If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Hostess: Damn those union thugs for making us go bankrupt. It had to be the unions and not at all us giving our CEO a giant-as-fark raise when we had no money. Yep, that's gotta be it   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 159
    More: Asinine, CEO, Hostess Brands, bankruptcy  
•       •       •

4609 clicks; posted to Business » on 16 Nov 2012 at 7:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-16 09:56:17 PM  

Chagrin: Take a look at their bankruptcy filing. They're a little over 1 billion in debt, and 97% of that debt is to their pension (which works out to a ~$50K per employee benefit). So not only are they raiding the hell out of the company to pay their executives more, they've really just been running the whole company off the employee pensions.

farkers.


What in the holy fark are you talking about? They borrowed money to assume that pension debt during the 2004 bankruptcy proceeding. If they had just shiatcanned the pensions, their financial obligations would be next to zero. They are bankrupt again because their margins are so small they they can't make payments on that debt.

That pension money was never there. The obligation was there, but the money never was. The hedge funds that loaned the money to cover the debt made it clear they weren't sending out any more money to cover losses, and the strike put the company over the edge.
 
2012-11-16 10:00:12 PM  

OregonVet: Straightening twinkies for 37 years doesn't mean the company should have to pay you 50k/yr until you die after you retire. Max your 401k, accept the social security, hell, find another job. The retirement age will go up under this administration anyways.

If the union had anything to lose in this deal, it never would have happened. They'll get a new crop of people straightening twinkies at $10/hr instead of $20 and dues will still be the same per week. Hell, now is a good time to raise dues. Watch that happen.


It does if that's what the company agreed to pay you. If they didn't bother to actually fund the pension, they've been effectively underpaying you on your agreed upon compensation for years.
 
2012-11-16 10:02:07 PM  
Enjoy your foodstamps ObamaTards.
 
2012-11-16 10:13:25 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Enjoy your foodstamps ObamaTards.


Boink.
Karma's a biatch.
Lookout, it's coming for you.
 
2012-11-16 10:17:16 PM  

douchebag/hater: The CEO's raise had nothing to due with the bankruptcy and to claim it does is specious.


Maybe it's more about not wanting to work for a boss who gives himself a raise after cutting your pay.
 
2012-11-16 10:17:33 PM  

seanpg71: If they didn't bother to actually fund the pension, they've been effectively underpaying you on your agreed upon compensation for years.


Pension economics are incredibly complicated, but most follow the same structure as social security - current employees and revenues pay for current retirees. Obviously, this all falls apart if the company goes out of business.

Pensions are hardly ever "fully funded" because the math to make them work is bullshiat. What should happen is a pension fund is funded, dollar for dollar, based on promises made to the employees. Instead, companies and governments use fuzzy math based on unknown future revenues to assume the pensions are funded.

And when funding a pension ahead of time actually does happen, like in the case with the USPS, people biatch about it for good reason: it's painful and it can bankrupt a company.
 
2012-11-16 10:29:14 PM  

oren0: I know liberals aren't great at math, but come on. The CEO got an extra $1.8M/year. Hostess had 18,500 employees. So this increase could have been redistributed to all employees, giving each of them $100.

The labor negotiations were over tens of thousands of dollars per employees, or hundreds of millions of dollars overall. Is it OK to get pissed that their CEO got a raise when the company was going under? Absolutely. But as fun as it is to get pissed about CEO pay, any suggestion that his bonus sank the company is mathematically ridiculous.


Agreed. Plus, the old CEO left and they hired a new one in march. They gave the new guy $1.8m. Funny thing, when you are hiring new execs to run companies that are going down the shiatter, you have to pay.

Why can't libs accept reality instead of cherry picking data to falsely justify their partisan views?
The company needed to cut pay to make money. The union refused, and now the members are out of a job. Unions serve a purpose and aren't always at fault, but in this case they are.
 
2012-11-16 10:32:19 PM  

CujoQuarrel: Prob had to pay the officers extra money to stick around since they could see the ship going down and THEY are able to get other jobs.

If you lose all your management , incompetent thou they may be, you are def going into bankruptcy .


Yeah... no.
 
2012-11-16 10:34:48 PM  

seanpg71: It does if that's what the company agreed to pay you.


Okay, I get the sentiment, so I amend my statemen: Straightening twinkies for 37 years doesn't mean you deserve 50k/yr until you die after you retire.

