Twilight for Twinkies? Hostess Workers Strike as Company Struggles

  • Thread starter Thread starter didymus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker1961 said:
This whole thing is a public relations move to get all of the consumers who grew up with a Twinkie in their lunch box to blame workers instead of the CEO’s who took, and took and took no matter what happened. 300 times what the worker makes??? Really??? You couldn’t take 200 times what the worker makes to save the company???
Click to expand...
I would need more information than that to ascertain anything.
 
ProVobis said:
“Big Labor” takes risks in doing such deeds against private or publically-traded companies. They deserve whatever they get, good or bad. In a good way, they can save the company lots of Wage and Salary Administration costs and police themselves to better productivity.

OTOH “Big Labor” has no business in the government sector.
Click to expand...
Show me one example where Big Labor has made something more efficient.

I’ll wager they’re too busy trying to elect democrats and getting in bed with government.
 
SamH said:
Agreed, but that doesn’t mean any of these people will have jobs. Most likely some private label brand will buy the name and produce product at their own plants.
Click to expand...
True. In general, bankruptcy has little long run economic effect, it just changes who gets the jobs.
 
So why aren’t you guys complaining about NFL quarterback salaries compared the Bakers Union wages or the concessionaire stand attendants wages. Seems like a bit of bigotry here towards CEOs.
 
stevegravy said:
So why aren’t you guys complaining about NFL quarterback salaries compared the Bakers Union wages or the concessionaire stand attendants wages. Seems like a bit of bigotry here towards CEOs.
Click to expand...
I don’t complain about the current players because they have their own union that has collectively bargained for their pay and benefits. It is the NFL owners that have grabbed the cash and ran while leaving retired players to face debilitating injury and paying low wages to the concession workers. It is shameful to see how those workers and retired players are treated while watching the owners pocket billions and continue to complain about how they aren’t making enough.

Make as much money as you want, just don’t stomp on the needs and rights of others while you do it.
 
stevegravy said:
So why aren’t you guys complaining about NFL quarterback salaries compared the Bakers Union wages or the concessionaire stand attendants wages. Seems like a bit of bigotry here towards CEOs.
Click to expand...
I actually didn’t complain about CEO salaries, but I am never at a loss for an opinion, so here goes. I think one difference is that we can actually see and measure the quarterbacks performance and tell whether he is overpaid or underpaid. Where as with CEOs it gets a little trickier. CEOs can have good performance for two reasons, one is that they make prudent decisions, or they get lucky. For example, if you were a bank CEO from 2000-2006 you didn’t need a lot of intelligence for your firm to do good and make a lot of money. The problem is that it is hard to disentangle these two and the other problem is that there are incentive problems that stem from the principal agent problem.

So CEO is a reasonable topic to discuss.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem
 
Seeker1961 said:
This whole thing is a public relations move to get all of the consumers who grew up with a Twinkie in their lunch box to blame workers instead of the CEO’s who took, and took and took no matter what happened. 300 times what the worker makes??? Really??? You couldn’t take 200 times what the worker makes to save the company???
Click to expand...
There are some serious problems with your math and your facts. First of all, the CEO’s salary was raised from $750,000 to $2,550,000. That is a 240% increase, not 300%. It also failed to notice that while the base salary was raised, his bonus was eliminated. Most importantly for CEO Brian Driscoll, he did not actually get the money. He resigned and a new CEO with bankruptcy expertise was brought in.

The claim that anyone was paid 300 times what the worker makes is bizarre. Even if the CEO had gotten the full $2,550,000, for that to be 300 times a worker’s wage, that worker would be getting only $8500 per year, or about $4.08 per hour. That is a lot less than minimum wage. The workers should have fired their union reps a long time ago if they had a contract at less than minimum wage.

If the CEO had worked for nothing at all, do you really think that could have saved the company? $2,550,000 divided over the 18,500 workers comes to $137.84 each.
 
torch621 said:
Big Labor, aka the foolish unions who only care about getting theirs at the expense of the company. Apparently, seeing that their members have jobs is less important than wages the company can no longer afford to give.

And do you honestly think the Catholic Church approves of a union threatening to drive the company into bankruptcy or out of business entirely because they feel it’s not enough to be paid $25 an hour to screw in light bulbs (to use a hypothetical), or the VIOLENCE committed by unions to further the union’s activities? Unions are not immune from criticism, and if you’re not going to criticize them, I will.

Pax.
Click to expand...
Pax? You seem to lack any knowledge of the siutation. But, you take an opportunity to vent your hatered of workers rights. :rolleyes: So, on the one hand. We have workers standing up for what they believe in. On the other hand we have you.🤷

I choose the Workers.

ATB
 
Trader said:
There are some serious problems with your math and your facts. First of all, the CEO’s salary was raised from $750,000 to $2,550,000. That is a 240% increase, not 300%. It also failed to notice that while the base salary was raised, his bonus was eliminated. Most importantly for CEO Brian Driscoll, he did not actually get the money. He resigned and a new CEO with bankruptcy expertise was brought in.

The claim that anyone was paid 300 times what the worker makes is bizarre. Even if the CEO had gotten the full $2,550,000, for that to be 300 times a worker’s wage, that worker would be getting only $8500 per year, or about $4.08 per hour. That is a lot less than minimum wage. The workers should have fired their union reps a long time ago if they had a contract at less than minimum wage.

If the CEO had worked for nothing at all, do you really think that could have saved the company? $2,550,000 divided over the 18,500 workers comes to $137.84 each.
Click to expand...
Seems that now answers the question and makes sense.
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Pax? You seem to lack any knowledge of the siutation. But, you take an opportunity to vent your hatered of workers rights. :rolleyes: So, on the one hand. We have workers standing up for what they believe in. On the other hand we have you.🤷

I choose the Workers.

ATB
Click to expand...
Well, if you think they deserve more, no one is stopping you from writing out a check.

Otherwise, I say let the free market decide.
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Big labor? What are you going on about?* I would take this moment to point out the Catholic Church supports the labor movement. So do I.*

The workers at hostess have given many concessions. only to see the money wasted.

ATB
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church supports just wages. If they support corrupt unions, those who do so could be guilty of sin of scandal.
 
Twinkies…designed to survive a nuclear blast but not this economy. Seems the union traded an 8% pay cut for 100%.
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Pax? You seem to lack any knowledge of the siutation. But, you take an opportunity to vent your hatered of workers rights. :rolleyes: So, on the one hand. We have workers standing up for what they believe in. On the other hand we have you.🤷

I choose the Workers.

ATB
Click to expand...
You’re a perfect example of the “unions are always right” attitude that I despise entirely. So you don’t mind 18,500 workers losing their jobs because the union can’t take a pay cut in order to help keep the company afloat? Yeah, getting paid less and losing some benefits sucks, but you know what sucks even more? Not having a job at all.

It’s a shame that you would rather slander me as an enemy of workers rather than consider that simple fact, or the simple fact that unions can be wrong. Like a typical leftist does; dont’ like welfare dependence? You hate poor people. Criticize a union for threatening to drive a company out of business and thereby stabbing it’s members in the back? You hate workers. I’ve heard this song and dance before, and it is and always will be a load of ****.

I pray you get some perspective, sir.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top