  Not happening.  Going out on strike and remaining there after being told the options were to capitulate or the company would be liquidated immediately?  I'd capitulate.  AND look for other work.

What I see here is others - not yourself - urging or applauding people to stay out on strike to 'teach them a lesson', when the only person it teaches a lesson is the employee who now has no pay check.

In terms of what I find acceptable:

1) Good job, good paycheck!
2) Bad job, good paycheck!
3) Good job, bad paycheck.
4) Bad job, bad paycheck.
5) No paycheck, but moral victory.

I would attempt to 'fix' 2 through 4 by looking for other work or other solutions.  I would NEVER consider 5 a valid option.  Not now, not ever.  Moral victories mean precisely squat to me.  I think you agree with me, so I don't think we're disagreeing here.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

granfire said:


> I thought you pounded us with reasonable argument!
> Show me where running a company into ruin is acceptable? Or something the little guy has to take?
> Depleting the assets of the business is a grievous act IMHO on the side of the management.



Yes, it is a terrible thing to do.  Show me how the employee benefits from losing their job, no matter whose fault it is.



> Not to mention that you did not actually read/comprehend my post.
> At one point there is nothing left to lose, you might as well fight. If you get a crumb of bread or nothing, at the end of the day you are about as well off in either case.



But there *was* something to lose. * A paycheck*.  Which they lost.  They were offered:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html



> The new contract *cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement*. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
> Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.



I took a 5% cut, a 10% cut and then another 5% cut all the same year.  My sympathy is with them, but they cut their own throats when they voted not to come back to work.  I could have quit to protest my pay cuts and then I would have had NOTHING, which is what they now have.  I don't see that as being very smart.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 19, 2012)

So, 
year 1 : -8%
Year 2 : +3%
3: +3%
4: +3%
5: +1%
====
Net gain +2%


Well, what they got is this:



> The "take it in the ***" aspect for the workers is pretty hard.
> http://hostessbrands.info/employee-faq/
> 
> Turns out, strikers may be ineligible for unemployment.  Unused vacation time, gone. Unpaid expenses, gone.
> ...



and


> I have submitted expense claims that have not been paid. How do I get reimbursed?
> We  have requested that the Bankruptcy Court allow the use of our lenders&#8217;  cash collateral to pay valid expense claims, but there can be no  assurance that the request will be granted.
> 
> Will I be paid for unused vacation time?
> ...



Oh, and for their suppliers, who are also going to get hosed, who will have to deal with this, and who may end up cutting jobs to keep afloat:


> Will I be paid for supplies I have already delivered?
> It  is unknown at this time what will happen to unpaid vendor invoices or  whether sufficient funds will ultimately be made available for payment.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 19, 2012)

Steve said:


> I agree with you that there are two battles going on, one of principle and the other that is practical.*  But the presumption you're making is that the big wigs had any intention of NOT liquidating and selling off the Hostess/Wonder Bread brands. *
> 
> So, the question isn't whether or not you can eat your moral victories.  It's whether or not compromising your ethics was worth one or two additional paychecks.  How much is integrity worth?  The answer is going to be different for EVERYONE and will even change from month to month.  I know that I'd put up with a huge amount of **** for my family.  Feeding them is priority number one, and trumps any kind of ethical battle I might have.  But, not everyone is me, and not everyone is in the same situation.  Also, if I could see the handwriting on the wall and had lost faith that my company was going to stay open even with an additional cut in pay and benefits, I might choose differently.
> 
> Even on a practical level, unemployment becomes a strategic choice.  It's not NOTHING.  If going on unemployment and finding a different, potentially better job was an option, that MIGHT be the smart choice for me.



And I think that presumption is a significant issue.  Hostess didn't respond effectively to market shifts.  Apparently, execs still received generous compensation...  I don't know enough of the ins & outs of their business to say all of why they had problem.  I'm still fond of several products -- but can't eat them every day, and shouldn't eat them more than occasionally.

Meanwhile -- the Baker's Union drew a hard line in the sand and essentially dared Hostess to go out of business.  When you do that -- you gotta be ready for the consequences.


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So,
> year 1 : -8%
> Year 2 : +3%
> 3: +3%
> ...


This presumes the company was bargaining in good faith.  They had already cleaned out the pensions and written off those debts under the bankruptcy, as well as cuts in pay with promises to increase pay in years to come, so the employees had heard promises like this before.  My sense is that this was another in a series of cuts with promises to make it all good at some later date.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2012)

It was just a stall tactic so they execs could give themselves another 80% raise, bleed the company dry, and blame the Unions next year :uhyeah:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> It was just a stall tactic so they execs could give themselves another 80% raise, bleed the company dry, and blame the Unions next year :uhyeah:



I was going to say how do they do that when the company no longer exists and no one, including the executives, have a job?

However, new information:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/1...idation-on-hold-orders-talks/?intcmp=trending



> Judge puts Hostess liquidation on hold, orders talks
> The liquidation of Hostess has been put on hold after a federal judge ordered the company and union officials to come back to the table for more talks, Fox Business Network reported.
> 
> The union that brought the 85-year-old baker of Twinkies and Wonder Bread to its knees was holding out hope that a buyer will salvage chunks of the company and send the union's members back to work, even as Hostess Brands Inc. had geared up for a fire sale.
> ...



I don't know what is going to happen next, but I do not understand logic that insists that people are somehow going to keep getting big executive bonuses AFTER the company is out of business.  Gone is gone.  No jobs is no jobs.  For anyone.  Where would they get money to give executives money if they don't make or sell any product?


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was going to say how do they do that when the company no longer exists and no one, including the executives, have a job?
> 
> However, new information:
> 
> ...


The execs will use their money and their resumes to gain positions of leadership in another company and repeat the cycle.  It's a completely different paradigm. 

We presume, as most rational people would, that the goal is to create a healthy, prosperous company.  That is not the goal of the corporate prospectors.  Like a traditional prospector, they are mining the company for what value it can offer, and when the lode is mined out, the company is abandoned.   That's the business model.  It's more akin to termites eating the foundation out of one house after the next until the entire neighborhood is gone.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 19, 2012)

How do you build a reputation for success as a high-level executive?  It is so easy and so dumb it beggars belief ...

... you take the position at a struggling company with the remit to return that company to profitability.  So you wield the corporate axe, sack a lot of talented and loyal people to reduce costs and, et voila, a balance sheet in the black for a year or so.  You take your bonus and leave and the next year the company folds as they no longer have the staff with the talent and knowledge to produce whatever it is they are supposed to be doing.

Repeat that enough times, especially with multi-national corporation zombies to gobble up the remains to falsify their accounts 'health' and pretty soon you have an eviscerated economy with a huge under-class and a tiny over-class who hold nearly all of the money ... oh wait ... why does that sound familiar?

It should be illegal and executives should be held accountable but they do not play by the same rules as a working man.  If there is not another manufactured large scale war soon to distract everyone then civil dissolution is on the horizon.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 19, 2012)

No unemployment for strikers? I'm OK with this--they made the choice--but that _is _harsh news for them.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 19, 2012)

Strikers do not get unemployment from the state.  You can only get that if you have been fired or laid off, you don't get it for not showing up for work.  The unemployment strikers get are paid by the union itself.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 19, 2012)

[h=1]Hostess, Bakers Union Agree to Mediation [/h]





> Seeking to save more than 18,000 jobs, a bankruptcy judge surprised  Hostess Brands Inc. and its warring union Monday by delaying the  company's bid to close its 85-year-old bakery business and sell off its  factories, brands and other assets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 19, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Strikers do not get unemployment from the state.  You can only get that if you have been fired or laid off, you don't get it for not showing up for work.  The unemployment strikers get are paid by the union itself.