If you get away with $20/hr to straighten twinkies for 37 years I have zero sentiment if you didn't put something away for yourself. And no benefit plan guarantees your pension comes to fruition. That's why they have collective bargaining. Because people are too stupid to straighten twinkies and plan for the future/think for themselves, "hay! I make $20 hour straightening twinkies!" at the same time.
 
2012-11-16 10:36:39 PM  
How you can run a snack cake company into the dirt in this golden age of plentiful marijuana is beyond me...
 
2012-11-16 10:38:30 PM  

karmaceutical: How you can run a snack cake company into the dirt in this golden age of plentiful marijuana is beyond me...


Thank you. That is the funniest thing in this thread.
 
2012-11-16 10:39:48 PM  

Lsherm: seanpg71: If they didn't bother to actually fund the pension, they've been effectively underpaying you on your agreed upon compensation for years.

Pension economics are incredibly complicated, but most follow the same structure as social security - current employees and revenues pay for current retirees. Obviously, this all falls apart if the company goes out of business.

Pensions are hardly ever "fully funded" because the math to make them work is bullshiat. What should happen is a pension fund is funded, dollar for dollar, based on promises made to the employees. Instead, companies and governments use fuzzy math based on unknown future revenues to assume the pensions are funded.

And when funding a pension ahead of time actually does happen, like in the case with the USPS, people biatch about it for good reason: it's painful and it can bankrupt a company.


And yet, the pensions are generally replaced by 401ks whereby the employee is paid more and is ideally using that extra money to fully fund dollar for dollar their eventual "pension".

Meaning, either fully funding a pension forward is entirely possible and/or employees are receiving less effective compensation under their 401k plans than they would with a pension.

Assuming that the goal of the company is not to take advantage of it's employees, a pension plan should actually be cheaper as it can pool risk and assume an average lifespan, wheras as an individual would have to plan for the case where he or she lives much longer.
 
2012-11-16 10:43:54 PM  

OregonVet: seanpg71: It does if that's what the company agreed to pay you.

Okay, I get the sentiment, so I amend my statemen: Straightening twinkies for 37 years doesn't mean you deserve 50k/yr until you die after you retire.

If you get away with $20/hr to straighten twinkies for 37 years I have zero sentiment if you didn't put something away for yourself. And no benefit plan guarantees your pension comes to fruition. That's why they have collective bargaining. Because people are too stupid to straighten twinkies and plan for the future/think for themselves, "hay! I make $20 hour straightening twinkies!" at the same time.


What you deserve should be the benefits you negotiated for with the business you work for. No more, no less.

I'm consistently flummoxed by people that say people get too many benefits because that's not they're worth then turn around and say that people that get too little benefit should be better at negotiating their employment.
 
2012-11-16 10:45:02 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Why can't libs accept reality instead of cherry picking data to falsely justify their partisan views?
The company needed to cut pay to make money. The union refused, and now the members are out of a job. Unions serve a purpose and aren't always at fault, but in this case they are.


Why can't conservatives accept reality instead of cherry picking data to falsely satisfy their partisan views?

The company was in the middle of a bankruptcy, it's second bankruptcy in a decade. It had virtually no money on hand, and its management admitted the market for its products had virtually evaporated. The only operating capital they had was from borrowing from their own pension fund.

The strike may have accelerated the process, but they were already circling the drain. When a week-long strike is enough to force your company to shut down permanently, you were already at deaths door. 

Also, from reading around a little on the web, it sounds like the workers knew this might actually close the company down, but they were so upset about their low wages and lack of benefits that they felt they'd do better if the company was closed, the bakeries sold off to another company, and for them to take their chances with another company running the plant. Sounds like that whole "free market" thing that Republicans love, y'know, like when people gripe about low wages and they get back from the Conservatives that if they don't like their wages, work for somebody else.
 
2012-11-16 10:52:53 PM  

OregonVet: ShawnDoc: From looking at the past, I've found that things like this happens when you have unreasonable douches on both sides.

Yah, woman interviewed on CBS earlier claimed she was a "twinkie straightener" and when asked why she wouldn't take a pay cut claimed, "well, then, I might as well go back to minimum wage!"


Did someone say Twink Straightener?

towleroad.typepad.com
 
2012-11-16 10:53:39 PM  

OregonVet: Straightening twinkies for 37 years doesn't mean the company should have to pay you 50k/yr until you die after you retire.


You don't even think the corporation should have to pay the pensions they agreed to? Corporations can just refuse to honor contracts if it would be inconvenient for them?

This is the kind of attitude that makes unions necessary.
 
