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 48
    More: Asinine, CEO, Hostess Brands, bankruptcy  
•       •       •

4606 clicks; posted to Business » on 16 Nov 2012 at 7:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-16 08:04:48 PM
8 votes:

OregonVet: oren0: So this increase could have been redistributed to all employees, giving each of them $100.


Symbols matter.

That's not even a dent in the bucket each employee pays the Union over the course of a year.


It's hard to persuade thousands of employees who make working class salaries to accept a cut to their quality of living while at the same time you're doubling the salaries of people at the top.

Maybe the unions would have been more willing to accept wage cuts if the people at the top were seen making their own personal sacrificies.

Let's be honest, the people in charge of Hostess have zero interest in saving the company and are using Unions as a convenient cover as they get everything they want.
2012-11-16 07:33:58 PM
8 votes:

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


No. When you have a group of people who willingly and maliciously fark over everyone else, and then that larger group of people take offensive to it and refuse to pay for the mistakes of the first group...that is not having unreasonable douches on both sides. What we have here is a group of vulture assholes who farked over an entire company and tried to blame it on the working Joes at that company. The influences each side had on the future of the company are not equal.
2012-11-16 07:56:07 PM
5 votes:

oren0: 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.


It's more than just math. Having management that actually shared the burdens of a tight budget with its workers could have done a lot to save the company. Having management that rewards itself every time it gets a concession from the workers, and eventually the workers will take their ball, their labor, and go home. Why should they sacrifice so their boss can have a raise?
2012-11-16 07:24:48 PM
5 votes:
That's what all this shiat has been about. CEOs only care about Obamacare and unions if they think it presents a threat to THEIR COMPENSATION.

They are more than willing to shiatcan their company, take boatloads of money out and fark over everyone else in the company.
2012-11-16 07:17:31 PM
5 votes:
It's the Bain plan, your debtors can't go after what you've paid out in salaries so you bleed the company coffers into your upper management and throw the blame on someone else.
2012-11-17 11:06:57 AM
3 votes:

aspAddict: So yeah, in my experience - unions are counter-productive as all get out. Fark em.


Read this book about what a world without unions looks like:

www.capitalcentury.com
2012-11-16 07:45:16 PM
3 votes:
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.
2012-11-16 07:18:50 PM
3 votes:
They also blamed the strike for closing three plants that they'd already said were going to be closed long before the strike

/Corporations are people
//really, really, f*cked people
2012-11-16 07:13:27 PM
3 votes:
From looking at the past, I've found that things like this happens when you have unreasonable douches on both sides.
2012-11-17 09:40:15 AM
2 votes:

WhyteRaven74: ReapTheChaos: how can you justify some guy making 25 bucks an hour when all he does is tighten the lug nuts on a car tire as it passes by on the assembly line?



================

Another rocket surgeon who knows everything after listening to years of lectures at Limbaugh U.

First, economics: YOU FAIL. Try enrolling in a real university.....no Hollywood Upstairs School of Business doesn't count.....take few courses in economics.

Second, why don't you get back in your time machine and ask Henry Ford. Once upon a time, before the auto industry was unionized, Henry raised the pay of his workers from $1 per day to $5 per day. $5 per day was big money at the time. Why did he do that? Hmmmmmm.

Sell the antique collection of dildos you inherited from your grandfather and buy a plane ticket to Germany. German auto companies pay their workers $67/ hr on average....more than double US auto worker average. German auto makers are ALL unionized, unlike their American counterparts.....unlike their American counterparts, they are also profitable. Go see for yourself.

BTW, you wouldn't last an hour on an auto assembly line. "Mommy, the cars just keep on coming, it never stops! It was like one of Dante's circles of hell! Where's my bottle of oxy?"
2012-11-17 08:33:55 AM
2 votes:

WhyteRaven74: If he tightens the lug nuts on all 4 wheels on a car and does 30 cars an hour, the cost of his labor is 28.3 cents a wheel. Not exactly a lot. If he just tightens the lug nuts on two wheels per car at the rate of 30 cars an hour, the cost of his labor jumps all the way to 41.6 cents per wheel. Also not exactly much.


It's more doublethink.
The executives need more. More money. More bonuses. More benefits. The value they bring to the company justifies their pay.
The laborer doesn't deserve money, bonuses, or benefits. It doesn't matter how much value he brings to the company.

Then the executives biatch when they can't find good workers or the union gets tired of their shiat.
2012-11-17 06:26:15 AM
2 votes:

StokeyBob: 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.