Strikers get pay? My old man's never been on a strike, but I've never heard of this.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Nov 19, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Strikers get pay? My old man's never been on a strike, but I've never heard of this.



My father used to get part of his salary from the Teamsters' strike fund while on strike.

Not being eligible for (govt.) unemployment pay has to weigh on their minds when they are in a case like this, though!


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 19, 2012)

Shesulsa, it depends upon the union contract with thier members.  A lot of unions do partly subsidize thier members' pay during a strike.  However, the state pays no money to anyone just not showing up for work, as is the state's view of those striking.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 20, 2012)

Some American unions don't pay their members strike pay?!  

That is one of the reasons for having a union in the first place - so that you have the option of withdrawing your labour to pressure management into reconsidering some action or decision taken that adversely affects the workers (whilst usually benefiting themselves).  Over here it is not a legal requirement that unions pay their members when on strike but the government operates on the assumption that they do (and so they do not get any state benefits whilst on strike).

Unions funds are usually quite limited of course, which is why in the protracted miners strikes of the 80's, people like myself would contribute to various funds to help the miners families out.  I am guessing that doesn't happen in America from comments I read here on these pages?


----------



## cdunn (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know what is going to happen next, but I do not understand logic that insists that people are somehow going to keep getting big executive bonuses AFTER the company is out of business.  Gone is gone.  No jobs is no jobs.  For anyone.  Where would they get money to give executives money if they don't make or sell any product?



Dunno, but it's the pattern. They filed with the bankruptcy judge to pay themselves an additional 1.75 million for the work of shutting the company down, instead of doing it at the rates they agreed to get paid. There is income from the sale of the company, and there probably is a reserve from when the vultures took out the mortgage on the company and failed to invest in it.


----------



## crushing (Nov 20, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> Pabst Blue Ribbon is looking at buying them.



If the PBR deals goes through, they should add bacon and cheese to their portfolio and then they would have the four basic food groups covered!


----------



## crushing (Nov 20, 2012)

"But in truth there are no black hats or white knights in this tale. Its about shades of gray, where obstinacy, miscalculation, and lousy luck connived to create corporate catastrophe."

http://dailynewsfinder.com/2012/11/...ly-didnt-know-about-the-hostess-brands-story/


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Dunno, but it's the pattern. They filed with the bankruptcy judge to pay themselves an additional 1.75 million for the work of shutting the company down, instead of doing it at the rates they agreed to get paid. There is income from the sale of the company, and there probably is a reserve from when the vultures took out the mortgage on the company and failed to invest in it.



And then it is over.  I fail to understand why you think the executives will continue to draw salaries after the company is shut down.  I get that you're hostile to business and hate executives.  That's very clear.  I'm sure you think companies run themselves somehow and executives are unnecessary.  How you think they'll magic themselves paychecks after the company no longer exists is beyond me.  Hatred like that, I guess, defies logic.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 20, 2012)

Executives *are*, in large part, unnecessary. Bill.  

Might be different in the States but over here, other than for small companies, it's just Jobs for the Boys - positions assigned according to your birth rather than your worth.  

The workers produce the wealth, the middle-management do the organisational work and the CEO's skim the cream onto their plate.  They're supposed to steer the company and design strategies to improve performance but, time and again, it has been proven that it does not matter who is in the top seats, company performance is the same.  When salaries were limited by convention to a certain multiple of the workers wages it wasn't so bad - now the Fat Cats take millions for doing sweet FA other than firing people now and again as a short term mask for the bad performance of the balance sheet.

Until that changes, Executives earn no respect from me for they are just well dressed thieves.


----------



## granfire (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And then it is over.  I fail to understand why you think the executives will continue to draw salaries after the company is shut down.  I get that you're hostile to business and hate executives.  That's very clear.  I'm sure you think companies run themselves somehow and executives are unnecessary.  How you think they'll magic themselves paychecks after the company no longer exists is beyond me.  Hatred like that, I guess, defies logic.



After the corps has been picked clean, they will move on, I am sure after receiving their severance pay out of the bankruptcy assets...

hating management, executives and business?
You hvae to admit that the bad apples are making way too many headlines, and it has not gotten any better! 
There is absolutely no accountability in the ranks of top management, they keep their million dollar mansions, boats and luxury cars after the company went belly up, after they pillaged resources and the financial assets and - last but not least - the financial security of the workers, like their retirement funds. 
If that does not get your blood boiling, I don't get it.
You are giving these people Card Blanche to rob people who can ill afford to lose a dime! 

At least here in Alabama they sold off the play toys of one executive after he was found guilty of running his company in the ground. A drop in the bucket considering the money he squandered, but why do you think it is OK to steal retirement savings and keep your shirt (or freedom for hat matter).

it really puzzles me.

When the company is struggling, the last thing management should do is to agree on raises for those who already make the lion's share of the money. (80% in that pay range is not exactly pocket change)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> After the corps has been picked clean, they will move on, I am sure after receiving their severance pay out of the bankruptcy assets...
> 
> hating management, executives and business?
> You hvae to admit that the bad apples are making way too many headlines, and it has not gotten any better!
> ...



Your hatred is palpable.  It's really distasteful.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

Where is the "success threshold" where all my hard work, personal investment and sacrifice to start a business turns into my being hated because I make too much? 

When did the American dream of working hard to be a business success...making computers in my garage and then become a billionaire...become a punishable offense? 

How successful do you have to become to reach the point where your employees have the power to destroy everything you worked to build up?


----------



## granfire (Nov 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Where is the "success threshold" where all my hard work, personal investment and sacrifice to start a business turns into my being hated because I make too much?
> 
> When did the American dream of working hard to be a business success...making computers in my garage and then become a billionaire...become a punishable offense?
> 
> How successful do you have to become to reach the point where your employees have the power to destroy everything you worked to build up?



:BSmeter:

the CEOs are not building a business.
Most of them were a mere twinkle in their daddy's eyes when the companies they are supposed to pilot were founded.
There is no hardship in driving Bentleys and flying first class!

The bosses who actually sacrifice don't seem to be anything but respected.

Don't muddle the waters!


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

So Hostess started out as a huge corporate monster? Nobody put the business together? Nobody worked hard and invested in making it a success (when it was a success)?


----------



## granfire (Nov 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> So Hostess started out as a huge corporate monster? Nobody put the business together? Nobody worked hard and invested in making it a success (when it was a success)?



we are not talking about the beginning.
We are talking about this corporate giant it has become.
Stick to the problem, will you!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2012)

As a CEO I must say the hatred of successful businessmen is a bit offensive. 

Let me remind people that the job of labor is to labor. That's work.  Management doesn't owe them anything more than an honest wage for an honest days work. In the case of Hostess, how much is a fair wage for mixing water and flour and applying heat?  

As to the evil managers and their outrageous bonuses, how much was their salary before those bonuses?  Many CEO's and execs earn massive $1 salaries, and get their compensation in the form of annual bonuses if the company does well.

How many of those Union people would work under those terms? Not many I suspect. 

I see "They were gonna cut our benefits". Woe is you. Benefits are an extra. A perk. An incentive. Not a guarantee. 
I see "They wanted me to take a pay cut.". Yes, because when costs go up you cut costs. Labor is a cost. Labor is overhead.  Your -job- as labor is to produce more than it costs to keep you. When you cost more, you get cut.  This is a job, not a charity. 
I see "They cut my retirement". So set up your own 401k and savings account. Anyone can do that. Why is it the companies responsibility to do this? (Hell, why is it the governments too, but that's a different argument).

