Unions kill twinkies.

It’s not the union pay scales that kill firms like Hostess; it is the restrictive union rules. For example, workers were not allowed to deliver both bread and cakes in the same truck. Workers who loaded bread were not allowed to load cake. I thought these sorts of rule went away years ago, but I evidently not.

I worked in a union shop in the 1970s. I believe that the union was at least partly responsible for the high wages that I earned as an unskilled eighteen-year-old. After working there three months, I was an "experienced operator" equal in the union's eyes to my father who had worked there thirty-six years. We got the same hourly pay. Those were the rules. Of course, seniority counted too for things like job assignments. The older guys could always "bump" the younger guys. Since all of us "experienced operators" were equally qualified in the union's eyes, the fifty-year-old guys could load 94lb cement bags as well as us young guys and in theory we could do everything you might assume would be learned with years of experience of the old guys.

There were lots of other rules. We were not allowed to change light bulbs. That was an electrical union guy who could do that. We could not oil machines and we could not even sweep the floor. This meant that lots of us were underemployed and almost nobody worked to his potential, since there was no advantage to innovating and most innovations would break union rules.

So I thank the union for letting me sell my unskilled labor for more than I could have gotten without their help. On the other hand, I am convinced that onerous union rules helped put most of those who remained out of work in decades that followed.

Back to the cupcake makers. We assume that greedy capitalists want to make money and therefore would not pass on the opportunity. That means that if they choose to close down they must have figured out that making money is not possible under the conditions under which they operate.

Hostess will shut down. The 18,500 layoffs are equal to about 11% of the net new jobs the entire U.S. economy created in October.

Reminds me of an old joke. A union boss negotiates a great contract with a firm. It guarantees high wages, great working conditions, lots of breaks ... everything. But the union boss does not accept it. "What other guarantees can I offer," the CEO asks. The union boss answers, "We want you to guarantee that our contract won't force you out of business."

There are just some things you cannot have, no matter who agrees or how much you want them. I suppose that among those things now are the old fashioned Hostess Twinkies, cupcakes and Ding-Dongs.

Posted by Christine & John at November 17, 2012 7:50 PM
Comments
Comment #357309

i worked with Western Electric for a while in a unionized work force. Didn’t like the experience, I hung in an bailed after about 9 months.

My father worked for the TVA as a general foreman. If he needed to drive to some point on some business he couldn’t take along a roll of tape, etc as it was against union rules. The tape had to be delivered by maybe a teamster or similar.

I recall relating on WB that he fired several folks for drinking on the job, showing up drunk, etc. But, the union complained to the TVA and they fired my dad.

I’ve got no use for unions. Likewise, when corporations reach a near monopoly they should automatically be anti=trusted, busted up into four or five little corps, a centrist position for shure.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 17, 2012 10:11 PM
Comment #357311

Unions are made for neck nuzzlers. Unions are why jobs go overseas. Unions are for complacent, lazy people who want more than they are entitled to for the work they perform. They make everything, for everybody, more expensive and harder to obtain. I lump union bosses and attorneys in the same group.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 18, 2012 12:27 AM
Comment #357312

Unions are the reason GM and Chrysler needed a bail out. They were good in times past but unnecessary now. Most companies pay top dollar for top dollar employees.

Posted by: KAP at November 18, 2012 12:54 AM
Comment #357323

I should add that, like Mr. Ellis, I believe that mega-corp’s are bad, as well as unions. I have stated so before on WB.

It is time for the Feds to break some of them up or regulate them. Insurance and Big Oil come to mind first.

On an aside, how many of you question the way attorneys bill for their services? I feel cheated everytime I use one for a contract or other legal document. The time always seems inflated…especially when you know they have templates for all these documents stored on computers.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 18, 2012 8:26 AM
Comment #357325

A couple of years after I retied from the Air Force I bought a company that rebuilds starters and alternators. I wanted to do right by my employees so I allowed a union in. That was the worst thing I ever did.
I had to hire twice as may folks to get less done. I needed an electrician to change a light bulb because none of the folks on the floor could do it and the maintenance folks couldn’t either. I had to hire someone to take the trash out and a different person to sweep the floor. I just about sent me to the poor farm.
When the contract was up I told the union that I wasn’t signing another one and anyone that went on strike was fired.
There’s been a few attempts to get ‘organized’ sense but they’ve all failed because my employees know that I won’t sign a contract.
Unions had there day, but like a lot things, like rotatory phones, there day has long gone.
I’m going to miss my ding dongs.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 18, 2012 9:20 AM
Comment #357326

I’m waiting for the left to get in on this. Unions are their bag.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 18, 2012 9:23 AM
Comment #357330

I’m not going to defend stupid union rules. Some are ridiculously costly and inefficient.

HOWEVER….

Let’s not forget why unions are here in the first place. Before unions there were many, many companies which had horrible conditions, starvation wages, company stores and housing, no retirement (and since pay was so low and often forfeited to the company stores and housing, no way to save money), child labor, no safety regulations and often very dangerous equipment with no safety protection mechanisms, toxic chemicals, and generally hazardous and noxious environments to work in. Refusing to work extra long hours, refusing to perform extremely dangerous work without safety precautions resulting in being fired.

Now, one could argue that in a ‘free market’ that these workers could just go somewhere better to work. But in a market environment where competition drove companies to pay the least, wring the most work possible out of workers through duress and long hours, hire children to work in dangerous situations, refuse vacations, bathroom breaks, lock workers in shops, etc. where were those better jobs to be found. As the wealthy bought more property, controlled more of the goods and services, and owned a large part of the wealth of the nation, the millions of immigrants from Asia and Europe were put in situation where they had little or no choice of jobs. Work or starve. Laborers worked till they dropped because there was no retirement through the companies or government. Couple that with the fact that wages were barely living wages and you see that saving for retirement was not even a dream for the working class.

You want to go back to an Industrial Age economy? That speaks volumes about those attracted to the GOP and Libertarian parties.

If you think I am being hyperbolic in my arguments, tell me exactly where the incentive is for businesses to pay living wages and provide safe work environments? When were the textile mills and mines going to quit hiring children as young as 8 years old? What incentive would there have been for mills, mines, and refineries to stop their profitable practice of company housing and company stores? Why would companies give up the leverage of having workers indebted to them? Why would a business provide make work jobs for those who lost limbs or were paralyzed during job performance? Why should a company worry how a worker would live after their usefulness as laborers was done?

Today’s business environment didn’t happen because of the free market but was bargained for inch by inch by laborers who saw their only hope of enjoying some of the economic growth of the nation through collective bargaining.

