[handyman]

Originally Posted by srhoades

Apparently the situation is a bit more complex. I heard a radio report that about 10 years ago the company was taken over by hedge fund managers and bean counters and ever since then they have been slowly screwing the workers year after year in order to maximize the bottom line. Do companies have a right to make a profit? Of course. But when it comes to the point that you are dehumanizing your workers and treating them like factory equipment, the potential evils of capitalism pokes up its ugly head.

Do unions likewise have potential evils? Absolutely. Once they start getting in bed with politics and ignoring their responsibility to negotiate a fair wage they have overstepped their bounds.

I think both sides have a share in the blame.

That is correct there are two sides, both share some blame.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

Originally Posted by handyman

That is correct there are two sides, both share some blame.

+1. I think that has been the best post on the subject. Honest and to the point without the childish hysterics, blame shifting and name calling.

[holesinpaper]

http://news.yahoo.com/twinkies-baker...--finance.html

"I really can't afford to not be working, but this is not worth it. I'd rather go work somewhere else or draw unemployment," said Johnson, a worker at Hostess for 23 years.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

http://news.yahoo.com/twinkies-baker...--finance.html

Then he should quit and find another job..not bring the whole company down around him..

[roadgrader]

Today's unions are extensions and banks for the Demoncrap party. The purpose of a union is to perpetuate itself and nothing more. A union would rather destroy a company and thereby lose its members their jobs, bene's and pension than negotiate anything reasonable that would enable the company to survive, become profitable again and hire more people. How does the union benefit its members in this case?

I've been a union member and all they did was take my money.

[GeneralSnafu]

I had a friend who in the early '70s was a pilot with Eastern and earning just under $70K a year. He voted with the union to let them go under, over a 5% pay cut. This resulted in a glut of pilots and other airline employees looking for non-existent jobs.

Then he started having problems making the payments on two houses, his Corvette, his wifes Jaguar, the boat and private school for the kids. He even turned down a job offer with a $60K starting salary from a friend, in a completely unrelated field in which he had no experience. He said he wasn't about to scale back his lifestyle and couldn't survive on a measly $60K per year.

Long story short, he lost both houses, both cars and the wife. To hear him tell the bright side of the story, they won their strike against Eastern Airlines and put those cheap SOBs out of business.

[IQof1]

Originally Posted by lunarspeak

i would guess that the more the workers get paid the more the teamsters are paid soooooooooo......id guess they were just greedy

Unions, greedy? Outdated?

Union bosses living luxurious lives with high salaries off the backs of workers?

Democrats on the take from unions to pass/enact laws forcing people to join unions against their will?

Unions using forced union dues to support political campaigns and causes against the desires of its members?

No say it ain't so!

[bloodyspartan]

Originally Posted by Adjuster

I dislike unions myself but I think I understand their position. If the union caved in and accepted the not agreed to pay cut then every company in the future in the same type of situation will simply threaten to close the doors and shut down unless the union accepts the offer.


/

The Doors are shut are they not , the Commies are in full control and this is just the Beginning.

God forbid they take a paycut with 23% unemployment in the US.

So what they take a pay cut down the Road when the Country recovers, the Union can demand a raise.
They still had the right to strike.
The Company not making money, now they are pawns in the Govt. Hands.


Unions have outlived their usefulness except for Communism and they never got a Job for me.
Helped me keep one or a pension.

But they like many delegates probably collected 2 salaries and pensions.
it is a red herring who owned what , did what said this or that.

Men work or not. Taxes are paid or not and now the Pie shrinks , No one will wake up till the food and tv run out.


Good Luck ,God Bless all., Time for another Glock 10mm

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by bloodyspartan

So what they take a pay cut down the Road when the Country recovers, the Union can demand a raise.
They still had the right to strike.

When, then, in your opinion, is it okay for them to strike? What's the magic number?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/hostess.asp

Executive Salary changes at Hostess, approved in July - about 4 months before they said the company was insolvent. Now, some of these execs - AFTER this news became public - agreed to reduce their salaries, but can anyone honestly say experienced corporate execs didn't know what was happening just a few months before the "cliff"?

