Sad day in America (Page 3)

But in this situation, the current crappy CEO who is running the company while it is seeking bankruptcy is getting a massive raise at a time when all of the employees are having wages cut.

Seriously, what is Tallahassee going to eat in Zombieland 2????

Based on this, I would say the company was demanding a bit much:

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-workers/index.html?iid=Lead

The add:

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/16/1203151/why-unions-dont-shoulder-the-blame-for-hostesss-downfall/?mobile=nc

May not be the most credible source. 

In any case, there are always two sides to the story and many are quick to blame the unions without knowing all the facts.  I doubt many on this board would be willing to take a nearly an overall 50% pay cut while watching someone else get huge increments. 

I would have packed my bags after the first round of cuts, but that is just me. 

Don't know all the details, but it may have been in the best interest of the union to let the company go out of businesa and have the pension guaranty corp. partially fund their pension versus bargaining it away.  Gotta look out for number one - the CEO's, execs and BODs certainly do.

I would have done the same which is the power that we all have and why I would never join a union.  I am my own union and I'm always looking out for my best interests.  I have gone on strike many times via a resignation letter.

When you only look at salaries paid to executives it's a very short sighted view of a company and it's not as simple as "cut their pay and everything will be fine".  Lets say you own a large business that's losing $100M/yr. You bring in a turnaround specialist CEO who demands a $1M salary but has a long track record of raising efficiency and turning things around.  He takes your company from losing $100M to lets say only losing $50M.  He saved you $49M for his $1M salary and likely saved hundreds of jobs.  If you took the same scenario and cut his pay to $100k he would leave and you'd be stuck with a second rate CEO who has no experience and could easily turn the $100M loss into a $150M loss.

how exactly?

I won't bother to restate everything in this op-ed, which is also being discussed under the "Twinkie Manifesto" thread, but basically at one time, unions were as strong as those that ran the companies. They evened the playing field, by ensuring that we had strong economic growth at ALL levels,  not just the top 1% or less, which resulted in higher levels of productivity, education, home ownership (which translates to more money being spent maintaining and improving the home, as well as more investment in one's community being an economically healthy environment).

To say that unions are not a force for positive change is as lopsided and unfair as saying that all business owners are rapacious exploiters of the workers. Both can be true at times, and not true at times. There are plenty of examples on both sides of the negotiating table of bad behaviors, and plenty of people working in tandem to truly enrich both sides.

Well, he's one Nobel prize-winning economist that I'm glad didn't get what he wanted...i.e. an even BIGGER stimulus package.   Unions did not build this country.  People did.

I won't bother to restate everything in this op-ed, which is also being discussed under the "Twinkie Manifesto" thread, but basically at one time, unions were as strong as those that ran the companies. They evened the playing field, by ensuring that we had strong economic growth at ALL levels,  not just the top 1% or less, which resulted in higher levels of productivity, education, home ownership (which translates to more money being spent maintaining and improving the home, as well as more investment in one's community being an economically healthy environment).

To say that unions are not a force for positive change is as lopsided and unfair as saying that all business owners are rapacious exploiters of the workers. Both can be true at times, and not true at times. There are plenty of examples on both sides of the negotiating table of bad behaviors, and plenty of people working in tandem to truly enrich both sides.

Well, he's one Nobel prize-winning economist that I'm glad didn't get what he wanted...i.e. an even BIGGER stimulus package.   Unions did not build this country.  People did.

You're going to have to re-state your question because this makes absolutely zero sense.

You're going to have to re-state your question because this makes absolutely zero sense.

My thoughts on the whole union discussion is that they had a time and a place.  In the early industrial age there were a lot of employee abuses and unsafe working conditions.  The unions gave the workers a unified voice to have a say in their working environment and pay.

However, in today's world I feel the Unions (in many cases) have become every bit as bad as the abusive companies of the early 20th century.  With total disregard to company health and well being they greedily want more and more until they force companies out of business or to leave the country.

How so? Most of the good unions did way back when is now law. So we could have no unions and we still will not go back to horrible work conditions.

Pay is interesting... pay could continue to go down, and at some point we have to have a decent wage, but I do not think we are near that point. Wages have been stagnant because of the economy, not because of the lack of representation. My industry is predominately union and I have never felt like I was lacking. I have no idea if I have benefited from my industry being union even though I have not been.

How so? Most of the good unions did way back when is now law. So we could have no unions and we still will not go back to horrible work conditions.

Pay is interesting... pay could continue to go down, and at some point we have to have a decent wage, but I do not think we are near that point. Wages have been stagnant because of the economy, not because of the lack of representation. My industry is predominately union and I have never felt like I was lacking. I have no idea if I have benefited from my industry being union even though I have not been.