You can vilify unions all you want. I was in management many years. I understand some of the problems unions cause. Damn workers just want too much. They want to live too much like the management.

I’d like to know how many of you middle managers think you earn too much.

Posted by: LibRick at November 18, 2012 11:50 AM
Comment #357331

Did unions play a role in the demise of Hostess? Yes. Did management play as big, or even bigger role? Yes.

“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.”

Hostess went through six CEO’s in 10 years. I don’t know what the previous CEO’s were paid, but whatever it was, it was way too much.

Ownership borrowed large amounts against the self-funded union retirement plan, supposedly in order to keep the company afloat. By declaring bankruptcy, they will never have to pay that money back to the employees.

Are you sure it was all the unions fault that Hostess went down? Really?

Posted by: phx8 at November 18, 2012 12:16 PM
Comment #357332

The charge against the Unions is BS. Let me ask a question: Why is Hostess as vulnerable as it is? Is it labor that did this? Hostess itself, much less it’s famous snack cakes, are a well-loved, lucrative brand. Any decent leadership in that company could turn a profit if all else were equal, and pay its labor force off. I’ve heard nothing to indicate that Hostess has labor costs that exceed the average company.

Unions are, shall we say, a politically correct target for conservatives, and a business world that’s basically been infiltrated by their ideology.

But what about the hedge funds and the private equity firms that ran the place? What about the debts that are essentially the substance of what got us into this situation in the first place? Who incurred those debts and why? And why was Hostess vulnerable in the first place, despite having some of the best loved and most recognizable brands around?

Republicans and MBA types talk about leadership nowadays, but it seems to be more a dogma of spiritualism or a rigid formula of standardized assessment, rather than a real-world discipline about making good decisions, and processing that information well.

I think the problem with Hostess is that that its leaders did not run the company well, and in the end, they wanted the workers of the company to pay for their mistakes.

It’s not unexpected that folks on the right are going to rush in to attack Labor on this, because they are part of that culture, where the mistakes of leadership are not paid for by the leaders, but instead by the led, who then continue to find their lives controlled by people who have failed basic, fundamental tests of good decision-making.

Stop blaming labor for the fact that too many investors, private equity firms, and hedge funds are run by people who lack the system of constraints and proper incentives and punishments necessary to develop good judgment. Stop blaming the average American for the failures of their leaders.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2012 12:58 PM
Comment #357333

Gee Stephen your last sentence just described you liberal Democrats who are running this country. As far as Labor, no one is blameing labor, the blame lies with the unions who represent Labor. Unions were a good thing long ago but have outgrown their usefullness. I was union and glad I got out of them. The last few jobs I had were Non Union and I had just as good of pay and benefits as union jobs had.

Posted by: KAP at November 18, 2012 1:33 PM
Comment #357334

Stephen just keeps giving me more and more reason to never, ever waste my time reading his posts. I place my trust in real world experiences; not young radicals who have obviously developed their positions from reading biased material.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 18, 2012 1:50 PM
Comment #357335

LibRick

Unions were necessary in the past and probably some forms of associations would be good today. But the same conditions that changed the industrial age into an information age have made unions generally obsolete. Unions performed well when workers were interchangeable, when workers did the jobs that machines do now.

Today firms need workers to think and innovate. They are no longer one like the other. Beyond that, processes change faster than union contracts can anticipate them. Unions just are as out-of-date and useless as Andrew Carnegie’s methods for making steel.

Phx8

Unions are the proximate cause and the cause that pushed Hostess over the cliff.

Stephen

Unions are the proximate cause and the cause that pushed Hostess over the cliff. Perhaps better leaderships could have made it work despite the outdated and and destructive rules. But unions created a tough environment beyond ordinary leadership’s ability to overcome despite a popular brand.

Posted by: C&J at November 18, 2012 4:29 PM
Comment #357336

KAP-
We were also once told that the Financial companies don’t need regulation, that oil companies would prevent spills and other disasters as a matter of pleasing the market, that the market would ensure shareholders wouldn’t get swindled by big corporations trying to hide losses and other threats to shareholder value that might send them running away.

We were told that deregulation of energy would make it cost less, it cost more instead. We were told many things, and many did not come true.

Your movement is full of promises, and few have been kept. You promise that if unions were only suppressed, wages would increase and so on and so forth. They haven’t, as unions have been beat back. Workers have not been treated better in places where organizing is forbidden.

The truth is, many of the people who call the protections, financial regulatory, and otherwise obsolete represent interests who simply want to operate like their forebears did in old times. But all that ended for a reason, became obsolete for a reason, and many of those reasons have proven to persist, even as folks like you say the needs are no longer there.

It is one thing to argue that Unions need to modernize, to bargain with balance in mind, to streamline rules so that workers are served well, but management also has fewer legitimate gripes. It’s another to argue they’re no longer needed. Corporate America has repeatedly proven that it will encroach on worker’s rights in order to profit, and unfortunately, all too often, it’s their interests that get sacrificed so a few can profit more.

And here? You need to look at Hostess’s finances and management. I’m not lying here. They’re asking workers to pay for the mismanagement of the company, one way or another.

John Johnson-
Do you have anything constructive to say? Any informative critique on my critique of finances? And, as for bias? Bias is a problem when it deprives one of facts. Otherwise, its just a question of reconstructing context. Biased doesn’t mean false. Just because it’s my point of view, and that point of view is liberal, doesn’t make it wrong. Nor does the bias of your point of view make you wrong.

Your problem is, as independent as your pretend to be, you get much of your information straight from the horse’s mouth of the party. It’s like claiming not to be part of the Communist Party in Soviet Russia, yet getting all your news from Pravda.

The News organizations we depend upon aren’t rigidly, deliberately socketed into the party operation, the way many conservative sites and cable news channels are. They often frustrate us as much as they do you, and often buy into your narratives.

But we don’t utterly dismiss everything the media puts out on that account. But your fight against liberal bias leads you to deliberately discount the truth of much of what we say.

That’s the unfortunate thing, really. I don’t doubt you could understand things better, and still keep your conservative perspective. Nothing mutually exclusive about that. Unfortunately, though, you’ve surrendered yourself not merely to biased news sources, but to the exclusion of other sources.

In the end, people like you have been shocked by the last Presidential election because the folks you depended upon were more interested in making the challenger look good than honestly telling people how things were going for those folks. Bad behavior gets rationalized, courageous examples of common sense and insight get burnt to a crisp by the reactions not just of this deliberately skewed media operation, but by the reactions of an audience taught to depend upon those operations for their news.

Republicans and Conservatives are not going to recover from their mistakes and failures until their minds are free to acknowledge them, until the people in the party stop feeling the pressure to justify stupidity, offensiveness, corruption, and other flaws in their candidates and leaders.