2012-11-16 10:59:41 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Buying up a company that produces the same stuff, but with a different organizational structure, may not have been a good idea. I mean if you make Wonder Bread in your own bakeries why buy the company that makes Butternut bread in independent bakeries? Oh what's that, merging the two profit centers, which are the sweet stuff, will somehow lead to increased profits greater than the sum of the existing profits? Didn't really work out that way. Surprise.


I think it was the other way around. The Butternut people bought Wonder Bread. IBC bought Wonder and Hostess in '95 and changed names to Hostess Bakeries.

But yeah, their insistence in hoarding brands was goofy. Why run four different brands of snack cakes that are virtually identical? Three quarters of the bread aisle at my local grocery store are Hostess brands competing against other Hostess brands. As soon as they aquired the Wonder/Hostess name they should have slapped it on everything and sold off all the other brands.
 
2012-11-16 11:05:33 PM  

Silverstaff: The only operating capital they had was from borrowing from their own pension fund.


There was no pension fund. During the first bankruptcy in 2004 they borrowed a billion from two hedge funds to cover their obligation to the pension fund. When you say "borrowing against" - they were simply spending money that should have been paid to the pension fund on operating costs. The money they were losing was all borrowed.
 
2012-11-16 11:07:16 PM  

oren0: I know liberals aren't great at math, but come on. The CEO got an extra $1.8M/year. Hostess had 18,500 employees. So this increase could have been redistributed to all employees, giving each of them $100.

The labor negotiations were over tens of thousands of dollars per employees, or hundreds of millions of dollars overall. Is it OK to get pissed that their CEO got a raise when the company was going under? Absolutely. But as fun as it is to get pissed about CEO pay, any suggestion that his bonus sank the company is mathematically ridiculous.


the bigger issue was the 820 million in debt leveraging, most of which was slated to go to management and the owners (hedge funds). because of the economy combined with the union not play ball, the vulture capitalists failed big time on this "deal" to rob the company of capital and equity.

Phryric victory and all, but at least the win/win vultures got punched in the face just as hard as the workers were going to, and now have.
 
2012-11-16 11:07:18 PM  

seanpg71: And yet, the pensions are generally replaced by 401ks whereby the employee is paid more and is ideally using that extra money to fully fund dollar for dollar their eventual "pension".

Meaning, either fully funding a pension forward is entirely possible and/or employees are receiving less effective compensation under their 401k plans than they would with a pension.


I have never understood how a 401k is anything other than an elaborate scheme to rip-off employees and tell them its their own fault.

At the only job I worked that had a 401k, it worked like this:
You are barely making a living wage, you don't make enough money to do anything other than commute to work, pay your essential bills, and eat just enough food to keep from starving.

You can elect to participate in the 401k, thus taking money away from you that you need to pay your bills.

I guess the money is supposed to be a tax deduction, but most people working there make so little that they already aren't paying in towards income tax because of the EITC and other low-income credits, so that's moot.

This money has to be spent on the stock market, so if the stock market tanks, your retirement is hosed.

The only "benefit" is that for every dollar you spent on company stock, they would match you fifty cents. Yeah, being encouraged to buy company stock. Frankly, working there made us believe the place was circling the toilet and nobody had enough confidence in the company to want to tie their retirement to them.

I still can't see how that was better than a pension, even a modest one.

A 401k assumes that the average worker is smart enough to wisely and effectively invest in a stock portfolio well enough to live off it in retirement. A pension plan assumes that investment professionals with a lot of money (and thus numeric advantage) can come up with a modestly successful investment plan, and can put that money into other investments besides just stocks, like real estate (I would imagine that apartment complexes are a good investment).
 
2012-11-16 11:16:59 PM  

Silverstaff: seanpg71: And yet, the pensions are generally replaced by 401ks whereby the employee is paid more and is ideally using that extra money to fully fund dollar for dollar their eventual "pension".

Meaning, either fully funding a pension forward is entirely possible and/or employees are receiving less effective compensation under their 401k plans than they would with a pension.

I have never understood how a 401k is anything other than an elaborate scheme to rip-off employees and tell them its their own fault.

At the only job I worked that had a 401k, it worked like this:
You are barely making a living wage, you don't make enough money to do anything other than commute to work, pay your essential bills, and eat just enough food to keep from starving.

You can elect to participate in the 401k, thus taking money away from you that you need to pay your bills.

I guess the money is supposed to be a tax deduction, but most people working there make so little that they already aren't paying in towards income tax because of the EITC and other low-income credits, so that's moot.

This money has to be spent on the stock market, so if the stock market tanks, your retirement is hosed.

