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

Hostess going out of business

Page 7 of 11 [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Nov 2012, 10:30 pm

auntblabby wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I believe it was Aristotle who also said, "Women for children, boys for pleasure."



Can you provide a source for that? Book and verse number.

for the benefit of curious WPers everywhere, it was Aristotle who wrote about such things [pederasty] in Politics, II 6.6. Athen. XIII 603a. but the phrase "Women for breeding, boys for pleasure, but melons for sheer delight" is a Pathan proverb, also reported in similar forms from the Arab countries, Iran and North Africa. this was referenced in Sir Richard Burton's translation of Kama Sutra: the Hindu art of lovemaking, intro.

thank god for wiki. :)

back to the thread at hand, i believe the baker's union just could not abide the hostess' management giving itself millions in bonuses despite losing the firm $300 million over the last decade. they believed that if they just knuckled under to those robber barons, they would be prostituting themselves to those bloodsuckers. IOW it was a matter of personal honor for the baker's union.


Thanks for the info.
And I agree with you on the Baker's Union.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

21 Nov 2012, 10:44 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMhxH7WWWOQ[/youtube]



Gazelle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,333
Location: Tropical island

21 Nov 2012, 10:48 pm

The less we have unions the better and any job that forces someone to join a union is not good business.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/why-unions-a ... r-workers/


_________________
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate, but that we are powerful beyond measure."


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,699
Location: the island of defective toy santas

21 Nov 2012, 10:55 pm

Gazelle wrote:
The less we have unions the better and any job that forces someone to join a union is not good business.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/why-unions-a ... r-workers/

i have nothing but good things to say about the AFGE.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 12:40 am

Gazelle wrote:
The less we have unions the better and any job that forces someone to join a union is not good business.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/why-unions-a ... r-workers/


Without unions, there would be no great paying jobs with benefits. Because pf organized labor, my Dad was able to buy a house free and clear when I was a kid, my Mom didn't have to work outside the home, and we had disposable income and medical coverage. None of that would have been possible without my Dad's union.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

22 Nov 2012, 8:57 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Gazelle wrote:
The less we have unions the better and any job that forces someone to join a union is not good business.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/why-unions-a ... r-workers/


Without unions, there would be no great paying jobs with benefits. Because pf organized labor, my Dad was able to buy a house free and clear when I was a kid, my Mom didn't have to work outside the home, and we had disposable income and medical coverage. None of that would have been possible without my Dad's union.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That's Communism for you. :wink:



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2012, 12:24 pm

I'm trying be objective, not spike the ball on anyone's heads, if this sounds offensive.

Firstly, professing teamster organizers dressed as historical, Communist figures in leftist rallies, but still treat this characterization as a conspiracy theory. Had there been no self contradictions, I might have accepted this as a difference in worldviews and nothing more.

I grew up poor, was very happy for what I now know to be a banged up, gas heater on the wall, and the smell of what I now realize to be very tacky TV dinners in the oven. I was glad for Thrift store finds, dumpster dives, off-brand drink mix, and, yes, the occasional pastry from the Hostess thrift shop. My playground was an abandoned house, and my den was the public library. When you're apolitical, you don't ask where this stuff came from.

But, in the interest of engaging onlookers in perpetual revolution, the unionists have caused some confusion, as to what is middle class.

I have read the Communist literature, and understand it works like this:

Peasant
off the books, under the table

Low class
prisoner, welfare recipient, tax subsidized, blue collar proletariat on the public dole, civil servant

Middle class
entrepreneur, white collar exec, (petty) bourgeoisie, financially independent

High class
leverages enough wealth to pander influence.

Haven't unionists been telling the legally irresponsible, lower class that they are at war against their employers?



Last edited by friedmacguffins on 22 Nov 2012, 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Nov 2012, 12:25 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
I'm trying be objective, not spike the ball on anyone's heads, if this sounds offensive.

Firstly, professing teamster organizers dressed as historical, Communist figures in leftist rallies, but still treat this characterization as a conspiracy theory. Had there been no self contradictions, I might have accepted this as a difference in worldviews and nothing more.

I grew up poor, was very happy for what I now know to be a banged up, gas heater on the wall, and the smell of what I now realize to be very tacky TV dinners in the oven. I was glad for Thrift store finds, dumpster dives, off-brand drink mix, and, yes, the occasional pastry from the Hostess thrift shop. My playground was an abandoned house, and my den was the public library. When you're apolitical, you don't ask where this stuff came from.

But, in the interest of engaging onlookers in perpetual revolution, the unionists have caused some confusion, as to what is middle class.

I have read the Communist literature, and understand it works like this:

Low class
prisoner, welfare recipient, tax subsidized, blue collar proletariat on the public dole, civil servant

Middle class
entrepreneur, white collar exec, (petty) bourgeoisie, financially independent

High class
leverages enough wealth to pander influence.

Haven't unionists been telling the legally irresponsible, lower class that they are at war against their employers?


And if the Proles win the society will go back to primitive agriculture.

ruveyn



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2012, 12:32 pm

(I edited, to add peasant.)

I have not seen any independence of initiative, on behalf of collectivists, consider them to be false opposition, or a whipping boy, bought and paid-for, by business interests.

I don't care what Billy Ray Cyrus says about hillbillies fighting for labor rights. The fight was settled by the military.

What these people have was given to them.

Like I said, I'm not begrudging anyone for a basic living.

I don't think you entitle yourself to it, by spreading cholera in an Occupy encampment.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 1:31 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
I'm trying be objective, not spike the ball on anyone's heads, if this sounds offensive.

Firstly, professing teamster organizers dressed as historical, Communist figures in leftist rallies, but still treat this characterization as a conspiracy theory. Had there been no self contradictions, I might have accepted this as a difference in worldviews and nothing more.

I grew up poor, was very happy for what I now know to be a banged up, gas heater on the wall, and the smell of what I now realize to be very tacky TV dinners in the oven. I was glad for Thrift store finds, dumpster dives, off-brand drink mix, and, yes, the occasional pastry from the Hostess thrift shop. My playground was an abandoned house, and my den was the public library. When you're apolitical, you don't ask where this stuff came from.

But, in the interest of engaging onlookers in perpetual revolution, the unionists have caused some confusion, as to what is middle class.

I have read the Communist literature, and understand it works like this:

Peasant
off the books, under the table

Low class
prisoner, welfare recipient, tax subsidized, blue collar proletariat on the public dole, civil servant

Middle class
entrepreneur, white collar exec, (petty) bourgeoisie, financially independent

High class
leverages enough wealth to pander influence.

Haven't unionists been telling the legally irresponsible, lower class that they are at war against their employers?


The only time when I had done any dumpster diving had been when I had been really drunk with my friends years ago; but it's something I don't want my daughter doing.
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



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2012, 1:45 pm

Someone had given me an encyclopedia and a fresh looking sweater. I had not found out about where they came from, until much later.

That's the same way I think of union-made goods, and other cheap crap.

If you don't know any better, you're glad for anything.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2012, 1:51 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Haven't unionists been telling the legally irresponsible, lower class that they are at war against their employers?

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.


In fact, the old money used to think of class symbiosis, not warfare.

They used the symbol of the beehive, or the mud sill (building foundation.)



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 1:53 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Someone had given me an encyclopedia and a fresh looking sweater. I had not found out about where they came from, until much later.

That's the same way I think of union-made goods, and other cheap crap.

If you don't know any better, you're glad for anything.


Maybe I got up too late, and am still too sleepy to get the message you're trying to convey, but - - what?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2012, 4:44 pm

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.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 5:05 pm

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



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Nov 2012, 5:12 pm

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.