And really, business is not going to get all that much better until employers and businesses realize that if they screw up, there will be consequences.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2012 4:47 PM
Comment #357337

Stephen, Unions push many companies over the edge. Look I’ve worked in both Union and Non Union have you ever worked in a Union setting? If not then you don’t know a damn thing except what the liberal media tells you. I had just as good of pay and benefits as I did in a union setting sometimes even better because I didn’t have to pay dues. Unions are for lazy people who don’t have the balls to fight for themselves. Like I stated Unions were good in their time but are a greedy blood sucking leach now.

Posted by: KAP at November 18, 2012 4:57 PM
Comment #357338

Stephen, By the way we were told many things by YOUR PEOPLE that didn’t come true also.

Posted by: KAP at November 18, 2012 4:59 PM
Comment #357339

You’re full of crap, Stephen. The reason I call you biased is because I have never read you acknowledge one iota of goodness or merit or truth in anything stated, initiated or promoted by a Republican. If I am mistaken, kindly enlighten me. Coburn has some great ideas. Simpson is a vocal critic of radical, far right thinking, but to you these two, and people like them, are all one and the same, and all lumped into the dirty, stinky, crooked, uncaring, war mongering, capitalists Republican category.

“Spike is a mean, dangerous dog who will attack you for no apparent reason. Spike is a German Shepard. All German Shepards are mean, vicious dogs”.

This is the type of reasoning we see from you.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 18, 2012 5:57 PM
Comment #357340

Stephen

Deregulation of energy did make it cheaper. It cost in 1980 than it does today. Beyond that, what was projected in 1980 is much worse than we have today.

Unions, on the other hand have failed to live up to their potential.

Posted by: C&J at November 18, 2012 6:37 PM
Comment #357341

Germany is unionized, has a comparable standard of living, universal medical coverage, retirement for working people, and in general it is doing better than the United States. In addition, Germany does little offshoring. It has kept its manufacturing sector and paid those working people high wages. On the other hand, Germany does not pay its CEO’s exhorbitant wages, does not have corporate raiders, and has not seen the disparities that have entered American culture over the past decades.

While productivity has skyrocketed, wages for most people remains flat, even after over three decades. Yet CEO pay has also skyrocketed, the wealth of the 100% has not stayed flat, but once again skyrocketed.

And we’re supposed to believe the problem is with unions?

I understand the frustration that can come with dealing with a union.

I also understand that offshoring, corporate raiders, and inequities in distribution between producers and owners causes far more damage to the country, fundamental damage.

There needs to be a balance between working people and ownership. There needs to be an end to ‘right to work’ laws and the deep alienation from labor that ensues when workers are treated as interchangeable cogs.

Germany works. It works well. Better than us.

Unless, of course, we want to pursue a model like China, where workers earn less than a dollar an hour, government regulation and oversight are minimal, and environmental regulations are absent; in that case, carry on, conservatives, carry on.

Posted by: phx8 at November 18, 2012 7:33 PM
Comment #357342

phx8

Germans are well organized and I admire them. I love to visit Germany, but don’t think I would like to live there as a German citizen.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Germany has much of a future. I say this in great sadness as a person with German ancestry on my mothers side and who used to speak German. Their problem is that they have a great system that depends on Germany discipline. As they internationalize, as we have, they are losing that edge.

We really cannot create a German system in the U.S., since we have greater diversity. The interesting thing is that if you look to Americans of German ancestry, you find that they enjoy a generally higher standard of living and income than average Americans. Something in the culture and work ethic that spans generations.

In general, however, I would not say that Germany works better than we do. Beyond that, most Americans would not wish to adopt German cultural norms that make their system what it is. We treasure our diversity.

Posted by: C&J at November 18, 2012 7:42 PM
Comment #357343

Phx8

The Chinese model, on the other hand, is heavily government directed. There is no free market as we would define it in China. In fact, China is more like a liberal place than a conservative one in the way it is run. It has all those government regulations and planning that you guys think would make America a better place. That this kind of system doesn’t work for workers does not surprise me.

Posted by: C&J at November 18, 2012 7:45 PM
Comment #357344

Sorry, C&J….I agree with Stephen on electricity deregulation. Please give me an example to back up your claim. In Texas the lowest cost per kWh is several cents higher than in regulated surrounding states Louisiana and Oklahoma. The two largest generating companies sell to retail providers who do nothing but add on profit for marketing and doing monthly billing. Many deregulated electricity efforts in other states have failed miserably.
Electricity should be regulated with agreed profit margin, G&A and escrow funds for maintenance and new facilities added to the fluctuating price of natural gas, the marginal fuel in most regions of the U.S.

Although there might be many Retail Electricity Providers in any given state, chances are that the actual generation is still controlled by the Big’s and will continue to be so.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 18, 2012 8:16 PM
Comment #357364

John

I was thinking of gasoline, natural gas etc.

Electricity is actually not deregulated and it is a natural monopoly. There is no real competition.

Posted by: C&J at November 18, 2012 9:04 PM
Comment #357365

C&J such nonsense for just one post. All this anti-union blathering by conservatives may serve to give you guys a warm and fuzzy feeling about your ideological beliefs but it also makes you look foolish and gullible.

“Of course the right-wing media is quick to blame the unions, but in the end the union members would have lost more if they had capitulated to the vulture capitalists demands. By this move, they can hope to salvage the retirement plan, while if they’d given in they would have lost it all. $2 billion is a lot of money to just “give away” in negotiations. Of course the unions were expected to surrender despite the fact that the management company was asking the bankruptcy court to give their outgoing CEO up to $5.5 million. All of this was in addition to the 80% raises the executives were being treated to.”

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/16/hostess-bankrupt-vulture-capitalists-picked-corpse-clean-video/

Posted by: j2t2 at November 18, 2012 10:52 PM
Comment #357366

I have a brother-in-law out in CA. One of his friends is big on unions. He works as a motor mechanic and has around 30 years experience, and from what I here is very good at his job.. The electrical workers union has guys with maybe 1 year of experience and don’t know a coil from a brush making the same money as he is. He doesn’t like it much at all but won’t admit that the union is wrong.
About 10 years ago the company he worked for went bankrupt and closed. To here him it wasn’t the unions or the employees fault that were getting about $10.00 more an hour and not putting our not as good of work as the non union shop that was paying it’s employees $15 an hour.
It was the greedy owners fault because he charged more than the nonunion shop. He had to. He was paying a lot more in labor cost, so in order to make a profit he had to raise his prices.
But then I reckon the folks that put their money up to open a business and create jobs don’t need to make a profit. It should all go to the employees.
Business owner makes money = greedy.
Employee’s get all the money = good.
Unions get all the employees money = even better.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 18, 2012 10:57 PM
Comment #357367
But then I reckon the folks that put their money up to open a business and create jobs don’t need to make a profit. It should all go to the employees.

Such nonsense Ron, you forgot to include this-

Vulture capitalist hires incompetent CEO’s and overpays them as they bury the company in debt company blames union= good


“Hostess’s failure was compounded by having six CEO’s in 8 years who had no experience in the bread or cake baking industry, and despite their financial woes, the company’s CEO got a 300% salary increase from $750,000 to $2,250,000, and other top executives received raises worth hundreds-of-thousands of dollars; all while the company was struggling. “

http://www.politicususa.com/romney-vulture-capitalist-style-management-killed-hostess-unions.html

Posted by: j2t2 at November 18, 2012 11:05 PM
Comment #357368

j2t2
Yeah, the employees sure came out of this smelling like roses. But then you most likely won’t stop to think that they just might still have there jobs if the union had been willing to give a little.
Yeah they sure showed bad old Hostess alright. And now they don’t have jobs in an economy with 8% unemployment. That is if you believe the Obama preelection numbers.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 18, 2012 11:06 PM
Comment #357369

j2t2
I ain’t even gonna try to defend CEOs.
I find it funny that the left will villainize CEOs given the fact that they all have college degrees in business. And given the fact that if your lucky you might find 1 in 10,000 college professors that’s conservative, I wonder where they get it from? Reckon they all had the same professor?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 18, 2012 11:23 PM
Comment #357415

J2t2

We assume the owners want to make money. If they close a going concern and go out of business, they must figure that it is more profitable than the alternative of keeping going. Unions were a big part of making this so.

As I wrote, it is not the wages that cause the trouble, but the union rules, that cause over staffing and inefficiency.

No doubt management was also bad. These things are never only one way. But clearly management and the owners could not work with the union. Union rules are difficult.

The bottom line is that today everybody is out of a job. The union rules that created jobs that needed not be done have killed all the jobs.

Posted by: C&J at November 19, 2012 4:29 AM
Comment #357418

C&J-
They were essentially squeezing others on the promises they made to compensate for financial decisions that they made. When are we going to see that a system that rewards people regardless of whether they do well isn’t any better when it benefits the rich and the investor class, than when it benefits the poor or middle class?

The hidden premise in much conservative and pro-corporate messaging is that somehow these people know better than all of us, on everything.

What I would argue, and will argue, is that the wisdom of different approaches cannot simply be assumed. What a company wants to do to improve its bottom line cannot be assumed to be the wisest or smartest response. Look at Hostess. Like the report says, many of the people hired to run Hostess didn’t know the business; understanding of the business did not seem to be a prerequisite for being made its leaders. Some aspects of running a business operate in common, but today’s MBA culture is not a silver bullet for all problems and all businesses.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 19, 2012 8:23 AM
Comment #357419
Yeah, the employees sure came out of this smelling like roses. But then you most likely won’t stop to think that they just might still have there jobs if the union had been willing to give a little.

Really Ron! What part of the vulture capitalist were liquidating the company and stealing the pension fund is so hard for you to understand?

I find it funny that the left will villainize CEOs given the fact that they all have college degrees in business.

Ron such foolishness. It is the CEO’s job to make the company successful, that is what they go to college for. They drew huge salaries and didn’t do the job. Holding them responsibility for doing their job is what you are referring to as “villainizing” them, and it seems to me it is foolish to do so.


And given the fact that if your lucky you might find 1 in 10,000 college professors that’s conservative, I wonder where they get it from? Reckon they all had the same professor?

Conservative logic at it finest Ron, I have to say. Conservative myths applied to illogical assumptions.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 19, 2012 10:44 AM
Comment #357421

I have stated for years that corporations’ having longtime employees work their way up through the company to become prez or CEO was much more conducive to success and esprite de corps within the company than hiring some outside bean counting guru who knows nothing about the guts of the business, and who’s eyes are constantly trained on Wall Street and stock prices.

On the other hand, young Stephen wants to overlook the role unions played in Hostess’s demise. The inefficiencies that demanded contract terms like not carrying bread and pastries on the separate trucks and squirrely delivery routes was something even the best managers could not find a solution for. If union demands make your operation inefficient, the costs go up. When this happens, and your competition is not being saddled with these same inefficiencies, you are suddenly no longer competitive. This is the bottom line.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 19, 2012 10:54 AM
Comment #357422
We assume the owners want to make money. If they close a going concern and go out of business, they must figure that it is more profitable than the alternative of keeping going. Unions were a big part of making this so.

AS naive a comment as I have ever seen C&J. I am embarrassed for you as you grasp at such silly straws to defend this type of capitalism. What next are you going to tell me this is what made the country exceptional over the past two hundred years?

The CEO’s and companies that destroyed Hostess are takers they are not producers they give capitalism a bad name. Look beyond your conservative ideology that doesn’t allow you to delineate the difference between the two, C&J. Using the unions as a scapegoat to defend this type of greed is just plain wrong C&J,

Posted by: j2t2 at November 19, 2012 10:55 AM
Comment #357423

I, of course, meant “…not being able to carry bread and pastries on the same truck…”.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 19, 2012 10:57 AM
Comment #357424

SD:

“but today’s MBA culture is not a silver bullet for all problems and all businesses”

Agree. I don’t think anyone was saying that it was.

“What a company wants to do to improve its bottom line cannot be assumed to be the wisest or smartest response.”

Agree, but so what? What’s your proposed solution? I presume you would not propose to have the govenment run the company, since you have stated you are not a socialist. What degree of regulation would you propose, if any? I don’t think I want the govenment to regulate stupidity or greed; it can barely manage that in its own camp.

