It seems like a win-win. Not sure what everyone is upset about. Hostess says it must cut costs due to a bankruptcy agreement and will in no uncertain terms shut down if the strike continues. Unions declare they refuse to work for the salaries offered. Shut it down. Win win. The world will live without Twinkies.
Max weekly unemployment pay out in Oklahoma is $358/week, or $8.95/hr on a 40 hour week.
Max weekly unemployment pay out in Texas is $415/week, or $10.38/hr on a 40 hour week.
What the hell are they thinking? They're willing to sacrifice an average of $9.60-$11 an hour in order to avoid losing an average of $2?!
(Source for unemployment pay outs here: Unemployment Benefits Comparison by State
Who wins and who loses here by not ending the strike:
Company - Folds rather than continuing... They lose
Unions - No dues from 18,000 people... They lose
Workers - Go from $18 per hour + benefits, to approx $10 per hour and no benefits... They lose
Consumer - No more Hostess products like Twinkies and Ding Dongs... They lose
Government/Public - Go from collecting corporate taxes from Hostess and income taxes from 18,000 employees, to collecting no corporate taxes from Hostess, no income taxes from up to 18,000 workers and instead having to pay those people weekly wages not to work for up to 99 weeks... They lose
Can anyone think of who wins here... Because I sure can't?
It seems like a win-win. Not sure what everyone is upset about. Hostess says it must cut costs due to a bankruptcy agreement and will in no uncertain terms shut down if the strike continues. Unions declare they refuse to work for the salaries offered. Shut it down. Win win. The world will live without Twinkies.
The no more Hostess products could be a win. Or it could cause a huge riot by fat people in those little electric scooters.
Who wins and who loses here by not ending the strike:
Company - Folds rather than continuing... They lose
Unions - No dues from 18,000 people... They lose
Workers - Go from $18 per hour + benefits, to approx $10 per hour and no benefits... They lose
Consumer - No more Hostess products like Twinkies and Ding Dongs... They lose
Government/Public - Go from collecting corporate taxes from Hostess and income taxes from 18,000 employees, to collecting no corporate taxes from Hostess, no income taxes from up to 18,000 workers and instead having to pay those people weekly wages not to work for up to 99 weeks... They lose
Can anyone think of who wins here... Because I sure can't?
Meh...they can shut it down, sell it off, and let a non-union company start from scratch. Lost in all the union/anti-union bull**** is the glaring and obvious success of non-union auto manufacturing in this country. No need to play the game.Straight out of Democratic dogma. Close every company. Throw everyone out of work. For a platitude.
So you feel that offsets everything else I listed and makes continuing the strike and the company shutting down a good thing?
With 18,000 more people to take care of the Democrat party wins.
Straight out of Democratic dogma. Close every company. Throw everyone out of work. For a platitude.
Companies like Nestle and Coke would undoubtedly have taken an interest in the brand name a few decades ago but, as Luther points out, there is a very real possibility that snack foods like that could be banned in the near future. There is just no real sense in spending the millions required to produce these snacks if the shelf life may only be a few years.
Why is it all the Union? Do the executives not get paid?
It's all part of the picture of what's going on. Do you think it's OK for them to have huge salaries and not take cuts but only asking for that from the Union? I'm not even saying that's happening, but it would help paint the full picture rather than just blaming the favorite right-wing bogeyman.
I have no say in the matter. Not only do I not eat Hostess products, I am neither manager nor union worker involved in the company. What do you want me to do about it?
With 18,000 more people to take care of the Democrat party wins.
This issue is cut and dry, and has nothing to do with executive pay. This is a simple choice between accepting a pay cut from a struggling company going through bankruptcy, and making an average of $18 an hour... Or forcing the company to close their doors, liquidate their assets, and all 18,000 employees lose their jobs permanently, and go on unemployment instead.
What do you think is the right choice is here?
I think the political affiliation of 18,000 unionized employees choosing unemployment over $18/hour for menial work is already established.
The Democrat party already owns these "workers".
God, how thick can we lay on the partisan bull****?
18,000 people are going to lose their jobs, but I guess it's OK since they're Democrats. :roll:
No, it's 'ok' because they are doing it to themselves, out of their own greed. And due to blindly following the union, who clearly is not really looking out for their well being.
Nobody has asked, nor does anyone expect, that you to do anything about it... You were simply asked to give your opinion from an economic standpoint, of what is the best course of action for the union workers on strike to take.
Is that so hard?
I already gave you that answer. Of course its better to work towards a mutually acceptable solution. But as I said, neither side has any loyalty to the other and this is what happens.
That wasn't the question... It's no longer about the 2 sides working toward a solution.
it's about either continuing the strike, the company folding, and 18.000 people losing their jobs... Or ending the strike, the company staying open, and workers accepting an 8% reduction in pay and keeping their jobs.
That is the question and I would like to know what you think would be best for the workers and for the American economy?
No reason for them to lose their jobs. The Union can simply employ them. Give them jobs. Good lord...its about time the Unions stopped being parasites. Id LOVE to see them actually buy the plant and run it AS a union plant. Time to step the **** up for once. Live your word.God, how thick can we lay on the partisan bull****?
18,000 people are going to lose their jobs, but I guess it's OK since they're Democrats. :roll:
Now if the company closes here, everybody loses in some sense. Does it make sense for the executives to be getting hundreds of thousands and ask for cuts only from the Unions? It's all interconnected. It's all a company's expense. Have you ever worked for a large corporation that's top heavy? It's sad, and when cuts come, who gets cut? Not the executives, that's for sure.
In this case, what she is asking for most likely is for the government to not enforce the terms of a contract, but to change them for a "fairness" result.
It is best that both sides work towards a mutually acceptable solution.
Did you ever consider that the executives are under contract and their salary can't be touched? That can easily include any bonuses, fringe benefits, severance payments, deferred payments, retirement benefits, etc. Why liberals insist businesses go up a tree they can't go up is beyond me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?