The only "benefit" is that for every dollar you spent on company stock, they would match you fifty cents. Yeah, being encouraged to buy company stock. Frankly, working there made us believe the place was circling the toilet and nobody had enough confidence in the company to want to tie their retirement to them.

I still can't see how that was better than a pension, even a modest one.

A 401k assumes that the average worker is smart enough to wisely and effectively invest in a stock portfolio well enough to live off it in retirement. A pension plan assumes that investment professionals with a lot of money (and thus numeric advantage) can come up with a modestly successful investment plan, and can put that money into other investments besides just stocks, like real estate (I would imagine that a ...


Well at the end you end up with something. A pension is based on the assumption that the company will be around to pay off that debt which may not be the case.

In any case you need to fully fund your 401k no matter how much it hurts.
 
2012-11-16 11:17:32 PM  

Silverstaff: I have never understood how a 401k is anything other than an elaborate scheme to rip-off employees and tell them its their own fault.


Because that's exactly what it is.
Yet one more way that employers offload the cost of doing business onto their employees.
 
2012-11-16 11:17:38 PM  

Silverstaff: and can put that money into other investments besides just stocks, like real estate


Congrats, your pension just lost the ability to pay for your retirement for 40 years. Unfortunately, they still promised to pay your retirement.

That's the problem.
 
2012-11-16 11:22:36 PM  
hahaha, ah, thanks Libtards. Your bizarre continuing support for Organized Labor gives me endless joy.

Organized Labor got what it deserved here. They tried extorting the company for more then they were worth, and lost "their" jobs.

So, they ran GM, Ford, Chrysler, Bethlehem Steel, into the ground, nearly sank Boeing, Caterpillar, and U.S. Steel, and now added Twinkie the Kid to their scalp.

ohh! plus, they helped bring us the high quality public education system for which the U.S. is known world over.

//man, I almost couldn't type that last one without laughing.
//any defeat for Labor is a victory for America.
 
2012-11-16 11:25:50 PM  

CujoQuarrel: In any case you need to fully fund your 401k no matter how much it hurts.


Ha, on my salary? With my student loans? Fat farking chance. I still enjoy eating every once in a while, even if it is 10 cent Ramen.
 
2012-11-16 11:27:36 PM  
Fark Hostess.

The first time they went bankrupt, the only reason they came out of bankruptcy was through the sufferage of the union workers that took pay cuts, benefit cuts, longer hours, and worked their asses off to save that company. The company repaid them by ignoring them and lavishing bonuses on the management, then tried to screw them when the economy took a downturn. The unions couldn't sacrifice more - they did that the first time.

Then they went bankrupt again, and tried to blame the unions - the folks that actually helped them the first time around - to deflect blame from the assholes that deserve it, the investors who pushed so hard for profit that they cheapened the product, screwed the employees, and stood by while management was rewarded for increasing profitability at the expense of just about everything else.

Fark Hostess. Let 'em burn.
 
2012-11-16 11:51:41 PM  

FormlessOne: Fark Hostess.

The first time they went bankrupt, the only reason they came out of bankruptcy was through the sufferage of the union workers that took pay cuts, benefit cuts, longer hours, and worked their asses off to save that company. The company repaid them by ignoring them and lavishing bonuses on the management, then tried to screw them when the economy took a downturn. The unions couldn't sacrifice more - they did that the first time.

Then they went bankrupt again, and tried to blame the unions - the folks that actually helped them the first time around - to deflect blame from the assholes that deserve it, the investors who pushed so hard for profit that they cheapened the product, screwed the employees, and stood by while management was rewarded for increasing profitability at the expense of just about everything else.

Fark Hostess. Let 'em burn.


And what's really good - watch as they continue into bankruptcy, the worker's pension will get jettisoned and the government will take it over paying half what the workers were promised and the executive pension fund will remain fully funded and continue to pay out those golden parachutes.
 
2012-11-16 11:53:30 PM  

FormlessOne: Fark Hostess.

The first time they went bankrupt, the only reason they came out of bankruptcy was through the sufferage of the union workers that took pay cuts, benefit cuts, longer hours, and worked their asses off to save that company. The company repaid them by ignoring them and lavishing bonuses on the management, then tried to screw them when the economy took a downturn. The unions couldn't sacrifice more - they did that the first time.

Then they went bankrupt again, and tried to blame the unions - the folks that actually helped them the first time around - to deflect blame from the assholes that deserve it, the investors who pushed so hard for profit that they cheapened the product, screwed the employees, and stood by while management was rewarded for increasing profitability at the expense of just about everything else.