This issue seems to be self-regulating. The brands that are marketable will be sold to bakeries that are better managed. Presumably, bakers who want to work will go to work in a better managed union shop or a shop that is non-union.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at November 19, 2012 11:05 AM
Comment #357425

What j2t2 said.
And, let me add that this article is totally without merit.
1.) The company has been around since 1930, and always made all of it’s profits with a union labor workforce.
2.) The above article completely refuses to look at what was actually happening at Hostess: Hostess’ Twinkie Defense Is a Management Failure

Posted by: Adrienne at November 19, 2012 12:11 PM
Comment #357429

j2t2
I can only go by what I see. And over in Valdosta, which by the way is a conservative area, non of the professors at Valdosta State are conservative. At least not in their business department. I know, I’ve taken some business courses over there.
Also from everything I’ve heard from folks that’s gone to UGA and GA Tech, there ain’t very many if any conservative professors at either one. I’m sure you’d agree that Georgia is a fairly conservative state.
Maybe there just ain’t any professors liberal enough for you.
Are you sure that the CEO and upper management was stealing pension funds? Not that I’d put past them. But if so why haven’t I heard any thing on the news about it? And NO! I don’t watch FOX News. I watch CBS News. And I’m sure the liberal media would be on it like ugly on an ape. After all something like that would be more fodder for them in their fight against conservatives.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 19, 2012 1:39 PM
Comment #357431

Good reference, Adrienne. Forbes is not know for hammering management. Hope you are able to comprehend my agreeing with you on this point. Stuff like two trucks delivering bread and cakes didn’t help.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 19, 2012 1:55 PM
Comment #357433

Questions:

Do unions hire as many women as men? Do unions pay women the same as men for the same job? Are there union jobs that are not open to women?

Not long ago I ran a link to a story in Calif about the teachers union laying off the “Teacher of The Year” as others had more seniority. Is this sensible? Is this fair? Is this be best way to attract and keep the best teachers? Do unions encourage mediocrity?

Just wondering…

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2012 6:23 PM
Comment #357434
Maybe there just ain’t any professors liberal enough for you.

Or maybe there just ain’t any professors conservative enough for you Ron. One university and a few classes doesn’t mean much when making a blanket statement that 1 in 10k professors are conservative.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 19, 2012 7:40 PM
Comment #357435

$200/hour minimum wage will solve all our financial problems. Everyone will be in the highest tax bracket and no one will give a damn.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2012 7:50 PM
Comment #357436

I believe the big unions that encompass many occupations should be broken up into smaller unions representing only one or two occupations. Like big business…they are monopolies. They are…too big to fail…lol

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2012 7:58 PM
Comment #357448
Are you sure that the CEO and upper management was stealing pension funds? Not that I’d put past them.

Pretty sure Ron. Here is a first hand report from someone who was involved with the company. If in fact it is not being reported by CBS or other media outlets it tells us your perceptions of the media are outdated a bit. The MSM is corporate controlled media the past decade or so and not quite what many conservatives claim it to be.


“In July of 2011 we received a letter from the company. It said that the $3+ per hour that we as a Union contribute to the pension was going to be ‘borrowed’ by the company until they could be profitable again. Then they would pay it all back. The Union was notified of this the same time and method as the individual members. No contact from the company to the Union on a national level.

This money will never be paid back. The company filed for bankruptcy and the judge ruled that the $3+ per hour was a debt the company couldn’t repay. The Union continued to work despite this theft of our self-funded pension contributions for over a year. I consider this money stolen. No other word in the English language describes what they have done to this money.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/18/1162786/-Inside-the-Hostess-Bankery

Posted by: j2t2 at November 19, 2012 10:58 PM
Comment #357449

That’s the unions side of the story j2t2. Of course management has theirs. Somewhere in the middle we just might find the truth. And it won’t look good for either side.
I mentioned earlier that I have taken some business courses at the college over in Valdosta. One was business management. After taking it I will NEVER EVER hire someone with a degree in it. They basically teach that the folks that make the money for the business so management can get their over inflated salaries are to be treated like scum.
Then there’s the unions that make sure that you can’t get fired for anything short of murder so it’s OK to be lazy and not productive for the company. Then they suck the company dry with their silly rules and outrageous demands.
Neither are good for the folks that have invested their money in the company rather they’re the owners or stock holders.
And neither sure as hell ain’t any good for the well being of the employees.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 19, 2012 11:59 PM
Comment #357452

Ron, sometimes we don’t need to meet in the middle to find the truth, we aren’t bargaining for the truth after all. Management has been spreading different stories after refusing to shoulder their responsibility for the bankruptcy,the Forbes article Adrienne linked to tells us this.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 20, 2012 8:55 AM
Comment #357453

Hostess should close its doors. Hobby Lobby should close its doors. Papa John’s, Applebees, Olive Garden etc… should cut hours
Every company that does not like to be walked all over and/or controlled by others shouldn’t put up with all the crap any longer.

This of course would speed up the failure of obamacare and force us into the full blown government controlled health care nightmare, but hey, at least government unions will be making our twinkies and feeding us pizza.

Why is it all you lefty armchair CEOs know how other people should run their business and spend their money if they want to be successful, but none of you have the desire or drive to practice what you preach?

Posted by: kctim at November 20, 2012 9:30 AM
Comment #357456
Every company that does not like to be walked all over and/or controlled by others shouldn’t put up with all the crap any longer.

Ayn, Ayn Rand is that you? Where is John Galt? Such symmetry Papa John as John Galt.

Why is it all you lefty armchair CEOs know how other people should run their business….. but none of you have the desire or drive to practice what you preach?

Perhaps kctim it is because we worked for them or still work for them. We don’t really tell them how to run their business we simply want to make sure they don’t run over us, the labor force, as they run their business. We are doing no more than you, our business is providing our labor, not our life.


…..and spend their money if they want to be successful,…..

Seriously kctim exalting John Galt into a demigod are we? The loyal servants should work for the hope of a smile or kind words from the exalted one. This return to royalty thing you speak of is backwards, dark ages stuff, lets move the country forwards.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 20, 2012 10:48 AM
Comment #357457

J2

IF you really want to “move the country forward,” perhaps you should stop living in the past. It is almost 2013, not the early 1900s.

There are government regulations that protect worker pay and safety on the job. Businesses should be able to run their business how they wish as long as they follow those regulations. They should not be forced to run it according to what you armchair CEOs think is “fair” or better. They should not be forced to assume responsibility for the employees lives outside of the workplace.

Rather than always whining, if you guys don’t like how others run their business, assume the risk and put in the work to start your own business and run it how you think it should be ran.

“This return to royalty thing you speak of is backwards, dark ages stuff”

Yes, I know. Limited government means Somalia and rights for all means the dark ages.
The lefts propaganda out of the fear of not being given the material things they desire is very obvious.
Yawn!

Posted by: kctim at November 20, 2012 11:44 AM
Comment #357458

I think, in the long run, the businesses that don’t try to pull this Galtian or protest movement crap with their policies will probably outcompete those whose leaders are preoccupied with making ideological points.

What many of these folks don’t realize is that they are not indispensible, and nor do they know all ends.

As far as other elements go? I think unions do their people a disservice when they create and enforce silly rules. They need to save their efforts for the fights that matter. Otherwise they end up burning political and negotiation capital that could better be used to stick to their guns on other parts.

I’m not an uncritical supporter of Unions. I expect them to do as little as possible to embarrass their movement with silly bureaucracy, corruption, and political stunts. At the same time, I think it’s rather tiresome that every solution to the imperfections of unions and the costs they impose, is getting rid of unionization altogether. That seems a real baby with the bathwater approach, but what can we expect? The people making those suggestions are often ideologically opposed to the very idea of unions.

I do not deny the imperfections of the institutions I support, just the need to destroy all those systems in order to deal with the problems those institutions sometimes have.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 20, 2012 1:15 PM
Comment #357459
despite their financial woes, the company’s CEO got a 300% salary increase from $750,000 to $2,250,000, and other top executives received raises worth hundreds-of-thousands of dollars; all while the company was struggling.

J2t2, Perhaps not relying on partisan sites for your information in the future?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/gregory-rayburn-raise_n_2147043.html

CORRECTION: An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn’t CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 20, 2012 1:43 PM
Comment #357460

Profit is key to a successful business, it is not an “ideological point.”

An ideological point would be your claiming business should make less profit in order to do what you think they should do.

“What many of these folks don’t realize is that they are not indispensible, and nor do they know all ends”

They are indispensible to their employees. If Hobby Lobby does the smart thing and close their doors, it will take at least 5 years for Garden Ridge or something to take its place.
Why is your “ideological point” of having somebody else pay for your contraception more important than all of those jobs and the personal beliefs of the owners?

I doubt any of them would claim to “know all ends,” but yet they are millionaires and billionaires.
You however, seem to think you do “know all ends,” but have said you are not a millionaire.
Whats that tell you?

Posted by: kctim at November 20, 2012 2:10 PM
Comment #357461

j2t2
So the truth ain’t important to y’all. It’s just the way y’all want it to be and the truth be damned. The truth is always somewhere in between both sides of the story. Even if y’all don’t like it.
In this case I’ll concede that management is mostly to blame. But the unions still have to take a bit of the crap sandwich. They’re part of the antiquated business mode. Maybe if management had the guts to kick the unions out as well as make the changes they needed to make we might still be able to get our ding dongs.
Personally though I prefer Little Debbies over Hostess.

Rinehold
$100,000 a mouth to take a company that’s already in bankruptcy and run it out of business? I’m in the wrong line of work.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 20, 2012 2:34 PM
Comment #357462
I’m in the wrong line of work.

If you think you could do better, then do so. The fact is, being a CEO is not an easy thing to do, takes a lot of your time (it’s NOT a 9-5 job) and requires a lot of personal sacrifice. It is why not everyone is a CEO or run businesses that large, not because there is a huge waiting list of qualified people, but because there are few people who can and are willing to do it. That is why the compensation is so high, it’s hard work and worth it to have someone qualified doing that job.

If you want that kind of compensation, are qualified, and are willing to make the sacrifices needed, then you are doing yourself a disservice by not going out and doing it.

In any regard, your jealousy is hardly appropriate.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
Comment #357463
There are government regulations that protect worker pay and safety on the job. Businesses should be able to run their business how they wish as long as they follow those regulations. They should not be forced to run it according to what you armchair CEOs think is “fair” or better.

kctim, they are not forced to run it according to what I or any other “armchair CEO” says why on earth would you say that?

I am not sure how you think workers pay is protected by regulation unless you are talking about a minimum wage law. Most people are hired at will and are subject to the whims of management. Unions make it a bit tougher to manage by whim.

I know we all like to think of the CEO as some demigod who started the corporation from his garage with no money while raising 6 kids and going to night school and supporting his mother but that is the exception not the rule. In this case Hostess had 6 CEO’s in 8 years or some such as the business went downhill.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 20, 2012 4:26 PM
Comment #357464

I’m not jealous Rinehold, I forgot to put :) after my comment.
Still I don’t think that anyone who runs or helps run a company into the ground is worth $1,200,000 a year.

j2
Unions sure do make it harder to fire folks. When I had the union in my place I couldn’t fire anyone without the unions permission. And regardless of how good of a reason, in a couple of cases theft, the union would always say no. They always claimed I had it in for the employee. If they’re caught stealing from me they’re right I have it in for them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 20, 2012 5:59 PM
Comment #357465
As far as other elements go? I think unions do their people a disservice when they create and enforce silly rules.

Stephen don’t fall for the typical “burdensome rules” line. Lets take the C&J line of not being able to change a light bulb when you are lifting 90 lb. sacks of whatever. First of all, is the light bulb burnt out just because it is not working? Will you need a screwdriver or other tool to remove the protective cover over the light bulb? Do you need a ladder and is there one close by or do you need to go to the tool storage to sign pone out? Are you going to run over to the supply room to get the light bulb? Which supply room is the light bulb in? Is the light bulb a standard bulb or do you need a certain bulb for the fixture? Are you willing to accept the responsibility if the light bulb you put in is over the maximum wattage for the fixture and it causes a fire? Who is doing your job while you are doing the electrician’s job? Do you expect extra pay for doing the work? Do you expect the electrician to do your job?

Then we get into the issue of not defining job responsibility. Where does changing the light bulb stop. Heck if you can change the light bulb maybe you can install a new fixture if the light still doesn’t work. Or maybe you can shock yourself and fall from the ladder if a wire popped loose instead of a bulb being burnt out. Heck why not just do the plumbers job so we don’t have to pay him more to fix the leak in the faucet.

The fact is the jobs are defined by contract and agreed upon with management as part of the process.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 20, 2012 9:07 PM
Comment #357475
The lefts propaganda out of the fear of not being given the material things they desire is very obvious. Yawn!

kctim, people who work at these companies are being given “the material things they desire”? You make Ayn Rand look like a softie with your ideological hatred of those that labor for a living. It is a winner take all deal with you and only the CEO can be the winner! In your world we all must bow to the highlord! Do we also need to offer up our wives on the wedding night for mylord the CEO to decide if he wants her first?

http://www.snopes.com/weddings/customs/droit.asp

It is this simple people who work at companies work! They earn the paycheck. It is not given to them for crying out loud, have you no sense of decency?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 20, 2012 9:33 PM
Comment #357537

j2t2-
I don’t buy every claim, but the way I look at it, it’s not out of the question that some rules, some regulations that unions create can be a bit… eccentric.

Institutions have a way of getting sidetracked into their own interests, and away from the general interests. My argument is that a bit of reform and modernization is needed, so that Unions fight for what’s important, not to promote frivolous issues.

At the same time, though, I utterly reject the baby-with-the-bathwater approach of declaring unions obsolete and thereafter busting them up. That certainly solves one set of problems unions might be really creating, only to replace them with the problems that existed before unions were legitimized.