What I see here is Overhead got upset with being treated as such, and walked off work. Because Overhead wasn't working, it created a situation where the Company was unable to meet their Obligations. This resulted in the Company no longer needing Overhead.

Now if my labeling workers as overhead offends anyone, then you do not understand business.

In my company I work. As such I am overhead. If it costs less for me to do something than hiring someone else, I do it. If I can hire someone else to do it better than me, faster than me, or cheaper than me, then business logic says to go with the lesser overhead. Lower overhead = profit. 

Now according to this Snopes article, the Hostess execs DID raise their salaries significantly. That was incredibly stupid on their part.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/hostess.asp


> Salary Increases at Hostess
> 
> Brian Driscoll, CEO, around $750,000 to $2,550,000
> Gary Wandschneider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000
> ...



While the total amount in question is not a huge change (Aprox $5M annual), taking a pay increase of -ANY- amount while demanding your workers take significant cuts, is not a smart move. There have been many times I haven't gotten paid, but I made damn sure the folks working for me were taken care of.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 20, 2012)

As ever, we seem to end up talking about two different things here - fed up with trying to explain things so I'm not even going to try :bye:.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2012)

Suk,
  If a company's BOD thinks someones worth superstar money, that's their call.
Not ours.

There shouldn't be any cap on earnings. Who has the right to tell you "sorry, thats all". If I can earn a Trillion dollars, you can bet your katana I'm gonna do it. Then I'll change my name to Elmer J Fudd, Trillionaire, and tell people I "Own a mansion and a yacht".


----------



## cdunn (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And then it is over. I fail to understand why you think the executives will continue to draw salaries after the company is shut down. I get that you're hostile to business and hate executives. That's very clear. I'm sure you think companies run themselves somehow and executives are unnecessary. How you think they'll magic themselves paychecks after the company no longer exists is beyond me. Hatred like that, I guess, defies logic.



I do not, in general, hate the concept of executives. However, there is a flip side to a half-million dollar plus salary - Accountability. The executives at Hostess, with the support of their owners, sunk the company hundreds of millions of dollars deeper into debt during bankruptcy, despite $150 million per year of concessions from their workers. They failed, completely, to invest in efficency, to streamline the business, and to compete for the customer's dollar. By all appearances, they did not even attempt these things They repeatedly shorted their suppliers. They stole tens of millions of dollars from their employees, straight up, and then placed them in a position where they would collect more money from unemployment insurance than they would be paid if they accepted the new contract.

A company must satisfy five obligations to stay in business. It must satisfy its customers well enough that competitors do not take them away. Hostess executives failed. It must satisfy its suppliers well enough that they are willing to work with the company to ensure it is capable of delivering to its customers - from raw materials to equipment vendors to the banks that supply the credit you need to operate at all. Hostess executives failed. It must satisfy it's labor well enough that it's supplies are turned into product. Hostess executives failed. It must satisfy the communities in the locales where its production is performed well enough that they don't get rioted out of place. Hostess excutives succeeded here. Then, and only then, can a company deliver on its obligation to provide a profit to its owner. Not unsurprisingly, Hostess executives failed miserably here, because they failed three of the four legs that this delivery is built on. Therefore, I want the executives held accountable.. not paid the millions in bonuses they told their bankruptcy judge they wanted to pay themselves.


----------



## granfire (Nov 20, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As a CEO I must say the hatred of successful businessmen is a bit offensive.
> 
> Let me remind people that the job of labor is to labor. That's work.  Management doesn't owe them anything more than an honest wage for an honest days work. In the case of Hostess, how much is a fair wage for mixing water and flour and applying heat?
> 
> ...



even you take it out of context.
It might be that the workers are only overhead, but like electricity, without them, no twinkies.

It is one thing to ask for concessions from the workers, it is quiet another to do so while loading up your own plate.
As you said, you have to make sure the machinery is in working order, paying the work is part of that. 

Should the execs actually do their work, nobody will begrudge them their income. However, in the last couple of decades there has been a development that is nearer the institution of Raubrittertum than decent work ethics. The Robber Barons take what they can before moving on. And nobody learned from K-Mart or Enron. 

If I screw up in my job, I will be held accountable.
Currently, the CEOs do not have to stand by their work, no matter how criminal or at least morally apprehensive.


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Where is the "success threshold" where all my hard work, personal investment and sacrifice to start a business turns into my being hated because I make too much?
> 
> When did the American dream of working hard to be a business success...making computers in my garage and then become a billionaire...become a punishable offense?
> 
> How successful do you have to become to reach the point where your employees have the power to destroy everything you worked to build up?


I said earlier in the thread that this only works if we presume that the executives are working toward a goal of building a healthy, thriving, profitable business.  They're not.  It's a different paradigm, where a group of people not involved in building a business assume positions of leadership and then strip mine the company for all its worth, after which they file for bankruptcy and let the tax payers deal with the fallout.  In some cases, we bail them out.  In others, someone else buys the company brands and assets and does the hard work to rebuild the business.  And in others, the company folds completely.  

If you build a company and make your fortune, good on you.  But we're not talking about that.  This is a situation where you build the company, make your fortune, and then your company is sold (or taken over) by people who are not at all interested in your company as anything more than a quick buck.  It's the corporate version of flipping a house, and while it takes a little longer to flip the corporation, the potential profit to a few people is worth it.

This is the (not so) new business model.


----------



## cdunn (Nov 20, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As a CEO I must say the hatred of successful businessmen is a bit offensive.
> 
> Let me remind people that the job of labor is to labor. That's work.  Management doesn't owe them anything more than an honest wage for an honest days work. In the case of Hostess, how much is a fair wage for mixing water and flour and applying heat?
> 
> ...



Labor supplies productivity. When your customers do not pay you the agreed upon rates, you do not supply them. When labor is not paid its agreed upon rates, labor does not supply productivity. 

Now, the problem with the pension plans is this: The agreed upon rate of pay was, for example, 13.00/hr, of which the employer would deposit 3.00 in an account for later, leaving the employee 10.00 now, and a 401(k) equivalent account with 3.00 in it for later. Now, in roughly July/August, Hostess started disbursing a 10.00, and the equivalent of a post-dated check for the 3.00, then recently announced that it was stopping payments on the checks. As a businessman, do -you- extend full faith and credit to customers who bounce checks?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was going to say how do they do that when the company no longer exists and no one, including the executives, have a job?



Bill we never seem to be able to communicate well in these things. It was a response to steve's post based on a hypothetical outcome if they had taken the terms offered


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 20, 2012)

From Snopes



> How much of this is true?
> 
> "I wonder when the media will start reporting that while Hostess was trying to cut Bakers pay by 8% & benefits by 32% the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (750,000 to 2,550,000). 9 Executives received 60% to over 100% raises WHILE filing their 2nd bankruptcy. But yeah let's blame the 18,000 workers making less than $20 an hour for Hostess closing."
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Unions funds are usually quite limited of course, which is why in the protracted miners strikes of the 80's, people like myself would contribute to various funds to help the miners families out.  I am guessing that doesn't happen in America from comments I read here on these pages?



When I was a kid growing up in a blue-collar town you'd see donations of groceries by neighbors to strikers in times like those. Cash, not so much. Nut my father was a Teamster and they had a pretty big fund.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And then it is over.  I fail to understand why you think the executives will continue to draw salaries after the company is shut down.  I get that you're hostile to business and hate executives.  That's very clear.  I'm sure you think companies run themselves somehow and executives are unnecessary.  How you think they'll magic themselves paychecks after the company no longer exists is beyond me.  Hatred like that, I guess, defies logic.



