- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Maybe the "job creators" should step up and do that.
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.
They have...18000 of them. Those 18000 dont like the terms. So we have an impasse. Now...maybe instead those with all the 'better ideas' ought to step up. A little bit of put up or shut up.Maybe the "job creators" should step up and do that.
Unions are under contract too. Did you consider that?
Maybe the "job creators" should step up and do that.
They have already discussed the options and it's come now down to either continuing the strike and losing their jobs, or ending the strike and remaining employed... Logic dictates that this is a no-brainer.
They have...18000 of them. Those 18000 dont like the terms. So we have an impasse. Now...maybe instead those with all the 'better ideas' ought to step up. A little bit of put up or shut up.
Look, the Union is being idiotic here. But anybody who thinks it's all that simple...really it's not.
Yet. Regardless...you always have better ways...you always are so much better at the notion of job creation than those that have actually spent...oh...I dont know...decades actually CREATING jobs....so...why this timidness? Why is it when challenged to actually stand by your own ideas do you fail to do so?We keep hearing from the GOP "cut taxes on job creators so they can create jobs." Nobody's taxes have gone up yet.
That time has already come and gone...
What the Union and their workers are left with is a choice between:
a) Ending the strike, accepting the 8% pay cut and keeping their jobs
b) Continuing the strike, the company folding, and all 18,000 workers losing their jobs.
What in your estimate, is the best choice of action here... "a" or "b" ?
They should take a temporary pay cut with contract guarantees of returning to nominal pay scale in the future.
Look, the negotiations are over. I don't know what Hostess was offering, nor what the unions were demanding, but it's obvious that they couldn't come to an agreement... You are still in negotiation mode here, and that time has long passed.
What we have now is 2, and only 2 choices... Either workers continue the strike and lose their jobs, or they end the strike and keep their jobs at an 8% reduction in pay... There's nothing else available here.
Yet. Regardless...you always have better ways...you always are so much better at the notion of job creation than those that have actually spent...oh...I dont know...decades actually CREATING jobs....so...why this timidness? Why is it when challenged to actually stand by your own ideas do you fail to do so?
I gave you my answer, sorry if you don't like it.
It's not a matter of liking it or not, it's a FACT that it's not an option that is on the table.
Why do so many refuse to face reality head on?
I gave you my answer, sorry if you don't like it.
I must have missed it...
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:
You missed it because it wasn't what you wanted to hear. The company hasn't folded yet, there's plenty of time for management to present a new contract to avoid failure.
So instead of giving your opinion on the actual situation, you'd rather pretend that the situation is something that it's not, in order to avoid giving your opinion...
Anyone who can't answer a simple question about their beliefs, must embrace some really flawed beliefs... Why else would they refuse to publicly express them?
I didn't say I was better at it. I'm just waiting for the "experts" to actually do it.
It can't be done while half the country is venomously anti-business.
It is best that both sides work towards a mutually acceptable solution. This isn't a one party thing. The aggressiveness of unions was in response to the aggressive nature of companies to take advantage of workers. And once the trust and loyalty between company and worker were lost, we escalated up to the "mutually ensured destruction" scenario we have now. It would be great if the unions would take the hit with the company making assurances and contract as to improving pay and hours back to their nominal levels when crisis is adverted; but when both sides are clamoring for the whole pie, this is what we get.
There is nothing mutual about it.
Management has an extremely useful and profitable skill set. Labor does not.
Management will be employed in similar jobs with similar salaries within a few months. These laborers will almost certainly never again be offered what management is graciously offering them.
There is nothing mutual about it.
Management has an extremely useful and profitable skill set. Labor does not.
Management will be employed in similar jobs with similar salaries within a few months. These laborers will almost certainly never again be offered what management is graciously offering them.
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?