Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Hostess going out of business

Page 8 of 11 [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 5:16 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
friedmacguffins wrote:
In short, it's a mutually beneficial relationship, not an example of parasitism, in that the workers and delegators are both better off, than if they had nothing.

The hangers-on are not parasitic, because they contribute labor.

The managers, bondholders, etc, are not parasitic, because they had a vision and took legal responsibility for it.


The relationship becomes exploitative if the employer skimps on wages despite hours worked, doesn't provide a safe working environment, refuses to negotiate with workers or their representatives, and fires employees at a whim.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


On the flipside we have schools having problems firing teachers whom are under investigation of sexually molesting students, due to the unions. There are some good unions and some bad unions.

The situation here was Hostess was in bankruptcy, the cuts were being made in order to try to survive, not shortchange workers out of malice.


But Hostess' bad fortune can be attributable to mismanagement. Now, the same management want golden parachutes while their workers are left treading in the air.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 121
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

22 Nov 2012, 5:46 pm

Twinkies were doomed, anyway.

http://news.yahoo.com/twinkies-bakers-t ... nance.html

Back in the 1960s, Twinkies were a salient part of the American diet. But, who eats that garbage any more? Yuck!



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

22 Nov 2012, 9:12 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
friedmacguffins wrote:
In short, it's a mutually beneficial relationship, not an example of parasitism, in that the workers and delegators are both better off, than if they had nothing.

The hangers-on are not parasitic, because they contribute labor.

The managers, bondholders, etc, are not parasitic, because they had a vision and took legal responsibility for it.


The relationship becomes exploitative if the employer skimps on wages despite hours worked, doesn't provide a safe working environment, refuses to negotiate with workers or their representatives, and fires employees at a whim.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


On the flipside we have schools having problems firing teachers whom are under investigation of sexually molesting students, due to the unions. There are some good unions and some bad unions.

The situation here was Hostess was in bankruptcy, the cuts were being made in order to try to survive, not shortchange workers out of malice.


But Hostess' bad fortune can be attributable to mismanagement. Now, the same management want golden parachutes while their workers are left treading in the air.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That "Mismanagement" was having 300 contractual obligations with multiple unions that created massive amounts of redundancy in labor and expenses they were legally obligated to keep- even having to use multiple trucks and drivers to make a delivery to a single place that could have been done by one. The unions sucked Hostess dry and will now have to go find a new host organism.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 11:50 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
friedmacguffins wrote:
In short, it's a mutually beneficial relationship, not an example of parasitism, in that the workers and delegators are both better off, than if they had nothing.

The hangers-on are not parasitic, because they contribute labor.

The managers, bondholders, etc, are not parasitic, because they had a vision and took legal responsibility for it.


The relationship becomes exploitative if the employer skimps on wages despite hours worked, doesn't provide a safe working environment, refuses to negotiate with workers or their representatives, and fires employees at a whim.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


On the flipside we have schools having problems firing teachers whom are under investigation of sexually molesting students, due to the unions. There are some good unions and some bad unions.

The situation here was Hostess was in bankruptcy, the cuts were being made in order to try to survive, not shortchange workers out of malice.


But Hostess' bad fortune can be attributable to mismanagement. Now, the same management want golden parachutes while their workers are left treading in the air.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That "Mismanagement" was having 300 contractual obligations with multiple unions that created massive amounts of redundancy in labor and expenses they were legally obligated to keep- even having to use multiple trucks and drivers to make a delivery to a single place that could have been done by one. The unions sucked Hostess dry and will now have to go find a new host organism.


That's something Hostess could have negotiated, rather than demanding all their workers take a pay and benefits cut.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Thatmew
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,959

23 Nov 2012, 1:14 am

I'm not sure if I said this already, perhaps on another forum but:

Nothing of value was lost.


_________________
Yes? What is it? Ok. Now that is good.


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

23 Nov 2012, 5:26 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
That's something Hostess could have negotiated, rather than demanding all their workers take a pay and benefits cut.

As part of the bankruptcy ruling, the judge authorized Hostess to renegotiate the contracts. They negotiated, but there was nothing that could be done but make cuts. The Teamsters saw the writing on the wall and made concessions, and tried to get the other 2 unions to, but they wouldn't heed the warning. Remember, companies file for bankruptcy because they don't have money to pay their debts. By law, creditors and shareholders get first priority. Employees usually aren't legally owed anything unless they own stock and there is money left to pay them along with the other shareholders after the last of the assets are liquidated.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Nov 2012, 5:57 am

John_Browning wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
That's something Hostess could have negotiated, rather than demanding all their workers take a pay and benefits cut.

As part of the bankruptcy ruling, the judge authorized Hostess to renegotiate the contracts. They negotiated, but there was nothing that could be done but make cuts. The Teamsters saw the writing on the wall and made concessions, and tried to get the other 2 unions to, but they wouldn't heed the warning. Remember, companies file for bankruptcy because they don't have money to pay their debts. By law, creditors and shareholders get first priority. Employees usually aren't legally owed anything unless they own stock and there is money left to pay them along with the other shareholders after the last of the assets are liquidated.


But why should upper management get golden parachutes while their employees are left in a crashing plane?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Nov 2012, 6:53 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
That's something Hostess could have negotiated, rather than demanding all their workers take a pay and benefits cut.