Too much of Republican policy can essentially be seen as fat-cat policy clothed in populist language. When Republicans and conservatives talk about being the party of freedom, how many of the freedoms they’re arguing we should implement, have a suspiciously high quotient of corporate special interest mixed in, or application to the wealthy?

kctim-
Profit isn’t an ideological point, but how one makes it can be. How much does it cost to have a system where healthcare is so dysfunctional and expensive? Yes, employers might have to pay more. The law, though, contains a number of exclusions and waivers for those who are small businesses, who don’t have that many employees.

And if it doesn’t, the law can be shaped to better handle those businesses.

The point would be, though, that all these surcharges and threats of not employing more people or doing whatever are, from a business perspective, stupid.

I mean, really, there are people who don’t have your objections, who will invest, who will hire, and profit. There are plenty of restaurants and other businesses that won’t pass costs on to customers, and will therefore get more of them.

Also, really, is there much to gain from putting your business in the middle of a political controversy? I know folks these days love to preach about how important it is to impose their political opinion on others, but as a business, that’s far from the first concern. Your first concern is gaining and keeping paying customers. Why reduce the pool of such customers?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 21, 2012 8:40 AM
Comment #357538

J2
When you dictate what benefits a company must provide to its employees, you are forcing them to run how you think they should run.

The right to run your business how you best see fit, is not a “whim.”

“Unions make it a bit tougher to manage by whim.”

I know what unions are for and I support them working for their members. What I don’t support is them not giving employees the freedom to choose to be union or not. What I don’t support is them protecting jobs with costly and ridiculous rules.

“I know we all like to think of the CEO as some demigod who started the corporation from his garage with no money…”

Actually, I don’t care how or why somebody starts their business, government should not dictate how they run. If a company wants to hire a new CEO every year, that is their choice and they are responsible for the outcome.

“people who work at these companies are being given “the material things they desire”?”

Your exaggeration of what will happen if workers have to be responsible for themselves, is why I said that. A company is responsible for the welfare of the employees while the employees are on the job site, not for their personal lives away from the job.

“You make Ayn Rand look like a softie with your ideological hatred of those that labor for a living…”

Once again with the emotions and drama, eh? What is it about personal responsibility that you all fear so much?
From the CEOs that you despise so much, all the way down to the apprentice, you work, you get paid, you use that pay to purchase what you need.
The lefts problem is that they expect the person with the nicer house and car to pay for what they don’t wish to pay for themselves.

“It is this simple people who work at companies work! They earn the paycheck. It is not given to them for crying out loud, have you no sense of decency?”

I agree. I just understand that owners and management are also people who work and earn a paycheck.
Your problem is that you look at dollars, not individuals.

Posted by: kctim at November 21, 2012 10:31 AM
Comment #357539

Stephen

Businesses will either raise prices, be ok with less profit, or close. Yes, a few will be able to profit without drastic change for a while, but they will eventually have to adjust.

I find it interesting that you don’t seem to care much about the employees of companies who choose to raise their prices rather than make less profit.

Prices are going to go up, they always do when costs rise and when guaranteed money is added to the pot. Guaranteed money pays for $200 hammers and it will soon be paying for hundred dollar contraception.

Yes, you guys really do love to impose your opinions onto everybody else, that’s why the ACA was forced upon all of us and why we are talking about higher costs and personal beliefs.

“Your first concern is gaining and keeping paying customers. Why reduce the pool of such customers?”

With companies like Papa John’s, you raise your prices in increments so you don’t lose customers. When they raise their prices by fifteen cents, others will also. If you look at it in an unbiased way, Papa John’s is stating the obvious.
Companies like Hobby Lobby though are objecting on beliefs and government should never force people to compromise those beliefs. When it does, many are willing to lose customers in order to stand up for their beliefs.

Again though, why is your personal belief that someone else pays for their contraception, more important than their jobs?

Posted by: kctim at November 21, 2012 11:48 AM
Comment #357546
When you dictate what benefits a company must provide to its employees, you are forcing them to run how you think they should run.

Horse pucky kctim, the founding fathers never envisioned the nonsense you are telling us as an individual right. Corporations are the work of the royalty who wanted monopolies. The founding fathers took the cargo of the East India tea company and threw it into the bay.

A business entity hires a CEO to do a job. The shareholders own the company, the CEO has no guarantee to any individual rights that usurps the individual rights of any other employee. The CEO doesn’t own the company and therefore have some superior right that is not accorded to any other individual. The shareholders have no specific constitutional right that employees are not accorded. Throwing around the individual rights. Business and working for a business is contract law and labor law not constitutional rights.

I agree. I just understand that owners and management are also people who work and earn a paycheck. Your problem is that you look at dollars, not individuals.

Really! You tell me “The lefts propaganda out of the fear of not being given the material things they desire is very obvious.” and then try to convince me I am the one looking at dollars not individuals! I don’t think so.

Have a happy thanksgiving kctim, and all.
Yawn!

Posted by: j2t2 at November 21, 2012 9:42 PM
Comment #357587

Should union members received federally mandated benefits that are not available to non-union workers?

Posted by: John Johnson at November 22, 2012 7:22 AM
Comment #357623

NO!!!!!!!! Union workers SHOULD NOT get anything from the government that others can’t get. This includes unemployment when they’re on strike. They walked off the job of their own free will. If you walked off your job you wouldn’t be qualified to get unemployment. Why should they be?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 22, 2012 12:26 PM
Comment #357627

j2t2

The limited liability corporation is one of the grandest inventions of mankind. Without it, most of the progress made in the last 200 years would not have been possible. We need a way to spread risk and allow for innovation.

Other necessary inventions, BTW, was double entry bookkeeping and the statistics of risk management. Without these things, you cannot run an industrial society. This is one reason why there was no sustained industrial development in ancient Rome, China or the Islamic world.

Re unions - workers in the private sector should have the right to unionize. And employers should have the right to resist unionization and avoid unions if possible. When workers go on strike, they should not receive government benefits, since they voluntarily left their paying job. In other words, government should ensure the rule of law and prevent violence but otherwise stay out of it.

Posted by: C&J at November 22, 2012 2:27 PM
Comment #357631
The limited liability corporation is one of the grandest inventions of mankind. Without it, most of the progress made in the last 200 years would not have been possible. We need a way to spread risk and allow for innovation.

I agree C&J but I differ when I hear conservatives try to tell me it is these CEO’s and entrepreneurs that risk everything and therefore deserve these rewards that are in actuality disproportionate to the risk they take.

We both know the grandest invention of the past 40 years has been corporations pushing liability onto the consumer and those working for them. Corporations have refused to accept responsibility for many years, a good example is Walmart paying such low wages that workers qualify for government assistance. To hear conservatives tell me it is ok because it is business and these workers could go elsewhere rings hollow.

