Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

That evil union that killed the Twinkie


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
23 replies to this topic

#1 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,879
  • Reputation: 2,568
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:36 PM

http://www.huffingto..._n_2271868.html

Had to keep paying the management parachutes and lawyers fees, how else could we have kept these poor little rich folk out there creating jobs?

#2 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,133
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:30 PM

Many things put them on a death bed. Increased competition, poor managment, poor marketing, failure to evolve, etc...

The Union killed a struggling patient, of that there is little doubt.

#3 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:57 AM

hey cite your sources forum poster davidson deac

ah fug who am i kidding you just repeat republican talking points and if you actually cited rushbo you'd be laughed out of this thread so i'm not counting on it

#4 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,879
  • Reputation: 2,568
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:39 PM

Unions already took cuts, no raises for years and years, and the money they saved the company that was supposed to go back into it never made it there, but please DD go on

#5 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,133
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:39 PM

Unions already took cuts, no raises for years and years, and the money they saved the company that was supposed to go back into it never made it there, but please DD go on



All that may be true (although since its Huffington, I have my doubts), but it doesn't take away from the fact that the bakers union made a stupid decision. If someone eats the wrong foods, drinks to much, doesn't exercise and is in generally in poor health, then a doctor makes a stupid decision that causes that person to die, the doctor is still guilty regardless of all the bad decisions the patient made.

Did the article mention that the those things happened under the previous CEO, the current CEO was getting 1 dollar a month in salary? I guess they could go after some of the previous CEO's for the money that was lost, and they might actually get enough back to fund operations for a couple of extra days.

For all the populist rhetoric about CEO pay, the truth is that CEO and indeed executive pay in general makes up such a small percentage of the bottom line for a large company, that its not really even worth discussing. I do agree that CEO pay should be based on the company's performance, with no golden parachute. But its a decision that the company's board of directors should make, or the shareholders, not something that should be mandated by law.

#6 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,561
  • Reputation: 3,628
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:49 PM

If someone eats the wrong foods, drinks to much, doesn't exercise and is in generally in poor health, then a doctor makes a stupid decision that causes that person to die, the doctor is still guilty regardless of all the bad decisions the patient made.

Posted Image


#7 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,133
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:53 PM

Posted Image


You have something relevant to say, or just your usual meaningless tripe?

#8 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,561
  • Reputation: 3,628
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:59 PM

the post I quoted was indeed irrelevant meaningless tripe, I agree

#9 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,133
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:05 PM

Sorry, I forgot this is a thread about business, you folks on the left are more suited for humor and music, and don't really understand business. I will try to keep that in mind in the future.

#10 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,561
  • Reputation: 3,628
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:10 PM

Yes the unions are the doctors supposed to fix the CEO patient and they got stuck with the hot potato so I guess it's the union's fault.

Oh and I suck at humor but that just means my business acumen makes up for it. Like ugly people with good personalities.

#11 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,133
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:15 PM

Yes the unions are the doctors supposed to fix the CEO patient and they got stuck with the hot potato so I guess it's the union's fault.

Oh and I suck at humor but that just means my business acumen makes up for it. Like ugly people with good personalities.


The Bakers Union did not and should not get all the blame. They should however get some of the blame. The bakers union made an bad decision that killed a company that was already on its death bed due to market conditions and bad management . They should have followed the example of the teamsters union, which made the correct decision. (One of the few times the teamsters has been an example for anyone to follow). Its highly likely that the company would have collapsed anyway, but at least the employees would have gotten a few more months salary, and maybe even been eligible for unemployment. Since they were on strike when the company closed up shop, then in most states, they are not eligible for unemployment.

#12 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 34,988
  • Reputation: 9,102
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:16 PM

As usual it's not cut and dry... did the company do things it probably shouldn't have? I'm sure...

Did the union? I'm sure...

Did the economy throw a monkey wrench in it... Yes.

Unions are not some silver lined wonder that makes everything better... they try to get whatever they can for those in the union.

Corporations also do the same for themselves.

Is one party more to blame than the other in this situation... probably, but does it really matter which it is? The company went down and lots of people are out of jobs... lose-lose.