Things like that are why unfettered Capitalism sucks, IMHO.
2012-11-17 01:47:05 AM
2 votes:
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.
2012-11-16 11:27:36 PM
2 votes:
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 10:45:02 PM
2 votes:

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 10:43:54 PM
2 votes:

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 10:17:16 PM
2 votes:

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 10:00:12 PM
2 votes:

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 09:54:07 PM
2 votes:
I swear corporations are like abusive husbands: "Look what you made me do!"
2012-11-16 09:32:10 PM
2 votes:
What happened at Hostess was like a terminal cancer patient deciding to shoot himself in the head. Yeah, he had cancer, but the cause of death was a motherfarking bullet.

And the unions are not responsible for killing the company, the idiots at the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union are responsible.

The Teamsters Union looked at Hostess's books and realized that there was no way that the company could fork over any more money, and they compromised.

The Bakers union weren't going to let a little thing like math get in the way of their pensions.
2012-11-16 08:07:56 PM
2 votes:
As has been said in other threads, when the farking Teamsters accept a larger pay cut and tell your union to stand down, the company really is broke and you should probably take their advice.
2012-11-16 07:49:13 PM
2 votes:
Maybe people are tired of eating those little turds of sugar and chemicals.
2012-11-16 07:38:37 PM
2 votes:
Is anyone surprised?
And is anyone further surprised when the free market asstards roll into to blame the unions for refusing a deal that sees their wages slashed and benefits cut to award a 300% raise to their boss?
2012-11-16 07:24:43 PM
2 votes:
NPR had a nice little take on this. Something like 'Why didn't Hostess embrace their unhealthy foods? Make it counter culture to eat a twinkie? Why not make twinkie vodka or some such? It seemed like they didn't care and were willing to fade away.

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

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

This doesn't help, either.
2012-11-18 03:06:54 PM
1 votes:

Silverstaff: jst3p: Oh, I see you have a shiat job and likely are not equipped with marketable job skills that are in demand.

The problem isn't 401k plans, it is you.

Well, let's see. . .

When I got the job, it was in 2007, you know, when the job market crashed hard and nobody could find work. Try finding a job circa Spring 2007 as a recent college graduate.

I had 2 B.A.'s (History and Political Science), with job experience working in tech support and legal research/legal secretary work, could type 75 words per minute, and spoke fluent Spanish and Japanese.

Didn't matter. No jobs out there at all. I spent almost a year hunting for any job I could find, anything. Started with stuff I had experience and training for, but despite hundreds of applications and a few dozen interviews, they went nowhere. I got desperate enough that I wasn't above flipping burgers, but even retail and food service weren't immediately hiring. Working in that shiathole of a call center wasn't the bright spot of my career, but it paid the bills (barely).

As for now? I've done a lot in the 4 years since I left that job. I've got skills, I've got credentials, I still believe 401k is a joke and an actual pension is something far more trustworthy. I've never seen anything to change my mind about them. I'll trust my military pension and my police retirement pension far more than I'll trust the bad joke that is 401k.


In July of 2011 we received a letter from the company. It said that the $3+ per hour that we as a Union contribute to the pension was going to be 'borrowed' by the company until they could be profitable again. Then they would pay it all back. The Union was notified of this the same time and method as the individual members. No contact from the company to the Union on a national level.

This money will never be paid back. The company filed for bankruptcy and the judge ruled that the $3+ per hour was a debt the company couldn't repay. The Union continued to work despite this theft of our self-funded pension contributions for over a year. I consider this money stolen. No other word in the English language describes what they have done to this money.


Link

I will keep my 401k and my investment property (will be properties by the time I retire) thank you very much.
2012-11-18 04:00:32 AM
1 votes:
I wanna see all these Randian freaks tell us what they get paid per hour.
2012-11-17 06:20:01 PM
1 votes:

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.



It's kinda like Mike Tyson owning an exotic pets zoo with albino tigers. Is it singlehandedly the reason why he blew through $100 million dollars in ten years? No. However, the fact that he thought it would be a good idea to have "pets" who do nothing but sit in a cage and eat thousands of dollars worth of meat a month indicates someone who has no farkin clue how to handle money.



Did a million dollar CEO raise while the company was in financial straits single handedly sink the company? No. Is it a sign of utter incompetence and a predatory attitude by it's management? Yes.
2012-11-17 11:03:55 AM
1 votes:
This isn't just Twinkies and Ho Hos that are abut to go extinct. Hostess also owns/makes (the former) Dolly Madison's Zingers as well as Wonder Bread.

