I can't imagine this is the end game any employee looks for when going on strike.
People who assemble iPads are competing with third world workers who assemble iPads.
Baked goods, not so much. Long shelf life, but still a more locally made industry.
They didn't offshore the products, they closed the company. So you're the one with the incorrect argument.
'Crime did not cease to exist' - um, ya, that was the point, neither has worker needs.
Unions are still very much relevant to protecting worker incomes the same as they always have been, and they protect non-union workers at the same time.
In this time of 'globalization', we need worker protections unless you want to be like China.
Since you can't make a post without being obnoxious apparently, no reply needed.
Yes, corporate execs and shareholders have developed a mentality that they are entitled to the fruits of the labor of others without fair compensation. They're a bunch of parasites, oblivious to the reality that they are destroying our nation.
Who do you believe? The strike killing the company or the strike offering a convenient scapegoat for the death of the company. It's hard to say.
You cannot single out an industry and say that workers in this industry will keep making $25 and hour because these jobs cannot be outsources, it does not work that way.
Workers need have not ceased to exists but unions do a lot more than just take care of worker's needs, they are not a fair body that does everything only for the betterment of their members, union leaders are VERY powerful people.
In the time of globalization, the only thing unions do is to encourage companies to ship more jobs overseas or close down as they fell the pay for the workers is unreal compared to their competitors'.
As much as I have heard things like high employee's getting raises, etc.. etc.. going through bankrupcy before... as a union, if you want to keep your job, the last thing you should do is strike during hard economic times. Clearly it is the final straw that killed the camels Back.
And a lot of people will talk about those high exec positions that got high raises... but here is a great question. HOW do you get good experienced high execs to stay... when you clearly have a sinking ship? If the ship is sinking, they are going to bail. NO QUESTION. I know I would.
While the union is sitting there saying "We will stay together and fight!!--- oh wait, shit, we just ruined everything LOL" - you go ahead and keep fighting for more pay, especially after you kill what was left. The SAME thing happened with Yahoo! trying to get a replacement CEO. No one is going to openly board a sinking Titanic. It's just not going to happen.
Which part of the word earned are you confused about? The workers performed labor in return for agreed compensation. The execs shortchanged the workers by $2 billion.
In your world, I guess if I offer you $50 to do a job for me and then, after the work is done, I decide to only pay you $10 that's okay because, hey it's my money.
Link to facts on tne negotiated dispute? Who asked for what?
I did see some footage of the union workers on strike such as wearing a sign announcing his wage was $30,000. Not exactly 'gouging'.
But in this bankruptcy, they've asked to give bonuses to execs of 25% to 75% of salary.
Reminds me a bit of that 'papa john' saying there's no way to afford the $5 million, $2,000 per uninsured worker Obamacare cost - while taking enormous profits ($600 million).
It's more important he keep the personal wealth up - a few things about the mansion he's bought the low-paid workers have earned him:
"•Multi-level 22 car underground garage
•Multiple swimming pools
•Private golf course
•Gigantic motorized turntable-driveway to park stretch limousines
•6,000-square-foot guest house"
People who assemble iPads are competing with third world workers who assemble iPads.
Baked goods, not so much. Long shelf life, but still a more locally made industry.
They didn't offshore the products, they closed the company. So you're the one with the incorrect argument.
'Crime did not cease to exist' - um, ya, that was the point, neither has worker needs.
Unions are still very much relevant to protecting worker incomes the same as they always have been, and they protect non-union workers at the same time.
In this time of 'globalization', we need worker protections unless you want to be like China.
Since you can't make a post without being obnoxious apparently, no reply needed.
No, but should they just take any wage offered? Then every worker in America should get minimum wage - and not even that if Republicans go their way to abolish minimum wage.
Can't just blame the workers for this. Bad management, greed, some of the situations with these 'private vapital funds' are the real cause of a lot of the problems, not unions.
With respect to your analogy, crime did not you cease to exist but workers right did they day Nixon and other made us lay down and spread our legs for China, so take you failed argument and stick it up your master's a$$
There are plenty of Hostess type products flooding in from Mexico.
So, if an exec can only get $10 million instead of $15 million, that's an outrage and you say he should 'bail' on the business. But if a worker doesn't want ANOTHER cut, this one 2%, he is wrong to strike. You're all in favor of the people at the top having an 'entitlement mentality' for large income, but against the workers getting any decent wage.
This isn't looking like a tough call at all - it's looking like vulture capitalism harming society, destroying a company, costing us the products and workers employment.
They weren't supposed to be about protecting workers' incomes.
They are the largest bakery company in the US and the world .
All minimum wage does is increase unemployment.
People at any company are hard working, and dedicated, whether that's retail or commercial food services, but setting a bunch of third parties who pretend to act on their interests only to stick their hands in the workers' pockets is not efficient or morally right.
and still can't seem to make bread that isn't bland much less taste as good as home made.
^^^^ THIS x5 Billion.
Unions weren't created for working in the HARSH HARSH weather of a cold air conditioning while enjoying coffee breaks every 2 hours. Might want to look up a little history of unions, because the people that actually originally used unions for a purpose - are rolling over in their grave in disgust.
Unions can't force anything on an employer, period. That the management chose to sign a contract with the union indicates that it must have been in the best interests of the shareholders to do so. If it was not in the interests of the shareholders to sign the union contract then the managers were violating their fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders which is illegal.It wasn't offered. It was the previous union deal forced on them that STILL wasn't good enough for the unions.
There is a timeless battle betwee workers' interests and owners' interests. Of course they're not toally at odds - they have a common interest in having a company that makes them all money - but workers would always like 'more' while owners would always like 'more' by cutting labor costs.
It doesn't matter whether the situation is like it was when unions were finally de-criminalized, or whether it's paying an air-conditioned worker $25 instead of $15.
The issue is the same, that alone, workers have a lot less power and wages fall as a result, while organized, they can get more balancing the power of the owners.
In theory, there could be questions about what if the workers want 'too much', but as a practical matter, we see very little of that question.
It's pretty crazy for people to be worried about that side when CEO compensation in the US has gone from 15 or 25 times the average worker to 300 or 400 times.
When Wall Street has learned how to take 40% of all profits from the society rather than 10%. When workers are making less while the most rich make hundreds of percent more.
Supply and demand is the way the world works. *Gasp* it doesn't just apply to products!
The supply of unskilled labor seems to only grow. While the demand only shrinks (outsourcing, self-checkouts, etc..) - Yet... you think... unskilled laborers... should be able to demand more? It defeats the ENTIRE purpose of our economy, what the value of the dollar is, etc.. etc.. You think they (as the MASSIVE supply of unskilled labor) should be able to dictate how much THEY are worth? HAHA!!
Unions do an excellent job of skipping past "I can do anything - sky is the limit" to socialism.
No one is stopping the union members from bailing during hard times like I said the higher up's would do
But since you feel obligated to only see one side...
How about this little gem people leave out - the whole part where the top 4 execs took $1 for their pay for a year? Funny how things like that are never mentioned
http://americablog.com/2012/11/hostess-twinkie-ceo-salary.html
That doesn't happen by magic. Translating market forces into worker benefits is what unions do.Wow, the talking points as well as ignorance is strong with many people in this thread.
Really folks, it's about supply and demand. If the market thinks wages should go up (exec or line worker) then they will.