Originally Posted by Jon_R
The replacement workers can be permanent. There is no legal requirement they be temporary. It would probably be something in the contract the union would want that everyone gets the full time job back but Hostess can decline the contract. If Hostess just plans to just negotiate indefinitely and operate with replacement workers they can. Then it just becomes an endurance game. Getting together every now and then and not move from their position probably would not cost Hostess to much vs. the strikers not getting a pay check as months roll along.
I personally am okay with letting them fire them all and any business owner deciding there will be no unions in their operations if that is what they want. I am just commenting that Hostess had more than two options close or cave to whatever the unions wanted.
They decided to close so be it they were free to close or free to cave or free to hire replacement workers and carry on. Where they free to do anything they wanted no they were not.
While they technically CAN replace them permanently, in reality they can't.
1. Its 1/3 of their workforce.
2. They MUST continue to negotiate
3. Every temporary worker knows full well that they will be fired when the negotiations end.
Hostess didn't have an option.
Getting to the point now, IF more of society were just like you are (and lets not forget CF in this) in your law enforcement grudge. I would spite the Constitution and do everything in my power to see that your protections were stripped away as soon as possible. I would do this just to throw it in your face because I could. I LOVE the Constitution BTW, I just really dislike dirtbags like yourself. -- BlackPaladin
Last edited by certifiedfunds; 11-26-2012 at 13:13..