It's common for some of them to be paid to manage the bankruptcy. Some of them will get large checks to oversee the dismantling and sale and such.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> hating management, executives and business?
> You hvae to admit that the bad apples are making way too many headlines, and it has not gotten any better!
> There is absolutely no accountability in the ranks of top management, they keep their million dollar mansions, boats and luxury cars after the company went belly up, after they pillaged resources and the financial assets and - last but not least - the financial security of the workers, like their retirement funds.
> If that does not get your blood boiling, I don't get it.



How does the saying go? "Capitalism is the worst form of economic system, except for every other one that has ever been tried."

We have John Galt on one side of this discussion and Eugene V. Debs on the other. If you start a small business and grow it, you deserve what you get--that's the American dream. The problems come in with a large bureaucracy--c.f. the govt.--and going public, so that your fiduciary duty is to the stockholders, who are pensioners and rich traders who just want money out of the system. Management is necessary--if for no other reason than workers will slack off if not watched. (I sure would.) Who here has a truly better idea?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Labor supplies productivity. When your customers do not pay you the agreed upon rates, you do not supply them. When labor is not paid its agreed upon rates, labor does not supply productivity.
> 
> Now, the problem with the pension plans is this: The agreed upon rate of pay was, for example, 13.00/hr, of which the employer would deposit 3.00 in an account for later, leaving the employee 10.00 now, and a 401(k) equivalent account with 3.00 in it for later. Now, in roughly July/August, Hostess started disbursing a 10.00, and the equivalent of a post-dated check for the 3.00, then recently announced that it was stopping payments on the checks. As a businessman, do -you- extend full faith and credit to customers who bounce checks?



Good point.


----------



## granfire (Nov 20, 2012)

arnisador said:


> It's common for some of them to be paid to manage the bankruptcy. Some of them will get large checks to oversee the dismantling and sale and such.



sure.

But I think not usually the bankruptcies they caused...


----------



## granfire (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your hatred is palpable.  It's really distasteful.



yes.
I hate unethical thieves.

How about you?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> sure.
> 
> But I think not usually the bankruptcies they caused...



You might be surprised there...but in a liquidation case like this it could also be a court-appointed individual that oversees it. Still, I'd expect some of them to be kept on. Who better to know what to do with the Peoria factory and what's in it?


----------



## Scott T (Nov 20, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Suk,
> If a company's BOD thinks someones worth superstar money, that's their call.
> Not ours.
> 
> There shouldn't be any cap on earnings. Who has the right to tell you "sorry, thats all". If I can earn a Trillion dollars, you can bet your katana I'm gonna do it. Then I'll change my name to Elmer J Fudd, Trillionaire, and tell people I "Own a mansion and a yacht".


Bob, you say there shouldn't be a cap on earnings, yet you decry the negotiated wages of the unionized bakers, and you call them 'overhead'. Well, now it's overhead that Hostess no longer has to pay.

Management should be thanking them for cutting that 'overhead' from their operating budget.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

[h=1]Jenkins: Twinkies&#8212;A Defense 
[/h][h=2]The real story is union vs. union at the snack maker.[/h]
Here's another take on the blame game: It was union vs. union.



> The real story is the story of two unions, the Teamsters and the Bakery  union of the AFL-CIO. Here's where things get interesting.
> 
> The Teamsters reluctantly agreed to givebacks to finance the company's  latest turnaround attempt. The bakers rejected any concessions and went  out on strike, despite being informed that the result would be the  liquidation of the parent company and the loss of 18,500 jobs.
> 
> Tsk tsk, went even the liberal media, assuming that union  bloody-mindedness must be at work. Think again. As the bakers rightly  saw it, they were being asked once more to prop up Teamster jobs that  would likely guarantee that any Hostess resurrection would be  short-lived.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2012)

Scott T said:


> Bob, you say there shouldn't be a cap on earnings, yet you decry the negotiated wages of the unionized bakers, and you call them 'overhead'. Well, now it's overhead that Hostess no longer has to pay.
> 
> Management should be thanking them for cutting that 'overhead' from their operating budget.



Some of them probably do.  

As to my views on Unions, I'm Klingon. Not Borg.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 20, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Some of them probably do.
> 
> As to my views on Unions, I'm Klingon. Not Borg.


I'm well aware of your take on unions. That's not the issue. I'm talking about your not believing in a cap on earnings. But apparently that only goes for executives.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As to my views on Unions, I'm Klingon. Not Borg.



I thought you were Ferengi through-and-through.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2012)

Scott T said:


> I'm well aware of your take on unions. That's not the issue. I'm talking about your not believing in a cap on earnings. But apparently that only goes for executives.



No, it goes for everyone.  You want more money, demand more.

But do it yourself.  Don't let a collective limit you.

You have an issue with the boss? Deal with it yourself.
Don't let some thugs crack his knees, claim emotion got the better of them, and push for a pay raise. (Teamsters)
Don't use your kids as human shields either (Longshoreman's Union)

So, yeah, I think unions are undesirable.

Unions set the terms of your employment for you.  But what if you think you're worth more?
Sorry, can't do that. Contract.
What if you think you deserve a better set of perks?
Nope, can't do that either. Contract.
What if I want to give you a pay raise?
Nope, can't do that. Contract.

How many hours pay do you pay the Union to limit your earnings?

100 years ago, unions filled a niche, one now replaced by things like minimum wage laws, OSHA, and a dozen other government agencies. They are obsolete, outdated and redundant.

I want more for my work, I raise my prices. I don't 'ask' some overpaid group of middlemen.
When I worked as an employee, I asked for raises. Sometimes I got em, sometimes I didn't.  Worst raises were in union shops. Best in non-union ones.

If you need a union fine. 

I don't.


----------



## cdunn (Nov 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> No, it goes for everyone. You want more money, demand more.
> 
> But do it yourself. Don't let a collective limit you.
> 
> ...



Negotiation requires leverage. Both parties must be able to harm each other by walking away from the table, or else the party that can't be harmed won't talk. In the case that the only leverage that the employee has is mass-walkout, then you need the union. When you are actually difficult to replace, then you can negotiate solo.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

And when you aren't difficult to replace, your services don't demand a premium in compensation.

Regardless of the bungling by the higher ups, I highly doubt that most of the Hostess labor force are in-demand specialists. I've worked for a baker once. Out of 200+ employees maybe 5 were so valued. Rest were standard generic worker drones (_*myself included)*_. Easily replaced with a lot of spares available. 

If your job is so generic that even a mass walk out just means a fresh crew of grunts is needed, even with a union you have little leverage.


----------



## granfire (Nov 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> And when you aren't difficult to replace, your services don't demand a premium in compensation.
> 
> Regardless of the bungling by the higher ups, I highly doubt that most of the Hostess labor force are in-demand specialists. I've worked for a baker once. Out of 200+ employees maybe 5 were so valued. Rest were standard generic worker drones (_*myself included)*_. Easily replaced with a lot of spares available.
> 
> If your job is so generic that even a mass walk out just means a fresh crew of grunts is needed, even with a union you have little leverage.



true.

But that does not mean the drones are fair game to be stolen from. (and effing up the 401K is stealing)


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2012)

granfire said:


> true.
> 
> But that does not mean the drones are fair game to be stolen from. (and effing up the 401K is stealing)



I must have missed that. What was the story with the 401k?


----------



## granfire (Nov 21, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I must have missed that. What was the story with the 401k?



generally speaking, when the execs mess with the retirement funds. I am sure it's not unique nor new. I read it - might have misunderstood tho - that the company held the 401k contribution back to distribute later then bounced the checks...which puzzles me anyhow. 401Ks apparently need to be out of the reach of management....