As part of the bankruptcy ruling, the judge authorized Hostess to renegotiate the contracts. They negotiated, but there was nothing that could be done but make cuts. The Teamsters saw the writing on the wall and made concessions, and tried to get the other 2 unions to, but they wouldn't heed the warning. Remember, companies file for bankruptcy because they don't have money to pay their debts. By law, creditors and shareholders get first priority. Employees usually aren't legally owed anything unless they own stock and there is money left to pay them along with the other shareholders after the last of the assets are liquidated.


But why should upper management get golden parachutes while their employees are left in a crashing plane?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Because the major shareholders have decided. And if the law required that workers be paid first, then few investors would create firms in the U.S. Business people found firms and equip them to produce their goods or services at a profit. Workers are merely the means firsts use to produce what they produce. No one goes into business primarily to benefit the workers. They never have and they never will. And if businesses are nationalized and run by the government most of us would end up standing in line 4-6 hours a day, just like in the old Soviet Union (now departed thank goodness).

You are an intelligent fellow. You should have no problem grasping the simple concept: business are run in order to produce profit for their owners. That has always been the case. If people could not make a profit then they would invest just enough money to feed themselves and their families.

ruveyn



CyborgUprising
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,963
Location: auf der Fahrt durch Niemandsland

23 Nov 2012, 10:47 am

Thatmew wrote:
I'm not sure if I said this already, perhaps on another forum but:

Nothing of value was lost.

Tell that to the people who will be coming home with no means to care for their families. In this tough economy, it is quite difficult to find employment.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Nov 2012, 10:55 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
And if there is a war between the employers (big business, to be exact) and their workers, it had been the wealthy who had fired the first shot.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Of course. It is their property rights that are being contended. A person who owns his own business is free to hire as he pleases and fire as he pleases. Employment is not a right. It is a relationship that has to entered willingly by two parties.

If I had a lot to invest, I would invest it in a mode of production that can mostly be done by robots and hire as few people is possible.

ruveyn



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

23 Nov 2012, 11:44 am

ruveyn wrote:
Of course. It is their property rights that are being contended. A person who owns his own business is free to hire as he pleases and fire as he pleases. Employment is not a right. It is a relationship that has to entered willingly by two parties.

Employment is not a right; it is a privilege!

ruveyn wrote:
If I had a lot to invest, I would invest it in a mode of production that can mostly be done by robots and hire as few people is possible. ruveyn

There's a man up in Santa Barbara who has only one employee - himself. He contracts out all of the labor for his business, which is building custom-made ambulances. Each step is bid out, each contract is budgeted, and other people (or robots?) do the work. He spends half of the day running his business, and the rest of the day surfing.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Nov 2012, 5:00 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
That's something Hostess could have negotiated, rather than demanding all their workers take a pay and benefits cut.

As part of the bankruptcy ruling, the judge authorized Hostess to renegotiate the contracts. They negotiated, but there was nothing that could be done but make cuts. The Teamsters saw the writing on the wall and made concessions, and tried to get the other 2 unions to, but they wouldn't heed the warning. Remember, companies file for bankruptcy because they don't have money to pay their debts. By law, creditors and shareholders get first priority. Employees usually aren't legally owed anything unless they own stock and there is money left to pay them along with the other shareholders after the last of the assets are liquidated.


But why should upper management get golden parachutes while their employees are left in a crashing plane?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Because the major shareholders have decided. And if the law required that workers be paid first, then few investors would create firms in the U.S. Business people found firms and equip them to produce their goods or services at a profit. Workers are merely the means firsts use to produce what they produce. No one goes into business primarily to benefit the workers. They never have and they never will. And if businesses are nationalized and run by the government most of us would end up standing in line 4-6 hours a day, just like in the old Soviet Union (now departed thank goodness).

You are an intelligent fellow. You should have no problem grasping the simple concept: business are run in order to produce profit for their owners. That has always been the case. If people could not make a profit then they would invest just enough money to feed themselves and their families.

ruveyn


But why should upper management get anything if their business fails? They f'd up, not their workers.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

23 Nov 2012, 6:14 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
But why should upper management get anything if their business fails? They f'd up, not their workers.

Maybe because "upper management" stayed on the job and tried to keep things going while the "workers" were marching, making noise, and carrying signs (e.g., not working).



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Nov 2012, 8:06 pm

Fnord wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But why should upper management get anything if their business fails? They f'd up, not their workers.

Maybe because "upper management" stayed on the job and tried to keep things going while the "workers" were marching, making noise, and carrying signs (e.g., not working).


Their f up goes back further than that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Nov 2012, 8:19 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

But why should upper management get anything if their business fails? They f'd up, not their workers.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Because that is what the owners of the business decided. It is their business, not the government's, no society's , not yours and not mine.

Do you know the difference between Mine, Yours and His?

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Nov 2012, 8:25 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But why should upper management get anything if their business fails? They f'd up, not their workers.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Because that is what the owners of the business decided. It is their business, not the government's, no society's , not yours and not mine.

Do you know the difference between Mine, Yours and His?

ruveyn


Yes, but I also know what's fair and unfair.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer