Archived: really bad news
Posted Under: Off-Topic
really bad news
11/16/12 1:44 pm | #1
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 1:57 pm | #2
Quote by heathkilljoy:
i hate to be the one to bring this to every one attention but no more Twinkies how are we going to go on without them
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=6d7b095e-e558-4dc4-83e9-1859d177e676&ocid=ansmony11
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=6d7b095e-e558-4dc4-83e9-1859d177e676&ocid=ansmony11
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 1:58 pm | #3
meh it's whatever.
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 2:24 pm | #4
Hostess mismanages their money for a decade, union puts the final nail in the coffin. How's that strike now? Oh I don't have a job anymore
As Snapple said its kind of whatever to me. I'm sure someone will buy the rights to Twinkies, it will just be General Mills Twinkies or something instead of Hostess Twinkies....
As Snapple said its kind of whatever to me. I'm sure someone will buy the rights to Twinkies, it will just be General Mills Twinkies or something instead of Hostess Twinkies....
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 3:28 pm | #5
Never want to see anyone loose a job, but talk about over playing your hand. Someone will definitely buy the properties but it will be all new people working.
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 5:28 pm | #6
I work a Union job as well, not saying I like the Unions either, but there is most likely more to this story than you see. What is not mentioned is if Hostess was going to cut the wages and benefits of their salary employees, like management, upper level management, CEO's and the like.
Everyone in the comments on the article is blaming the Unions. My job gets a 3% raise per year, which usually amounts to about 45 cents. On the news they were saying Hostess wanted to cut the workers pay by 8%, no mention on the difference in benefit pay would have been. But 8% is the equivalent of 3 years of raises.
How many of you would give back 3 years of raises, or approx $1.50 an hour? Keep in mind that the benefits were mentioned too, and I bet the out of pocket pay for the worker would have gone up.
My Union isn't great, and at times I have wished my job wasn't Union, but there is bound to be more to this story than what is seen so far.
Everyone here(as in my town), on the radio today, and in this article are so quick to condemn the Union, who was looking out for the workers. They failed ultimately, considering the company is folding, but they stood for them. Also keep in mind this would have gone to a vote. I am interested in seeing how many workers voted to go back to work with the cuts, and how many voted to be unemployed.
Everyone in the comments on the article is blaming the Unions. My job gets a 3% raise per year, which usually amounts to about 45 cents. On the news they were saying Hostess wanted to cut the workers pay by 8%, no mention on the difference in benefit pay would have been. But 8% is the equivalent of 3 years of raises.
How many of you would give back 3 years of raises, or approx $1.50 an hour? Keep in mind that the benefits were mentioned too, and I bet the out of pocket pay for the worker would have gone up.
My Union isn't great, and at times I have wished my job wasn't Union, but there is bound to be more to this story than what is seen so far.
Everyone here(as in my town), on the radio today, and in this article are so quick to condemn the Union, who was looking out for the workers. They failed ultimately, considering the company is folding, but they stood for them. Also keep in mind this would have gone to a vote. I am interested in seeing how many workers voted to go back to work with the cuts, and how many voted to be unemployed.
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 5:53 pm | #7
Is Hostess also the company that makes ding dongs? 'Cause I really love stuffing a whole bunch of ding dongs in my mouth and just savoring them. Sometimes the white stuff gets all over my face but I just lick it off.
...what?
...what?
Re: Re: really bad news
11/16/12 5:56 pm | #8
Quote by PureEvil x21:
I work a Union job as well, not saying I like the Unions either, but there is most likely more to this story than you see. What is not mentioned is if Hostess was going to cut the wages and benefits of their salary employees, like management, upper level management, CEO's and the like.
Everyone in the comments on the article is blaming the Unions. My job gets a 3% raise per year, which usually amounts to about 45 cents. On the news they were saying Hostess wanted to cut the workers pay by 8%, no mention on the difference in benefit pay would have been. But 8% is the equivalent of 3 years of raises.
How many of you would give back 3 years of raises, or approx $1.50 an hour? Keep in mind that the benefits were mentioned too, and I bet the out of pocket pay for the worker would have gone up.
My Union isn't great, and at times I have wished my job wasn't Union, but there is bound to be more to this story than what is seen so far.
Everyone here(as in my town), on the radio today, and in this article are so quick to condemn the Union, who was looking out for the workers. They failed ultimately, considering the company is folding, but they stood for them. Also keep in mind this would have gone to a vote. I am interested in seeing how many workers voted to go back to work with the cuts, and how many voted to be unemployed.
Everyone in the comments on the article is blaming the Unions. My job gets a 3% raise per year, which usually amounts to about 45 cents. On the news they were saying Hostess wanted to cut the workers pay by 8%, no mention on the difference in benefit pay would have been. But 8% is the equivalent of 3 years of raises.
How many of you would give back 3 years of raises, or approx $1.50 an hour? Keep in mind that the benefits were mentioned too, and I bet the out of pocket pay for the worker would have gone up.
My Union isn't great, and at times I have wished my job wasn't Union, but there is bound to be more to this story than what is seen so far.
Everyone here(as in my town), on the radio today, and in this article are so quick to condemn the Union, who was looking out for the workers. They failed ultimately, considering the company is folding, but they stood for them. Also keep in mind this would have gone to a vote. I am interested in seeing how many workers voted to go back to work with the cuts, and how many voted to be unemployed.
Non union people get like- 1% or less for raises right now. The economy sucks. I know someone who lost $2 or 3 an hour one year because his cost of living raise was taken away a few months into the year.
So yes, if it's between losing 8% of your pay or having to find a new job, anyone with any common sense should have chosen to go back to work and discreetly send out resumes, if they were unhappy.
And what about the people in other plants that did not strike but also lost their jobs? That's just wrong, and I just have no sympathy for the union strikers. Unions were meant to protect people, but at this point they just protect lazy people who want to be paid more than they're worth.
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 6:45 pm | #9
If I won the lottery I'm buying Hostess.
Re: Re: really bad news
11/16/12 6:47 pm | #10
Quote by PureEvil x21:
I work a Union job as well, not saying I like the Unions either, but there is most likely more to this story than you see. What is not mentioned is if Hostess was going to cut the wages and benefits of their salary employees, like management, upper level management, CEO's and the like.
Everyone in the comments on the article is blaming the Unions. My job gets a 3% raise per year, which usually amounts to about 45 cents. On the news they were saying Hostess wanted to cut the workers pay by 8%, no mention on the difference in benefit pay would have been. But 8% is the equivalent of 3 years of raises.
How many of you would give back 3 years of raises, or approx $1.50 an hour? Keep in mind that the benefits were mentioned too, and I bet the out of pocket pay for the worker would have gone up.
My Union isn't great, and at times I have wished my job wasn't Union, but there is bound to be more to this story than what is seen so far.
Everyone here(as in my town), on the radio today, and in this article are so quick to condemn the Union, who was looking out for the workers. They failed ultimately, considering the company is folding, but they stood for them. Also keep in mind this would have gone to a vote. I am interested in seeing how many workers voted to go back to work with the cuts, and how many voted to be unemployed.
Everyone in the comments on the article is blaming the Unions. My job gets a 3% raise per year, which usually amounts to about 45 cents. On the news they were saying Hostess wanted to cut the workers pay by 8%, no mention on the difference in benefit pay would have been. But 8% is the equivalent of 3 years of raises.
How many of you would give back 3 years of raises, or approx $1.50 an hour? Keep in mind that the benefits were mentioned too, and I bet the out of pocket pay for the worker would have gone up.
My Union isn't great, and at times I have wished my job wasn't Union, but there is bound to be more to this story than what is seen so far.
Everyone here(as in my town), on the radio today, and in this article are so quick to condemn the Union, who was looking out for the workers. They failed ultimately, considering the company is folding, but they stood for them. Also keep in mind this would have gone to a vote. I am interested in seeing how many workers voted to go back to work with the cuts, and how many voted to be unemployed.
Oh Evil I know there is more to the story - I did mention that Hostess mismanaged their finances for the past decade.
The problem is a lot of what Kat said: unions are there to protect workers and more often than not, they protect lazy ones. Does it suck losing a pay raise? Yes it does, but to me it's much better than losing a job.
I will say that I do believe that a select few unions could still have their uses, but for the most part I think they are a thing of the past and should be done away with.
I have known plenty of people who have worked for a company that has a union and have been told by the older employees (read: lazy) not to work so hard because it makes them look bad, or might bring up the numbers so they will have to do more. Or worse, have seen people who REFUSE to help a customer at a loading dock because it's lunch break: they'll be back in an hour. It sucks because unions (in general) could be of use, if they didn't protect these lazy people from getting fired, like they should be...
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 7:30 pm | #11
In hate to be the devils advocate here, but have you guys actually worked at a union company before?
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 8:08 pm | #12
I would like to point out that I did say I i have wished before that my job was not Union. And that the Union in question failed.
I have seen firsthand how they can protect people who should be fired. And people who abuse the system, because they are "playing" the game based on the policies.
I just voiced that I doubt part of the plan was to cut any of the company, read Salary, or non Union, workers pay.
And yes a pay cut is better than no job. I agree there.
I have seen firsthand how they can protect people who should be fired. And people who abuse the system, because they are "playing" the game based on the policies.
I just voiced that I doubt part of the plan was to cut any of the company, read Salary, or non Union, workers pay.
And yes a pay cut is better than no job. I agree there.
Re: really bad news
11/16/12 8:48 pm | #14
Re: Re: really bad news
11/16/12 10:51 pm | #15
Quote by Scarface1:
In hate to be the devils advocate here, but have you guys actually worked at a union company before?
I have, have you?