Fark Hostess. Let 'em burn.


None of that is true.
 
2012-11-17 12:27:44 AM  
Would the company still be in business if the union didn't walk off the job? Yes.
 
2012-11-17 12:54:15 AM  
profile.ak.fbcdn.net
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhxellent!
 
2012-11-17 12:55:59 AM  

teto85: Maybe people are tired of eating those little turds of sugar and chemicals.


The "cream filling" of the typical Twinkie, Ho Ho, etc. is just whipped LARD with a sweetener. BLEEEAAAGH!
 
2012-11-17 01:03:16 AM  

tjfly: Would the company still be in business if the union didn't walk off the job? Yes.


It had already gone bankrupt twice with the union on the job, so...
 
2012-11-17 01:21:08 AM  
fark Hostess. They mismanaged the company and gave themselves bonuses, and then they want to take a pound of flesh from the workers to pay for it.

Just another awful company. Hopefully a better one springs up in their wake.
 
2012-11-17 01:29:33 AM  

Ace Rimmer: But yeah, their insistence in hoarding brands was goofy. Why run four different brands of snack cakes that are virtually identical? Three quarters of the bread aisle at my local grocery store are Hostess brands competing against other Hostess brands. As soon as they aquired the Wonder/Hostess name they should have slapped it on everything and sold off all the other brands.


Wait until you figure out that all the major beer brands are owned by either InBev or MillerCoors.
 
2012-11-17 01:32:38 AM  

tjfly: Would the company still be in business if the union didn't walk off the job? Yes.


maybe, maybe not, and no guarantee it would stay in business for more than a week or two longer.
 
2012-11-17 01:34:21 AM  

Lsherm: FormlessOne: Fark Hostess.

The first time they went bankrupt, the only reason they came out of bankruptcy was through the sufferage of the union workers that took pay cuts, benefit cuts, longer hours, and worked their asses off to save that company. The company repaid them by ignoring them and lavishing bonuses on the management, then tried to screw them when the economy took a downturn. The unions couldn't sacrifice more - they did that the first time.

Then they went bankrupt again, and tried to blame the unions - the folks that actually helped them the first time around - to deflect blame from the assholes that deserve it, the investors who pushed so hard for profit that they cheapened the product, screwed the employees, and stood by while management was rewarded for increasing profitability at the expense of just about everything else.

Fark Hostess. Let 'em burn.

None of that is true.


Can I distrust your link because it's yet another thing that gets the "Twinkie Defense" wrong?
 
2012-11-17 01:47:05 AM  
It was the responsibility of the f*ckers in the suits with the fancy offices and the ad campaigns to sell bread and Twinkies. It was the responsibility of Joe and Jane Doughmaker @ $35k a year or so to make the bread and Twinkies. If the suits don't sell enough sh*t, the company fails.

What we have here is a sh*tload of corporate suit failure, the same type of failure that suits have tried to blame on Joe and Jane Doughmaker, because UNIONS are at fault for sh*tty products sales. It's the same sh*t automakers try to pull when they try and blame Joe and Jane Assembler on the floor for the sh*tty engineering of their cars and subsequently sh*tty sales, because UNIONS.

Any employee whose hands don't touch flour, eggs, water, sugar or yeast at least once during the workday should be shot and buried in an unmarked plot on company grounds for this, preferably under a parking lot.
 
2012-11-17 01:53:18 AM  

rewind2846: Any employee whose hands don't touch flour, eggs, water, sugar or yeast at least once during the workday should be shot and buried in an unmarked plot on company grounds for this, preferably under a parking lot.


It wouldn't surprise me if the product ever gets touched during processing.
 
2012-11-17 01:55:41 AM  

ShawnDoc: From looking at the past, I've found that things like this happens when you have unreasonable douches on both sides.


Both sides bad so vote CEO.
 
2012-11-17 01:59:45 AM  

OregonVet: HempHead: Old people don't deserve pensions you know.

Straightening twinkies for 37 years doesn't mean the company should have to pay you 50k/yr until you die after you retire. Max your 401k, accept the social security, hell, find another job. The retirement age will go up under this administration anyways.

If the union had anything to lose in this deal, it never would have happened. They'll get a new crop of people straightening twinkies at $10/hr instead of $20 and dues will still be the same per week. Hell, now is a good time to raise dues. Watch that happen.


If you would have been there 37 years ago when everyone was sold on the concept of being paid PLUS a certain amount going towards a retirement fund.