----------



## cdunn (Nov 21, 2012)

It's not technically a 401(k), it's the company administered, employee-funded pension fund. Hostess unilaterally stopped disbursing payment from payroll into it, used the money to fund... who knows... with the contractual promise to pay at a later date, and defaulted on the loan.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

granfire said:


> true.
> 
> But that does not mean the drones are fair game to be stolen from. (and effing up the 401K is stealing)



Agreed


----------



## granfire (Nov 21, 2012)

cdunn said:


> It's not technically a 401(k), it's the company administered, employee-funded pension fund. Hostess unilaterally stopped disbursing payment from payroll into it, used the money to fund... who knows... with the contractual promise to pay at a later date, and defaulted on the loan.



thanks for the clarification.

(in other words, they stole the money)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

granfire said:


> thanks for the clarification.
> 
> (in other words, they stole the money)



"Borrowed."  If you call what they did stealing then what Congress has done to Social Security's also stealing.....
(yes that is sarcasm in there)


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> And when you aren't difficult to replace, your services don't demand a premium in compensation.



There's a nice treatment of this in _That Used to Be Us_ by Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, saying that in the 21st century even if you're a server (construed broadly) you need to be a creative, not routine, server to stand out and succeed--to do your job better and more imaginatively than the average person, because "average is over" as they say.



> Regardless of the bungling by the higher ups, I highly doubt that most of the Hostess labor force are in-demand specialists.



But on the scale of a big operation like Hostess, I doubt that either the company or the workers find it convenient to conduct one-on-one negotiations. Think of how many more HR people they'd need to speak with everyone one-on-one. It may not be practical to expect the John Galt world to exist here. I think the pendulum has swung too far pro-union but I don't think making them go away is necessarily the best thing. People--workers--shouldn't be denied their right to self-organize, associate with whom they wish, and make the case for better conditions--and frankly, pure capitalism aside, the greater good is served by improving the financial state of the workers by seeing them eke out concessions from the owners. But putting the company out of business? Silly. It does sound like Hostess bears considerable blame for screwing with the retirement fund though.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

arnisador said:


> There's a nice treatment of this in _That Used to Be Us_ by Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, saying that in the 21st century even if you're a server (construed broadly) you need to be a creative, not routine, server to stand out and succeed--to do your job better and more imaginatively than the average person, because "average is over" as they say.
> 
> 
> 
> But on the scale of a big operation like Hostess, I doubt that either the company or the workers find it convenient to conduct one-on-one negotiations. Think of how many more HR people they'd need to speak with everyone one-on-one. It may not be practical to expect the John Galt world to exist here. I think the pendulum has swung too far pro-union but I don't think making them go away is necessarily the best thing. *People--workers--shouldn't be denied their right to self-organize, associate with whom they wish, and make the case for better conditions*--and frankly, pure capitalism aside, the greater good is served by improving the financial state of the workers by seeing them eke out concessions from the owners. But putting the company out of business? Silly. It does sound like Hostess bears considerable blame for screwing with the retirement fund though.



Sit down.

I agree.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2012)

That's it. Shut this place down and let's go home! Bob and I agree!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 21, 2012)

Ever since I first saw the title of this thread, &#8220;Unions kill the Twinkie&#8221; it has made a song (that I never liked) run through my demented little brain, and I don&#8217;t know why. And every time I read the title this DAMN song runs through my head and now since there is a lull in the action I have decided to get even and spread the torture

Enjoy :EG:


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 21, 2012)

arnisador said:


> That's it. Shut this place down and let's go home! Bob and I agree!



8-0

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Nov 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> "Borrowed."  If you call what they did stealing then what Congress has done to Social Security's also stealing.....
> (yes that is sarcasm in there)



pretty much so.
But they have always shat on the veterans...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> 8-0



Hey, it happens.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> "Borrowed."  If you call what they did stealing then what Congress has done to Social Security's also stealing.....
> (yes that is sarcasm in there)



It was borrowing until they requested that the debt (what they owed their employees' pension funds) be written off in the bankruptcy.  Then it was... Not exactly stealing, but certainly unethical.

The fed has never defaulted on social security or requested that the debt be written off.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

Steve, an IOU that is never paid, and is never intended on being paid.....well, call it what you like but Congress has been dipping into SS for years and has no intent to ever return what they 'redistributed'.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Steve, an IOU that is never paid, and is never intended on being paid.....well, call it what you like but Congress has been dipping into SS for years and has no intent to ever return what they 'redistributed'.



Sound familiar?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Sound familiar?



Nope. I know nuthing. Nuthing!


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Steve, an IOU that is never paid, and is never intended on being paid.....well, call it what you like but Congress has been dipping into SS for years and has no intent to ever return what they 'redistributed'.



This just isn't true.  If you say that congress double counts FICA, I would see your point and agree.  But double counting isn't he same as not paying.  The fed hasn't failed to pay anyone who is due a social security check their Full payment, and to my knowledge ha yet to bounce a check.  and as we move from taking more in FICA than is paid out to drawing from the trust funds, the fed is making good on the IOUs.  

The IOUs are in the form of treasury bonds, and as those bonds are spent paying benefits, through the point that the trust funds are depleted, the fed is precisely making good in the IOUs.  That's the very definition of the term.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

We're tangenting a bit, but let me address this.  The US Supreme Court ruled that there was no obligation of the Fed to pay anything to anyone. They did this in a case where someone wanted their benefits and was denied.
Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html


> In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.



As to the FED being able to handle the IOU's....well:


> At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010.
> ...
> By 2033, the fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 75% of program obligations.[3]
> 
> There is controversy regarding whether the U.S. government will be able to borrow sufficient amounts to honor its obligations fully to recipients or whether program modifications are required. This is a challenge for the Federal government overall, not just the Social Security program.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

Sounds familiar. Hey, anyone up for some Greek food?


ok, back to kavetching about twinkies.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2012)

Unlike Hostess, the U.S. Govt. can print money or raise taxes to meet its obligations.

What Hostess did with the pensions sounds very bad--but is all-too-common. Pensions need to be 100% untouchable for the system to work. And now it isn't clear where the pension claimants stand as creditors--that sucks. People want workers to be responsible for their own retirement sans Soc. Sec. Here's a case where they were screwed by the company--yet another reason while federal retirement programs are necessary.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Unlike Hostess, the U.S. Govt. can print money or raise taxes to meet its obligations.
> 
> What Hostess did with the pensions sounds very bad--but is all-too-common. Pensions need to be 100% untouchable for the system to work. And now it isn't clear where the pension claimants stand as creditors--that sucks. People want workers to be responsible for their own retirement sans Soc. Sec. Here's a case where they were screwed by the company--yet another reason while federal retirement programs are necessary.



If a company can default on retirement plans, so can a government. It's happened too many times to count and it's happening right now in other countries. It could happen in the US too.

Now, when you say that a government can raise taxes and inflate it's money supply to meet it's obligations, I would add one more thing. It can also go into debt. These three things have never saved a government plan once it has run massive deficets. This is because of the massive impact on the economy all three of these methods have.

Taxes directly reduce the amount of money that can be spent in the economy and have the harshest effect.

Inflation erodes the purchasing power of the currency, meaning that any benefit actually being paid out is cut in reality.

Debt doesn't have a direct impact until the load becomes too great and interest rates rise. Then, governments have to divert more and more money to pay the interest on the debt. When governments reach a debt load that is so high that they must raise taxes to cover it, the raised taxes cause tax receipts to actually go down and the problem gets worse.

This is when governments start inflating.

And depending on how big the deficit is, the value of the currency can actually be substantially reduced. The cause of this is massive poverty and ultimately a race to dump that countries bonds. This is how a country defaults.