Brian Driscoll, CEO, around $750,000 to $2,550,000
Gary Wandschneider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000
John Stewart, EVP, $400,000 to $700,000
David Loeser, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
Kent Magill, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
Richard Seban, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
John Akeson, SVP, $300,000 to $480,000
Steven Birgfeld, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000
Martha Ross, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000
Rob Kissick, SVP, $182,000 to $273,008


Hostess, which had been contributing $100 million a year in pension costs for workers, offered workers a new contract that would've slashed that to $25 million a year, in addition to wage cuts and a 17 percent reduction in health benefits. The baker's union rejected the offer and decided to strike.

From another article:

"They're just taking from us," said Kenneth Johnson, 46, of Missouri. He said he earned roughly $35,000 with overtime last year, down from about $45,000 five years ago.

If those numbers are accurate, that's 20%+ reduction in salary over 5 years. You say that "they still had the right to strike", but then blame them for striking. When is it okay to exercise that right? When, as an employee, do you say "enough is enough"?

[kenpoprofessor]

What I see from the union sympathizers is JEALOUSY, plain and simple. They can't stand to see someone in the company making so much money while they make so little, and then cry to the union about "fairness".

Hey union guys, improve your work skillsets and education. If you don't, don't cry about the mentality of the owners and stockholders "hogging" all the money. If you can't beat them, join them, it works in this particular paradigm.

The companies do not owe anyone a "living wage", they are created to make money for the owners. If you don't like working for someone, don't, but don't insist they pay you what you're not entitled to or haven't worked for.

I'm a seriously non union guy working in an "at will" status state. I can tell you, there is nothing more satisfying than watching a slacker get told to kick rocks and handed their last check and not having a union come in and demand they get their job back.

I work hard for my company, have for the last 4 years I've been there, and now, I'm getting noticed more and more for what I do, how much money I save in man hours, equip. rentals, etc..

My jobs get noticed and get us even more work because they are professionally done, well managed, with little to no interruption of service for our clients. I expect to be even more compensated over the pay of my peers simply because of what I do. That will never, ever happen in a union, I just wouldn't be motivated to do so if I knew there wouldn't be additional pay for my alacrity.

And the beauty of this is, if at any time I feel that I'm not compensated well enough for the work I do, I'm free to move on to another company that will pay me what I think I'm worth, and what they feel is the best deal for them.


Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[mike from st pe]

Hey union guys, improve your work skillsets and education.

I thought that was why there was Union Apprentice Programs.
The management, back in the good old days, invested in their workers.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by WarCry

When, then, in your opinion, is it okay for them to strike? What's the magic number?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/hostess.asp

Executive Salary changes at Hostess, approved in July - about 4 months before they said the company was insolvent. Now, some of these execs - AFTER this news became public - agreed to reduce their salaries, but can anyone honestly say experienced corporate execs didn't know what was happening just a few months before the "cliff"?



From another article:


If those numbers are accurate, that's 20%+ reduction in salary over 5 years. You say that "they still had the right to strike", but then blame them for striking. When is it okay to exercise that right? When, as an employee, do you say "enough is enough"?

The executive compensation package is approved by the board of directors. Your snopes link doesn't give the whole picture.

The most valuable employees at any company is the executive management team. They're also the folks with the most options. Compensation changes like this are done in order to retain them through the crash landing so the wings don't come off. Then, like big boys and girls, when their compensation changes became a PR liability for the company, they went ahead and worked for free because they were professionals.

Now contrast that to the bakers union which preferred to take the whole plane down like a bunch of children rather than taking cuts for pressing the button on the Ding Dong machine.

[CBennett]

Originally Posted by WarCry

What was the deal offered by Hostess? Do you know what the union was being asked to give up? What's the magic number for you, if your boss tells you you're getting a 5% cut, 7%, 8, 10? What would be acceptable to you?

depends on how much i was making and how much i wanted to keep a job. But any of the cuts you mentioned id take to keep a decent job and benifits.....cause now they got ZERO(or what ever they get from Obama in unemplohment and Obamacare)

[ysr_racer]

Originally Posted by GeneralSnafu

I had a friend who in the early '70s was a pilot with Eastern and earning just under $70K a year. He voted with the union to let them go under, over a 5% pay cut. This resulted in a glut of pilots and other airline employees looking for non-existent jobs.

