Sad day in America (Page 4)

I'm even worse than a union worker, I'm a municipal worker with one of those extravagant defined benefit retirements. My health care costs have gone up every year for the past few years. My retirement contributions have gone up too. My job is untouched, but that does not mean I am completely isolated from economic down turns. I have been promoted, so I make more money, but we have had our wages stagnate and cut... but not from a  actual cut.. from a "restructuring".

But I have never felt the need to go to a union plant.

I don't really know what the answer is. Obviously, wages need to keep pace, and you should have hope that you can get a good decent job to raise a family on... but even a few pages back... a reviewing clerk was making $48K a year and now is looking at $25K... really, a receiving "clerk" making $48K a year, for what? That is an entry level position in most companies. An auto line worker... doing the same thing day in day out, something a monkey can nearly do.... making over $30 an hour? It's an assembly line job.

Pendulums always swing. It isn't like I am for depressed wages, and more health care cost with lucrative pay for the execs. We may be in a period of time where that pendulum is swinging in their favor and not ours. But I also don't see how high paying jobs with outlandish benefits packages for high school graduates is the answer either.

I saw this linked from another story.  Thought it was an interesting read and gives a little bit of insight to the union side of the argument.  Seems as though the Teamsters are throwing the BCTGM union under the bus.

http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-bakery-workers-should-hold-secret-ballot-vote-hostess

It's not just the last 30 years (where a lot of the "wealth" of the middle class was actually built on credit). It's the last couple of years, where the top tier is no longer feeling the pain, while the rest of the country remained stuck in high unemployment (driven in part by higher productivity on the part of those remaining).

The funny thing to me is that I am old enough to recall a time when many talking heads were concerned about the upcoming problem of being so productive as a country that we would be working 15-20 hours per week and would not know to fill all of our leisure time. Now, when we are working 15-20 hours, it's often because we can't find full time work. And at least broadly in my field (medicine as a whole), a 40 hour work week is often considered "part time".

Dear American people, due to economic reality, Please pick 2

A) Low cost consumer goods

B) High wages for low skilled labor

C) No outsourcing of low skill/education jobs.

I'd actually counter your original post and say that wages have not been stagnant at all.  Just the statistics in the model haven't accurately represented the workforce as it's changed the last 30 years.

I've read several articles on the subject in the past, but did a quick search and this looks halfway recent.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/economics/2012/07/wage-stagnation-us-more-meets-eye

excerpt:

Conard shows that from 1980 to 2005, median income in the US rose just 3 per cent once inflation is taken into account, from $25,000 to $25,700. 2005 is pre-crash, as well, so this isn't a tale of the recession.

But when you break the data down by race and gender, a very different story appears:

For every single demographic group, there was a much bigger increase in the median wage than we see when the groups are combined. The reason for this is obvious when it's pointed out: demographic change in the US means that there are far more (low-salaried) women and people of colour working now than there were in 2005, which pushes the overall average down.

That makes it look worse overall, at least to my eyes. So, despite gains in every group in double digits, the overall gains are a paltry 3%? How far behind were non-white, non-male people in the first place???

Where is the option for better education/skills training?

Our local community colleges are begging for people to sign up for trades (machinist/AC/plumbing etc..) classes.  Education and skills training is offered.  People just don't want to take the short term hit for the long term gain.

I interpret it more that the workforce has added more low paying jobs that weren't there before therefore diluting the total numbers.  But when you break out the traditional groups the numbers show growth.

When I get time later I might try to look up additional numbers.  This is just one site I randomly found googling so I can't vouch for it's accuracy.  But it is on the internet so it has to be 100% valid. 

Am I the only one excited about this news that Hostess is no more???

(Full disclosure: I sell Little Debbies and my business has been through the roof since last week, sorry to see 18,000 workers out of jobs but we are reaping the benefits)

See capitalism works,,,,, when it's allowed to. Good for you Shermbelle!!!

On another note, it sounds like Hostess is close to working out some sort of deal.

Shermbelle, is it LD who makes those chocolate covered waffer things about 5" long by half inch or so,,,,,,,, those are sooooooooooooooooooo good.

Yum, LD Nutty Bars are my second favorite snack behind Hostess Raspberry Zingers. 

Swiss cake rolls (served cold) and a quart of coffee was breakfast for many years back when I was driving truck.

I see this as lose-lose.

The divisions will be sold, we'll still have the crap food on the market.  Except now the crap food will be made by people making crap wages, either here or (more likely) overseas.  Net result: bad for health, bad for working families.  Things I care about.

I also don't find any comfort in the fact that workers always have the "power" to leave to find other jobs, when the pool of truly middle middle-class jobs is declining, and the pool of low-paying service jobs is increasing.

There is a "win" side, of course: the executives, the investors (heck, maybe even me, through mutual funds, right?), the lawyers who paper the deals.  meh.

Yup,  typical:

11/29/12

Hostess Brands Inc. plans to ask for a judge's approval Thursday to give its
top executives bonuses totaling up to $1.8 million as part of its wind-down
plans.

ejshowers - 2012-11-29 8:34 AM

ejshowers - 2012-11-18 8:48 PM

otisbrown - 2012-11-16 3:48 PM

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.

Yup,  typical:

11/29/12

 

Hostess Brands Inc. plans to ask for a judge's approval Thursday to give its
top executives bonuses totaling up to $1.8 million as part of its wind-down
plans.

I was wondering how long it would take for that news to hit this thread.  lol

The good news is that it's up to the judge to allow or disallow it and ultimately at this point it's about getting the most $ they can out of the assets of the company for the shareholders and creditors.  If everyone quits it would potentially be harder to sell the value of assets and the company could get less money overall.  At least I'm assuming that's the logic.

I'll admit that it looks bad on the surface, but in reality I have no problem with it and I suspect the judge will approve it.

So its kinda like if you stay until a company has to let you go they give you 6 weeks of pay at the end to make up for any lost time in looking for a new job?

Is there a link to the article describing things? Is it a bonus of 1.8 million or is it salaries? I would have a problem with bonuses going out when the company is being liquidated, at least if I was a shareholder. I would be pretty PO'd as well if I was a worker who had already taken (as previously discussed here) a pay cut and been asked to take another one while contributing more to my own insurances. If it is for salaries, do they need to get a judge to OK it? Are the assets somehow frozen once the bankruptcy begins such that salaries cannot be paid out? I think people working during a transition should be paid (although, I would argue that pay cuts might be in order - given that pay cuts were being demanded of the workers as the root of the problem), but not get bonuses.