If you combine this process with war debt, it's like pouring gasoline on a fire.

So, no, the US is in no position to fund anyone's retirement. We're on a historical downward slide that is measurable by the Feds unlimited purchasing of US bonds. According to mainstream economists, it's a last ditch gambit that no one knows if it will actually pay off. 

According to historical trends and Austrian economists, our currency is headed over a cliff.

So, yeah, don't expect this government to cover it's debts. At least in the case of Hostess, the effect of the poor policy will be limited. With the government, everyone is going to be affected, even the unborn.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

> Unlike Hostess, the U.S. Govt. can print money or raise taxes to meet its obligations.


Sure the government can print more money. So why not just print a $14T bill and pay off out debt in 1 shot? 
Doesn't work that way Arni. You know that.
Print too much money, you'll destroy the currency and people will need wheelbarrows to haul around enough for a loaf of bread again.
Raise taxes too much, you'll devastate the investor class and significantly damage the economy. 
Giving more to people who have proven incapable of doing right with what they already have...never was a smart move.
I mean, if your kids pissed away their allowances, you didn't keep giving them more, right?
But why don't we use the perfect system. 100% taxation for everyone. You work, and your labors help the country, who in return provides you with a home, a car, food, a phone and your utilities. We can all be equal then. I'll just be cuter.  (I'm sure they'll mandate I wear a fake wart to even things up)



> What Hostess did with the pensions sounds very bad--but is  all-too-common. Pensions need to be 100% untouchable for the system to  work. And now it isn't clear where the pension claimants stand as  creditors--that sucks. People want workers to be responsible for their  own retirement sans Soc. Sec. Here's a case where they were screwed by  the company--yet another reason while federal retirement programs are  necessary.



Right. Which is why Social Security should also be untouchable by Congress, and it limited to what it was -sold to the public as-, retirement benefits.

It's hard for a parent who is irresponsible to raise responsible kids, harder still for a government to instill responsible behavior in it's citizens when it squanders what it steals, and rather than take it's own advice and tighten it's belt, just takes more.



> What Hostess did with the pensions sounds very bad


No disagreement here.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Sure the government can print more money. So why not just print a $14T bill and pay off out debt in 1 shot?
> Doesn't work that way Arni. You know that.
> Print too much money, you'll destroy the currency and people will need wheelbarrows to haul around enough for a loaf of bread again.
> Raise taxes too much, you'll devastate the investor class and significantly damage the economy.



The last point is not well-supported by evidence, but yes it's always a balancing act and so it's fortunate that there are many ways to raise money (and to save money) and that they can be combined. Removing the approx. $100k/year salary limit for payroll taxes solves all these problems immediately. That's a regressive tax (albeit only w.r.t. those making six figures per year) that would have limited effect on investors who make a lot of non-wage income. Simple, immediate, imperfect fix. The govt. can pay its bills. It's just politically unpopular to do so--or to stop paying for services.



> Right. Which is why Social Security should also be untouchable by Congress, and it limited to what it was -sold to the public as-, retirement benefits.



I was also referring to federal pension benefit guaranty insurance here. By saying it should be limited to retirement benefits, do you mean it shouldn't also pay orphans/widows/disabled benefits, or just that it shouldn't be raided to pay for other federal spending?

My point here is that the law needs to protect pensions as pensions in companies--and not allow companies, which have many fewer ways to raise money, to tamper with them. Otherwise we're right back to where we started.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> We're tangenting a bit, but let me address this.  The US Supreme Court ruled that there was no obligation of the Fed to pay anything to anyone. They did this in a case where someone wanted their benefits and was denied.
> Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
> 
> 
> ...



Jesus Christ, bob.  The point at which the trust funds are depleted, the fed will already have made good on the IOUs.  Do you seriously not understand that?  They will have paid back every dollar.   Solvency is a different issue.  You brought this up, and you're just wrong.  Trying to score a last point and then dismiss it as a tangent is a little cheap, particularly since you're factually incorrect.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2012)

Yeah, I'm just not buying the theory that the U.S. will treat its debt (to itself or others) like Argentinian bonds.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2012)

Steve said:


> Jesus Christ, bob.  The point at which the trust funds are depleted, the fed will already have made good on the IOUs.  Do you seriously not understand that?  They will have paid back every dollar.   Solvency is a different issue.  You brought this up, and you're just wrong.  Trying to score a last point and then dismiss it as a tangent is a little cheap, particularly since you're factually incorrect.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Nope, just Bob here.  I'm not Jesus Christ, nor am I his brother Damnit.

If I'm "factually incorrect" Steve, take a minute and update the Wikipedia article will ya please?  They could use the correction too.



> According to the Social Security Trustees, who oversee the program and  report on its financial condition, program costs are expected to exceed  non-interest income from 2011 onward. However, due to interest (earned  at a 4.4% rate in 2011) the program will run an overall surplus that  adds to the fund through the end of 2021. Under current law, the  securities in the fund represent a legal obligation the government must  honor when program revenues are no longer sufficient to fully fund  benefit payments. However, when the trust fund is used to cover program  deficits in a given year, the Trust Fund balance is reduced. By 2033,  the fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are  projected to only cover approximately 75% of program obligations.





> [h=3]Overview[/h] The trust fund represents a legal obligation of the federal  government to program beneficiaries. *The government has borrowed nearly  $2.7 trillion as of 2011 from the trust fund and used the money for  other purposes.* Under current law, when the program goes into an annual  cash deficit, the government has to seek alternate funding beyond the  payroll taxes dedicated to the program to cover the shortfall. This  reduces the trust fund balance to the extent this occurs. The program  deficits are expected to exhaust the fund by 2033. Thereafter, since  Social Security is only authorized to pay beneficiaries what it collects  in payroll taxes dedicated to the program, program payouts will fall by  an estimated 25%.
> 
> The trust fund is expected to peak in 2021 at approximately $3.0 trillion.[SUP][22][/SUP]  This means that from 2022 through 2033, the government will have to  find approximately $3 trillion in other funding to pay beneficiaries  beyond program revenues. If the parts of the budget outside of Social  Security are in deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office and multiple budget expert panels assume for the foreseeable future, there are several implications:
> 
> ...



After you fix the Wiki article, let Forbes know so they can print a retraction.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/


> Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25  years that Social Security is fully funded&#8212;for the next 25 years, or  2036.  So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust  Fund&#8212;$2.6 trillion allegedly&#8212;then how could failure to reach a  debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors&#8217; Social Security  checks?
> The answer is that *the federal government has borrowed all of that  trust fund money and spent it*, exactly as Krauthammer asserted.  And the  only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security  benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or  borrows the money&#8212;which, of course, it can&#8217;t do because of the debt  ceiling.



Not seeing a "pay back" in either article, maybe my over tiredness is causing me to miss it.

Regardless, I'm done arguing or reading this thread.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2012)

How many times has the debt ceiling been waived? Is it infinity yet?


----------



## bluewaveschool (Nov 22, 2012)

Bob, -10 points for using Wiki as an authoritative reference.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 22, 2012)

arnisador said:


> How many times has the debt ceiling been waived? Is it infinity yet?



You can't print unlimited money, and you must eventually pay back what you borrow. Unless you go bankrupt.
Hostess did. The US is following.



bluewaveschool said:


> Bob, -10 points for using Wiki as an authoritative reference.



Wiki is as reliable as Britannica or Americana according to investigations. Regardless, sources are cited. I also cited Forbes.
I've also read the report from the Congressional Budget Office, but they probably aren't that reliable a source either.