Then he started having problems making the payments on two houses, his Corvette, his wifes Jaguar, the boat and private school for the kids. He even turned down a job offer with a $60K starting salary from a friend, in a completely unrelated field in which he had no experience. He said he wasn't about to scale back his lifestyle and couldn't survive on a measly $60K per year.

Long story short, he lost both houses, both cars and the wife. To hear him tell the bright side of the story, they won their strike against Eastern Airlines and put those cheap SOBs out of business.

Yep, I've heard that same story mny times. Kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[berto62]

Bet these guys wish they had a union.

Former skilled laborers imported from the Philippines to work for Grand Isle Shipyard Inc filed a class-action lawsuit against the company a year ago charging it with abusive and exploitative working conditions, including requiring them to pay between $2,000 and $3,500 a month to live in 10-foot by 10-foot rooms, six to a room, on a work barge and in a Galliano bunkhouse that had been converted from a bowling alley

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/...harged_wi.html

[kenpoprofessor]

Originally Posted by berto62

Bet these guys wish they had a union.

Former skilled laborers imported from the Philippines to work for Grand Isle Shipyard Inc filed a class-action lawsuit against the company a year ago charging it with abusive and exploitative working conditions, including requiring them to pay between $2,000 and $3,500 a month to live in 10-foot by 10-foot rooms, six to a room, on a work barge and in a Galliano bunkhouse that had been converted from a bowling alley

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/...harged_wi.html

Hey, they can go right back where they came from if they don't like it.

All I see is a bunch of soldiers in the sandbox under very similar conditions, and a contract that says they can't leave unless they're willing to go to jail.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[Finestkind]

Quote:
"They're just taking from us," said Kenneth Johnson, 46, of Missouri. He said he earned roughly $35,000 with overtime last year, down from about $45,000 five years ago.

Ok so here is a guy who is using overtime to supplement his income. If he accepted the job at 30k per then that what he should expect. If he makes more then that save it or spend it but do not always expect it the be there.

I have a relative that was a mechanic for Eastern Airlines and lost his job. It tools months to find a job at car dealership but int he process he lost his house and wife.

Finestkind.

[AWoods]

Originally Posted by handyman

That is correct there are two sides, both share some blame.

Nope, there are at least 4 sides:

-investors
-customers
-management
-workers unions

The investors take no blame. The customers take no blame. The fact is that the business would be fine without the unions, so the blame goes only to the unions.

[AWoods]

Originally Posted by SevenSixtyTwo

So our military is socialist? They are mindless, utterly simple and an injustice? More valuable people get more perks and privileges and often move into management positions. Less valuable people don't make it to full scale or get let go.

Don't be so simplistic to compare a war-fighting force to what is supposed to be a free-market. There's a reason "the private sector" does not include the military.

Yes, the military is fully of stupidity and injustice and even socialism, just ask any enlisted personnel. We tolerate that crap because we don't know of a better way to kill people and blow stuff up.

I don't even know what your point is, other than to state the obvious.

[handyman]

Originally Posted by AWoods

Nope, there are at least 4 sides:

-investors
-customers
-management
-workers unions

The investors take no blame. The customers take no blame. The fact is that the business would be fine without the unions, so the blame goes only to the unions.

I disagree, you don't know.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by berto62

Bet these guys wish they had a union.

Former skilled laborers imported from the Philippines to work for Grand Isle Shipyard Inc filed a class-action lawsuit against the company a year ago charging it with abusive and exploitative working conditions, including requiring them to pay between $2,000 and $3,500 a month to live in 10-foot by 10-foot rooms, six to a room, on a work barge and in a Galliano bunkhouse that had been converted from a bowling alley

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/...harged_wi.html

I'm familiar with this. You're assuming it's true? Or could it be an attorney fishing expedition? Grand Isle Shipyard is a big business owned by a much bigger corporation. You reckon they have an HR department that keeps them in compliance with labor laws?