They gave their word. You gave them years of your labor.

If so you might be a little more than miffed at being ripped off days before you need it for retirement.
 
2012-11-17 02:11:17 AM  
In a perfect world where instant karma is a reality, the judge who is presiding over the bankruptcy would take one look at the filing, notice the fact that the CEO and upper management managed to give themselves these huge raises and instantly seize *ALL* their assets to ensure the creditors get paid.

Any squawking from the upper management would result in an immediate indictment along the lines of "conspiracy to commit manslaughter" since companies are people too.

3 or 4 of these incidents and the "executive elite" would damn well get the point that the corporations well being is more important to their compensation.
 
2012-11-17 02:11:39 AM  

Lsherm: None of that is true.


if Hostess hadn't been so badly run it had to file for bankruptcy protection before, it's all academic. As it is their previous acquisitions dumped more debt on the books than they could deal with. Then when they were bankrupt they picked up more debt. And obligations to a private equity firm on top of that debt. And their management never got better, if anything it got worse.
 
2012-11-17 02:13:14 AM  

gothelder: 3 or 4 of these incidents and the "executive elite" would damn well get the point that the corporations well being is more important to their compensation.


a funner alternative, give the company to the employees.
 
2012-11-17 02:41:11 AM  
Ahh Communists, proven wrong so many times throughout history but they just can't let go of the slacker dream.
 
2012-11-17 02:48:49 AM  

MilesTeg: Ahh Communists, proven wrong so many times throughout history but they just can't let go of the slacker dream.


Communists aren't exactly the biggest fans of unions....
 
2012-11-17 02:56:57 AM  

StokeyBob: OregonVet: HempHead: Old people don't deserve pensions you know.

Straightening twinkies for 37 years doesn't mean the company should have to pay you 50k/yr until you die after you retire. Max your 401k, accept the social security, hell, find another job. The retirement age will go up under this administration anyways.

If the union had anything to lose in this deal, it never would have happened. They'll get a new crop of people straightening twinkies at $10/hr instead of $20 and dues will still be the same per week. Hell, now is a good time to raise dues. Watch that happen.

If you would have been there 37 years ago when everyone was sold on the concept of being paid PLUS a certain amount going towards a retirement fund.

They gave their word. You gave them years of your labor.

If so you might be a little more than miffed at being ripped off days before you need it for retirement.


^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS.


Sign up with the company, the deal is for 35 years, then you get a pension of X% of your pay. You sign, they sign, and work begins.
Decades pass, you work.
34 years and 364 days later, you're packing out your locker, and word comes down that the plant is closing because the latest bosses (who weren't even born when you started there) couldn't sell sh*t if it were gold plated and gift-wrapped. Part of all that is if you're not getting paid a pension by today's date, you're up sh*t creek, no paddle. You get nothing.

Yeah, I'd be pissed too.
They gave their word, you gave them 35 years of your life and your labor. They owe you.
 
2012-11-17 03:57:14 AM  
So what I get out of this is that it's ok for the unions to bleed a company dry year after year with constant demands for pay raises and benefits but god forbid anyone in management gets a raise.
 
2012-11-17 04:46:04 AM  

ReapTheChaos: So what I get out of this is that it's ok for the unions to bleed a company dry year after year with constant demands for pay raises and benefits but god forbid anyone in management gets a raise.


It's management that bled the company dry.
 
2012-11-17 05:40:59 AM  
Eh, I am a member of the SEIU and I ask myself all the time how much should a janitor or manual laborer or someone doing an easy job that anyone can be trained to do should really make. At what point do you say to a janitor that he really doesn't deserve a 60" TV and a middle class life? I was a pariah during out last strike because I agreed that costs for management are rising so I was prepared to pay a extra for our medical plan. Personally, I am considered "skilled labor" as a building mechanic so I guess that skews my perspective.
 
2012-11-17 05:59:11 AM  

Silverstaff: Nadie_AZ: And then look for a scapegoat when the time came. Oh look, Obama reelected, and now strikes. Oh and obamacare. Perfect.

Yup. They have been in bankruptcy proceedings since January, and had suffered a significant slump in sales.

NPR also noted that Hostess noted that consumers were wanting healthier food, which was a big reason for the drop in sales, which of course means Obama gets blamed (seriously, I'm already seeing the derp on FB that this is Michelle Obama's plan to put Americans out of work by getting people to eat vegetables).


Well, that would increase demand for illegal produce pickers. Why does Michelle Obama hate America? WHY!?!?!?
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report