But Steve said I was wrong without posting any counter information, and I cited the wrong sources yet again, so I have to be incorrect, so rather than continue to cite the wrong sources, and keep posting incorrect correct information, I'm done here.   


SLATFATF.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Wiki is as reliable as Britannica or Americana according to investigations.



True...and it's easier to check WP's sources.



> SLATFATF.



OK, I don't know this one. Oh wait, Douglas Adams maybe?


----------



## Steve (Nov 22, 2012)

L





Bob Hubbard said:


> Nope, just Bob here.  I'm not Jesus Christ, nor am I his brother Damnit.
> 
> If I'm "factually incorrect" Steve, take a minute and update the Wikipedia article will ya please?  They could use the correction too.
> 
> ...



Let's say I set up a college fund for my son, and then "borrow" that entire amount, but put an IOU in for every dollar.   I also calculate accrued interest for every dollar I borrow.  If I count the IOU as an asset, I could double count everything, because I now have the dollars I put in, plus an IOU for each dollar.    That's one issue, double counting.

At some point, my son goes to college and starts cashing the IOUs until the account is depleted.  I have made good on every dollar and have "stolen" nothing, whether or not my son has a college degree at the end.   The balance in the account has been spent.  Whether I double counted the assets or not, I am actively making good on the IOUs as my son obligates the money for books and tuition.

Now that the account is empty, my son continues going to school.  at that point, my contributions into the account are only enough to pay 75%.  Now that the account is empty, we have a decision to make.  Either I contribute more or he spends less.  That's solvency.

You're posting links to information that doesn't support your allegation.  Solvency and double counting are different issues than the one at hand.  Double counting is the accounting trick that allows me to more easily balance the books, and solvency is the issue of how long my son wants to draw from the account vs how much is in the account at the time he begins cashing in the IOUs.

Once again, you are asserting that 2+2=orange.   You are wrong, bob, but not because your information is incorrect. It's because the information you're posting is irrelevant to the assertion you're making.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 22, 2012)

Let's imagine that your son is working for an account that will eventually pay for his schooling. This account is currently paying for other people's schooling now. It's also paying for other things it was never intended to pay for, thus there are a substantial amount of IOUs in it. If economic conditions remain exactly the same, maybe we can tweak the system to take in more now and pay out less in the future. Maybe we could cover your son's bill. But will it be around to pay your grandson's bill? Will we be able to stop the stress on the system being caused by the borrowing? What if economic conditions change and it's harder and harder to make those payments? What if an exceptionally large group of people need assistance on top of that? 

It's too idealistic to think that we can simply fix this. Given the choice, there is no way people would choose that level of risk....but we're forced to accept it.


----------



## Steve (Nov 22, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Let's imagine that your son is working for an account that will eventually pay for his schooling. This account is currently paying for other people's schooling now. It's also paying for other things it was never intended to pay for, thus there are a substantial amount of IOUs in it. If economic conditions remain exactly the same, maybe we can tweak the system to take in more now and pay out less in the future. Maybe we could cover your son's bill. But will it be around to pay your grandson's bill? Will we be able to stop the stress on the system being caused by the borrowing? What if economic conditions change and it's harder and harder to make those payments? What if an exceptionally large group of people need assistance on top of that?
> 
> It's too idealistic to think that we can simply fix this. Given the choice, there is no way people would choose that level of risk....but we're forced to accept it.



We can have a discussion about social security in a different thread.  I've participated in them in the past and will be happy to do so again.   But in this thread, bob said something that wasn't correct.  Not a philosophical difference of opinion.  It isn't right.  My analogy wasn't intended to advocate for or against social security.  It is simply intended to distinguish between the three different issues that bob is conflating.  Once again, double counting assets, solvency of ssa, and the "full faith and credit" of the United States are three different things.  

As an aside, the FICA tax is regressive in that only the first hundred grand or so of income is taxed.  Removing the earnings cap, while adding another tier to the payment calculation would eliminate any kind of solvency issues for my grand kids, and their grandkids, too.  






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 22, 2012)

Steve said:


> We can have a discussion about social security in a different thread.  I've participated in them in the past and will be happy to do so again.   But in this thread, bob said something that wasn't correct.  Not a philosophical difference of opinion.  It isn't right.  My analogy wasn't intended to advocate for or against social security.  It is simply intended to distinguish between the three different issues that bob is conflating.  Once again, double counting assets, solvency of ssa, and the "full faith and credit" of the United States are three different things.
> 
> As an aside, the FICA tax is regressive in that only the first hundred grand or so of income is taxed.  Removing the earnings cap, while adding another tier to the payment calculation would eliminate any kind of solvency issues for my grand kids, and their grandkids, too.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, but I think there a lot assumption inherit in what you are saying.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2012)

Steve said:


> Once again, double counting assets, solvency of ssa, and the "full faith and credit" of the United States are three different things.



Agreed.



> As an aside, the FICA tax is regressive in that only the first hundred grand or so of income is taxed.  Removing the earnings cap, while adding another tier to the payment calculation would eliminate any kind of solvency issues for my grand kids, and their grandkids, too.



This is not the best way to do things but it is an easy and achievable way to do it and so I'm all for it.


----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the best way to do things but it is an easy and achievable way to do it and so I'm all for it.



'Best' is a subjective term.  But it illustrates that solvency isn't the huge crisis some suggest.

The main thing in this thread is pointing out that social security isn't anything at all like executives who wrote off retirement funds in a bankruptcy.  I understand that some here are against social security and that's fine.  But that's a discussion for another thread. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Nov 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> 'Best' is a subjective term.  But it illustrates that solvency isn't the huge crisis some suggest.
> 
> The main thing in this thread is pointing out that social security isn't anything at all like executives who wrote off retirement funds in a bankruptcy.  I understand that some here are against social security and that's fine.  But that's a discussion for another thread.
> 
> ...



well, if they did not have the retirement fund, the workers would have gotten more hourly money...boo, right.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> The main thing in this thread is pointing out that social security isn't anything at all like executives who wrote off retirement funds in a bankruptcy.



I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from.  From my understanding, I see the results as a microcosm of what could happen with Social Security benefits if the US doesn't get it's financial house in order.  I know some of the causes are different, but some of the causes are eerily similar as well.  There are some major economic difficulties driving all retirement funds into trouble right now, including SS.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, if they did not have the retirement fund, the workers would have gotten more hourly money...boo, right.



Yeah, and that's a major difference between this situation and SS.  Employers are making promises they can't keep in order to keep wages lower.  That is being driven by global economic factors and I think it's going to affect everyone's pension plan, public or private.  For example, teachers unions are getting a rude awakening right now and the state probably wasn't negotiating in good faith.  

The end result is that these bad problems are going to fold pensions across the board.  This will probably strain the SS safety net to the breaking point...along with other things.


----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from.  From my understanding, I see the results as a microcosm of what could happen with Social Security benefits if the US doesn't get it's financial house in order.  I know some of the causes are different, but some of the causes are eerily similar as well.  There are some major economic difficulties driving all retirement funds into trouble right now, including SS.



First a disclaimer.  I'm on cold medicine right now, so I'm drowsy.  I'll try to make sense and be brief.   I agree with you that the USA needs to get its financial house in order.  

The thing I was driving at earlier is that this is about the full faith and credit of the USA vs a business model that considers bankruptcy as a viable business tool.  The issue comes down to something that happens routinely compared to something that has never happened.  Could it?  Sure, but it is extremely unlikely.  The trust fund is invested in treasury bonds and are as secure as US savings bonds.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Yeah, and that's a major difference between this situation and SS.  Employers are making promises they can't keep in order to keep wages lower.  That is being driven by global economic factors and I think it's going to affect everyone's pension plan, public or private.  For example, teachers unions are getting a rude awakening right now and the state probably wasn't negotiating in good faith.
> 
> The end result is that these bad problems are going to fold pensions across the board.  This will probably strain the SS safety net to the breaking point...along with other things.



