Unions kill the twinkie?

[arnisador]

[h=1]Jenkins: Twinkies—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]

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]

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]

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

I thought you were Ferengi through-and-through.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

true.

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

Agreed

 

[granfire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Xue Sheng]

Ever since I first saw the title of this thread, “Unions kill the Twinkie” it has made a song (that I never liked) run through my demented little brain, and I don’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]

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]

"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...