Innovation today means cutting wages and benefits, but it is bad management, IMHO.

PS the “yawn” was a reaction to my comments by one of my grand daughters, not my reaction to a happy thanksgiving to all.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 22, 2012 11:06 PM
Comment #357656

C&J-
It’s combining a price increase with a political statement. He’d probably save more money by lobbying for a gradual phaseout of the ethanol program than he would by denying his employees benefits. That, or not do a free pizza program to attract customers, which has been estimated to match his cost.

Y’all need to see more than one way to do things, especially since the program you’re complaining about is based on your own party’s ideas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2012 8:57 PM
Comment #357667

Stephen

It is not about denying benefits. It is the stupid union work rules. Firms can pay benefits and union level salaries. Many non-union firms do this. What killed Hostess was union rules, especially related to distribution.

As I wrote up top, I lived with these absurd rules. They killed jobs then and they kill them now.

RE Your advice to the firm - it is easy to make things work if you don’t REALLY have to make them work. This is a fundamental problem for regulators and academics. Things SHOULD work certain ways in their theories but don’t.

Maybe you read my post on my sheep. I studied on that problem. It SHOULD have been a great way to keep the grass cut. I had enough grass, a fenced in place etc. I didn’t count on the thing crapping so much and so close to the house. Somebody like you would just tell me that it was easy to shovel and wash down the sidewalks. I would have thought that, but in reality it is not the same. AND this is something really simple.

Posted by: C&J at November 24, 2012 8:03 AM
Comment #357670

If, in a free society, a massively large group of hourly workers united to agree not to purchase products or services, work for, or support in any way, corporations and/or businesses which did not engage in what they deemed to be fair work/pay practices, would you consider this to be an unalienable right in the pursuit of happiness? If groups of investors are given the rights, protections, and freedoms of individuals in pursuit of free commerce, would you deny the right and ability of groups of workers to do the same?

What makes the ability of management to vote itself outlandish compensation reasonable while workers uniting for similar compensation unreasonable?

These things have a way of working out. As the working class loses wealth and the ability to access wealth, they will find ways to address their loss of leverage in the economy. You will call this socialism, I am sure. Yet management milking, bilking, and lining their pockets with their legal powers to name their own compensation, you deem reasonable.

Fortunately, you will not be the arbiter of how the economic divisions will work out. I posit that people on both sides work out fair and reasonable compensation and work together to produce services and products which are in demand… or face the consequences.

Posted by: LibRick at November 24, 2012 12:24 PM
Comment #357671

LibRick

Workers have a right to organize in free association. They don’t have a right to force others or have the groups organized get special rights.

Posted by: C&J at November 24, 2012 3:17 PM
Comment #357672

Union labor is rewarded, not by the amount or quality of work performed, but rather; by the time on the job.

It’s just another form of “tax the wealthy”. If the slacker or poor performer is paid the same as the ambitious and excellent worker…then part of the better workers productivity goes to subsidize the wages of the poorer worker.

Where does the better worker go for “fairness”? No where as it is the nature of unions to cater to the lowest common denominator. The most productive union worker is chastised for making his slothful brethren look bad despite the fact that his higher quality labor keeps the business productive.

In much the same fashion, liberalism demands that the most productive individuals in our society be penalized to compensate the least productive or non-productive among us.

Liberals desire a federal government run along union lines so that socialism produces what in their minds is “fairness” and equality.

We have lowered our national scholastic achievement by the same dismal liberal philosophy in lower education, and to a lesser degree; in higher education.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 24, 2012 5:29 PM
Comment #357944

Alfa Travel Launch Summer 2013 Coach Holidays Online - Book Now!

Alfa Travel, famous for bricoach factory onlinenging high quality and value for money together in their popular coach holidays and short breaks,are proud to announce the launch of their summer 2013 somekeyword. In a new format which groups holidays by resort rather than duration, it is now even easier to see the wide selection of different lengths of holiday and itinerary available in each resort.

Travellers will find a huge selection of holidays with brand new holidays and a host of enticing destinations alongside tried and tested favourites, many of which have benefited from revised itineraries that offer even greater value for money, with entrance to attractions included in the holiday cost on many holidays.

Alfa include return coach travel from convenient local coach pick up points and quality hotel accommodation (including 20 hotels owned and operated under Alfa’s own Leisureplex banner). Most holidays are on a half board basis and boast full British breakfast and four course evening meals, plus pcoach factory onlinelenty of evening entertainment.

Alfa Managing Director, Paul Sawbridge said “At the moment we all need to know that every pound we spend is money well spent. At Alfa we have continued to work hard to keep prices as low as possible but without cutting corners and we continue to packcoach factory outlet a lot of content into our holidays, maintaining our reputation for both quality and outstanding value for money.Our motto remains one of ‘exceeding our guests’ expectations’ and I hope the 2013 tour programme reflects the attention to detail we put into all Alfa holidays.”

Check availability for 2013 online ncoach factoryow at somekecoach factory onlineyword

Brochures are available now at all good travel agents.

Copies can also be ordered online at somekeyword or by phone on 08451 305 666.

maximum skeleton issue relative amount. This specific shuttle needs guest visitors residing at pretty much any Walt disney world end up with their own resort directly from all of the Holiday Flight terminal. Working from your home ensures that you could have alot more jobs in comparison wicoach onlineth whenever you coach factory onlineare confined during an workplace. Everybody over everyone, with the companies in the shop for the corporation, want to make cash, plain and simple. Found in 1896, the actual son and daughter associated with Louis Vuitton-George Vuitton put together all the abbreviated notices “L” together with “V Inches when using the increased layout, offers fashioned this initialed or monogrammed paper upon Cloth(refecoach factory onlinerred to as “Monogram Canvas” with Language) even now world-famous today, it has been additionally thought of as the nation’s memorable token, along with htc legend tone plus classic design, that was dogs with aggressive behavior with Lv monogrammed handbags. Plant pollen, phoning, etcetera. There is harvested addicted to through agencies, however , you don’t are aware of the significance of the hurt resulting from those berserk daily routines. Think of just what you can be carrying back and forth to perform. Lv offers the most popular superstars as a make ambassadors including Jennifer Lopez, Chloe Sevigny, Christina Ricci, Gisele Bundchen, Kate Moss, Hayden Christensen, Naomi Campbell, Uma Thurman and Scarlett Johansson.

When you require additional facts just follow this : somekeyword somekeyword somekeyword&p=153716#post153716 16

Posted by: coach factory online at December 2, 2012 12:06 PM
Post a comment