An argument against privatization, if you ask me.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> An argument against privatization, if you ask me.



The very reason we have Soc. Sec. is because that argument is officially settled beyond any reasonable doubt. Young people will not plan for the future in adequate numbers unless you make them do so, and businesses will raid pension plans (or things will otherwise go wrong) unless you stop them (which is hard). But the govt. is always there--and if it isn't, your retirement plan is no longer your #1 worry.


----------



## billc (Nov 23, 2012)

Well, there are politicians already looking at private retirement plans and all the money just sitting around in there.  There is the concept of the government taking over private retirement accounts, for the good of the people investing in them, and then giving a guaranteed return, in return for government management.  Sooo...don't think that the government is going to let you keep any money if they can get their hands on it.

http://www.redstate.com/mkozikowski/2012/06/01/guarnateed-retirement-account-take-two/



> The impetus behind the government&#8217;s proposal to create a
> &#8216;Guaranteed Retirement Account&#8217; for all Americans is the
> need/desire to get their greedy little hands on the $18 Trillion
> That Americans have in Stocks, IRA&#8217;s, 401K&#8217;s, Pensions, and savings.
> ...



Here is a more detailed look at the government getting its hands on your private retirement money...

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf



> Guaranteed Retirement Accounts are efficient and funds are targeted toward retirement.
> Contributions are made efficiently and consistently through payroll deductions and funds are not accessed until retire- ment, disability, or death. The Social Security Administra- tion has a proven track record of efficient management and already maintains portable accounts for all workers. Funds are pooled and professionally managed, taking advantage of economies of scale and dispensing with the high fees asso- ciated with 401(k) plans and other individual accounts.


:lfao:


----------



## DennisBreene (Nov 24, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well, there are politicians already looking at private retirement plans and all the money just sitting around in there.  There is the concept of the government taking over private retirement accounts, for the good of the people investing in them, and then giving a guaranteed return, in return for government management.  Sooo...don't think that the government is going to let you keep any money if they can get their hands on it.
> 
> http://www.redstate.com/mkozikowski/2012/06/01/guarnateed-retirement-account-take-two/
> 
> ...



I'm glad you put the laughing icon there. Otherwise I was going to suggest a psychiatric referral.  Thankfully our beloved government is efficiently manageing a large pile of IOU's from incessant legislative raiding of SSI funds. Maybe the Chinese can figure out how each working person in the US will support slightly greater than one person on some sort of entitlement program through their payroll withholdings.  If the gov't gets its hands on our private pensions, there won't be enough abacases in the world to calculate how to survive retirement with the assetts that trickle down into our monthly checks.

BTW; weren't we talking about union manufactured twinkies?


----------



## Steve (Nov 24, 2012)

DennisBreene said:


> I'm glad you put the laughing icon there. Otherwise I was going to suggest a psychiatric referral.  Thankfully our beloved government is efficiently manageing a large pile of IOU's from incessant legislative raiding of SSI funds. Maybe the Chinese can figure out how each working person in the US will support slightly greater than one person on some sort of entitlement program through their payroll withholdings.  If the gov't gets its hands on our private pensions, there won't be enough abacases in the world to calculate how to survive retirement with the assetts that trickle down into our monthly checks.
> 
> *BTW; weren't we talking about union manufactured twinkies?*


Took a bit of a tangent when bob took a pot shot at social security in post 154. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## arnisador (Nov 29, 2012)

As predicted:

[h=1]Hostess Executive Bonuses: Twinkie-Maker To Seek Approval For $1.8 Million In Bonuses During Liquidation[/h]



> Hostess seeks approval in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern  District of New York in White Plains, N.Y. to give its top executives  bonuses totaling up to $1.8 million as part of its wind-down plans. The  company says the incentive pay is needed to retain the 19 corporate  officers and "high-level managers" during the liquidation process, which  could take about a year.
> 
> Two of those executives would be eligible for additional rewards  depending on how efficiently they carry out the liquidation. The bonuses  would be in addition to their regular pay. A spokesman for Hostess  noted executives will need to meet certain goals to get the bonuses.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2012)

arnisador said:


> As predicted:
> 
> *Hostess Executive Bonuses: Twinkie-Maker To Seek Approval For $1.8 Million In Bonuses During Liquidation*



Of course.


----------



## granfire (Nov 30, 2012)

a bonus for carving up the company you killed....


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 30, 2012)

arnisador said:


> As predicted:
> 
> *Hostess Executive Bonuses: Twinkie-Maker To Seek Approval For $1.8 Million In Bonuses During Liquidation*






shesulsa said:


> Of course.



Ok, you are obviously against this, so let me ask you a question, If the purpose of these "bonuses" is to keep the executives on board until the end, to make sure the work gets done, and that is a bad thing, what is your solution for making sure the executives stay and do the work?  I ask not in their defense, but because I am truly curious.  The Hospital I work for was just sold, our jobs are up in the air and employment for us is uncertain.  All I know is that once the merger is complete I may or may not have a job.  As such, I am looking for a new position just in case.  If they came to me tomorrow and said "It's official, in March your job is being eliminated, I'd have very little incentive to stick around, and probably wouldn't.  If I did, you can bet I wouldn't be invested or even really care if my job gets done or not... Unless maybe they told me "In march, your job is being eliminated, but at that time, if you are still here you will receive a 6 month severance package"... so I get what they are doing.

If you think that is so horrible, what is your solution?


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 30, 2012)

Cry, I understand what you are saying, but the executives' history don't lend to give them the benefit of the doubt.  The union took a 20%+ pay cut at these executives request, while the executives took a 300% increase in pay.  The union authorized the executives to borrow money from the pension plan, which the executives then decided they couldn't pay back.  Now they are requesting $1.8 million in fees.  Seems they have already proven any request they have regarding money should be viewed with great skeptasism.


----------



## cdunn (Nov 30, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, you are obviously against this, so let me ask you a question, If the purpose of these "bonuses" is to keep the executives on board until the end, to make sure the work gets done, and that is a bad thing, what is your solution for making sure the executives stay and do the work? I ask not in their defense, but because I am truly curious. The Hospital I work for was just sold, our jobs are up in the air and employment for us is uncertain. All I know is that once the merger is complete I may or may not have a job. As such, I am looking for a new position just in case. If they came to me tomorrow and said "It's official, in March your job is being eliminated, I'd have very little incentive to stick around, and probably wouldn't. If I did, you can bet I wouldn't be invested or even really care if my job gets done or not... Unless maybe they told me "In march, your job is being eliminated, but at that time, if you are still here you will receive a 6 month severance package"... so I get what they are doing.
> 
> If you think that is so horrible, what is your solution?



Fire them, enforce any bonus claw-backs possible inside their contract for their hideous failure, and pay the requisite outsiders to come in and sort out the mess. Alternately, let them close it, rub their noses in it that it's their fault, and if they walk off the job, sue the **** out of them for breach of contract, if possible.  

They ran this company into the ground. They should not be rewarded by ownership. Frankly, they shouldn't be trusted to maximize the sale value of the company's assets, given their track record of failure. This would be comparable to your situation with your hospital closing if and only if your hospital was closing because you got enjoyment from slipping mercury salts into IVs.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 30, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, you are obviously against this



I'm not against it, since as distressing and disagreeable as it is it does make business sense--my point is that I predicted it'd happen but some disagreed.


----------