And I wonder if the exec's plan all along was to Bainify the company, and all the strike did was prompt the vampires to speed up the timetable to 3. Profit?
2012-11-17 09:38:57 AM
1 votes:
CSB

I worked at a company that manufactured multi-million dollar automated welding machines. We had to remove a sensor and re-calibrate it. This sensor was behind a panel that was secured with two bolts. I told my co-worker to hand me a wrench and I would hop in and take the plate off. He told me that I would get fired if I did because we had to have a union guy do the wrench turning.

Not wanting to get fired, I let him make the call to the building across the street. They said "We'll send someone over." Three hours later, a guy meanders in, takes the bolts off, and we can get back to work.

A couple hours of testing and calibrating and we had the sensor fixed and back in place, all we had to do was put the cover back in place and we could do a test run. It was about 4:30 PM, and when we called the Certified Wrench Turners Department, no one answered. I wandered over to see if anyone was there, and of course they had all knocked off at 4:00. I went back, told my co-worker, "Fark it...they've already put us 3 hours behind schedule." and tightened the bolts myself.

So yeah, in my experience - unions are counter-productive as all get out. Fark em.

/CSB
2012-11-17 07:47:28 AM
1 votes:

oren0: I said that the argument that his pay was the cause of the bankruptcy flies in the face of basic math


It has little to do with math. The pay raise was part of the cause of the bankrupcty. When you're asking people who make an average middle class salary to take a substantial cut to their compensation while you're shifting dollars at the top to give people already living high on the hog a huge raise, the people you're asking to take on the pain are much less likely to think they should listen to you.

It's a negotiation and management went to the table with a weak hand it created for itself. There are myriad reasons the company went bankrupt. This is one of them. It also strongly suggests management is incompetent more generally, which is probably the single biggest reason.
2012-11-17 06:36:43 AM
1 votes:

SockMonkeyHolocaust: 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.


That's always been my take on unions, how can you justify some guy making 25 bucks an hour when all he does is tighten the lug nuts on a car tire as it passes by on the assembly line? I could give a rats ass if he's been working there 30 years or not. If people want to earn more money then they should get promoted or learn a more valuable skill.
2012-11-17 03:57:14 AM
1 votes:
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 02:56:57 AM
1 votes:

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 02:41:11 AM
1 votes:
Ahh Communists, proven wrong so many times throughout history but they just can't let go of the slacker dream.
2012-11-17 02:11:39 AM
1 votes:

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 01:55:41 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-16 11:17:32 PM
1 votes:

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 11:07:18 PM
1 votes:

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 10:53:39 PM
1 votes:

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 10:34:48 PM
1 votes:

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 10:02:07 PM
1 votes:
Enjoy your foodstamps ObamaTards.
2012-11-16 09:56:17 PM
1 votes:

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 09:55:03 PM
1 votes:
Correlation does NOT equal causation.

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

Did he earn more money that the line workers?

Yeah. So? Why does this bother you?
Bosses make more money.
If any of the union workers had truly planned their lives they would be CEOs or have their own companies but they didn't so they don't.

Stop biatching and being jelous of those who've done better than you.
Obama is a liar; you DON'T deserve other people's money.
2012-11-16 08:00:24 PM
1 votes:

Sergeant Grumbles: It's more than just math. Having management that actually shared the burdens of a tight budget with its workers could have done a lot to save the company. Having management that rewards itself every time it gets a concession from the workers, and eventually the workers will take their ball, their labor, and go home. Why should they sacrifice so their boss can have a raise?


For reals. This is bad management. Now they're bankrupt. I wonder why?
2012-11-16 07:58:38 PM
1 votes:
Fark unions and fark the sheep that belong to them. That doesn't mean I agree with management, I just think union members deserve this kind of crap for blindly following their union bosses.
2012-11-16 07:57:42 PM
1 votes:
So we've got an exploded oil rig, turmoil in Jordan, escalating conflict in Israel, a big election coming up in Sierra Leone, and the eyes of America are focused on a snack cake company which may not be able to sell it's assets, resulting in one less cream filled treat on the market.

Got it.
2012-11-16 07:51:19 PM
1 votes:

oren0: So this increase could have been redistributed to all employees, giving each of them $100.


That's not even a dent in the bucket each employee pays the Union over the course of a year.
2012-11-16 07:24:54 PM
1 votes:

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!"
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report