Steve
Mostly Harmless
Those are job creators you're talking about!
Unions kill the twinkie?
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
Steve
Mostly Harmless
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.
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.
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
Mostly Harmless
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 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.
Yup. Their plan all along, make no mistake.
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.
It may come down to that here as well.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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
Mostly Harmless
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.
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.
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!
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.
Yes, it is a terrible thing to do. Show me how the employee benefits from losing their job, no matter whose fault it is.
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
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.
So,
year 1 : -8%
Year 2 : +3%
3: +3%
4: +3%
5: +1%
====
Net gain +2%
Well, what they got is this:
and
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:
year 1 : -8%
Year 2 : +3%
3: +3%
4: +3%
5: +1%
====
Net gain +2%
Well, what they got is this:
and
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:
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.