All of the welding/fabrication yards in south LA bring in foreign workers because they can't find enough skilled American workers to do the job. They house them, feed them and provide them with bus transportation to shopping venues.

[JW1178]

Okay, a lot of you are very pro Free Market. Well, it's a free market, Union or not. Don't buy Union products. Don't hire Union. Don't open a business in a Union territory. If a Union comes, shut down. Capitolisim and Free Markets work both ways, wheather you are the worker or the employee, or even the customer. LET THE FREE MARKET SORT ITSELF OUT. Why should the owners be the only one dealing the cards? Why should everything be in their favor?

Originally Posted by berto62

Bet these guys wish they had a union.

Former skilled laborers imported from the Philippines to work for Grand Isle Shipyard Inc filed a class-action lawsuit against the company a year ago charging it with abusive and exploitative working conditions, including requiring them to pay between $2,000 and $3,500 a month to live in 10-foot by 10-foot rooms, six to a room, on a work barge and in a Galliano bunkhouse that had been converted from a bowling alley

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/...harged_wi.html

If things were the was some on here would like, that would happen here. Those who control the money have the power and if they were unrestircited, they would make things this way here in the US. The smart and tallented would figure it out. I guess they would deserve to reap the bennifits of this because they are smart, right?

Look at the sweat shop textile mills of the 1800's. Hey, why should they pay more than enough for someone to barely eat, if they don't like it they can leave and starve. Keep enough people starving you create the desparation to keep the labor force going.

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

Hey, they can go right back where they came from if they don't like it.

All I see is a bunch of soldiers in the sandbox under very similar conditions, and a contract that says they can't leave unless they're willing to go to jail.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

No comparison. You don't get a job in the Army as a Soldier, you JOIN the Army. There is a huge difference.

Like I said, let the free market settle itself out. It just did with Hostess.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

Originally Posted by mike from st pe

I thought that was why there was Union Apprentice Programs.
The management, back in the good old days, invested in their workers.

Yes they did. They were sold like property and some of the remnants are still standing out away from their owners mansions in the Florida panhandle. They received painful education when they didn't perform properly. Some here think we should go back to that form of cheap labor. Others think we should have picked our own damn cotton for a fair wage.

[Bren]

Some people post about "the company screwing the workers" as an "evil of capitalism." They are wrong.

The whole point of free-market capitalism is that both parties - company and employee - are free to make the best bargain with what they have to offer and they are free to walk away if they are not satisfied. If the company is screwing the workers, capitalism has a built-in, self-regulating solution - they are free to walk away and find other jobs with a better company. The company that offers the conditions needed to get the labor it needs, will win the competiution - the company that does not, is out of business.

If they are willing to work for the pay and conditions that get, then the employees are setting the standard. If the company cannot get enough employees of high enough quality to work in their conditions, they have to make improvements until they can.

The problem the employees have is that they often think they are worth more than any company thinks they are worth, but there is no shortage of sufficient labor that is willing to do the employer's job for less, so there is no reason for the employer to pay what the employee "thinks" he is worth - only what the market says he is worth.

This is where the union comes in - this is not a debatable theory or an opinion or something the unions deny; even the unions know they do 1 thing - 1 single function - they create an artificial labor shortage where there isn't a natural labor shortage, by controlling the supply of labor. The union controls the labor supply and creates this shortage to inflate wages above what they would be if everybody was free to contract as they choose.

There is no version where that is right. There is also no version where every artificial gain the union members make isn't at the expense of everyone else.

[Z71bill]

This is not that hard -

What do you want?

Higher wage rates for some workers with higher unemployment and less total wages (all jobs combined)?

OR

Higher total wages (all jobs combined) and higher total employment - but some individual jobs pay less?

Take your pick -

But don't tell me you want strong unions and a lower unemployment rate and more in total wages paid.

If you increase the cost of something less of it will be demanded. Unions increase the cost of labor.

Wages are sort of like gasoline -

Some will be used even when the cost is really high -

If gas was $10 a gallon many people would still buy it - have no choice must get to work - but over time people would figure out a way to use less gas.

If labor cost was $20 an hour higher - some people would still have jobs - but over time companies would find ways to reduce head count.