UPDATE: Bankruptcy Judge Approves Hostess Liquidation - Page 3 - Basketball Forum : Professional and College Basketball Forums

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

Do you know the concept of supply and demand? How about the concept of the bait and switch? You can't pay people nothing because no one will do that job. It's also unfair to lure someone into a job and then **** them over. I think part of this is probably exactly what you're saying: the union had been pushed past the point that was acceptable for them to continue in this job. It became a better deal for them to just do something else.

Like get 18,500 people fired?

Seems to me you are also willing to sacrifice all those jobs for "union protectionism," which makes you as bad as the union leadership.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

Yea, or it could be that it coincides with the second biggest recession in modern history.

I'm talking about a 30-40 year span, not the last few years.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

By that measure we should all just be happy that we have jobs and never fight for a fair wage, right?

I am happy with the job I have. And if I wasn't, I'd broach the company with my offer, if they rejected it I would go work elsewhere.

People who own a company don't owe you a god damn thing. If they aren't willing to pay you for your service what you think it is worth, don't work for them. Its pretty god damn simple.

The fact that you and others all seem to think now that it is a companies burden to take care of you just because you hired on with them is ludicrous.

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

Yea, or it could be that it coincides with the second biggest recession in modern history.

LOL, so the decline in unions coincides with massive recession? Which side are you arguing again?

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

If you want to discuss semantics, we can do that...but the bottom line is those employees struck themselves right out of a job.

I'd say semantics are important when they change the meaning of what you were saying.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

This is simply not true.

They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January of this year. Chapter 11 is to reorganize operations, and the bankruptcy was being monitored by a federal judge. They could have filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation), but they chose to continue to try to salvage the company.

If they wanted to "shut down huge portions of its operations" they would have done so years ago, instead of bleeding money all these years.

It is true... I said they filed for bancruptcy 8 years ago (true) and were already planning shutting down certain operations before the strike started (true)

to wit:

Quote:

Moreover, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was quoted in a Nov. 13 KMOX-CBS St. Louis article stating, “I was told months ago they were planning on closing the site in St. Louis… And there was no indication at that time it had anything to do with the strike the workers were waging.”

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

The fact that you and others all seem to think now that it is a companies burden to take care of you just because you hired on with them is ludicrous.

First of all, not everyone has that option. R-Star works in an area with lots of companies in his industry and he is skilled in his job. This is not most people. By your logic you must not believe in minimum wage laws either.

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

The union gave up 100m a year in pension benefits for its membership 8 years ago. There was nothing left to give. Hostess had a lot of its debt bought up for pennies on the dollar by exploitative hedge funds, and then was squeezed hard. The only way for them to meet those obligations was to try **** their workers even more, which the union didn't accept for obvious reasons. Don't blame unions. Blame the companies that buy up Hostess' debt for $.05 on the dollar and then squeeze them to repay it all or force them into bankruptcy.

Except for 92% of their remaining salary.

But you should be happy to know that they will be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:25 AM

Uh.. yeah I am happy that these people are eligible for unemployment benefits.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

Do you know the concept of supply and demand? How about the concept of the bait and switch? You can't pay people nothing because no one will do that job. It's also unfair to lure someone into a job and then **** them over. I think part of this is probably exactly what you're saying: the union had been pushed past the point that was acceptable for them to continue in this job. It became a better deal for them to just do something else.

Obviously you can't pay someone nothing. That goes without saying.

If you're a factory worker in a twinkie plant though, you aren't worth much more than minimum wage. Ever. Yet the common American now thinks "I've worked here 5 years, they owe me a raise! I should be making 60,000 a year for this!" Uhhh no. You put twinkies into their plastic packaging. That's your skill, that's your trade. Take your minimum wage and shut the **** up.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

I am happy with the job I have. And if I wasn't, I'd broach the company with my offer, if they rejected it I would go work elsewhere.

People who own a company don't owe you a god damn thing. If they aren't willing to pay you for your service what you think it is worth, don't work for them. Its pretty god damn simple.

The fact that you and others all seem to think now that it is a companies burden to take care of you just because you hired on with them is ludicrous.

That might work in your industry, but someone's got to shovel shit, or bake twinkies. In those cases we've seen what happens without Unions... people get paid nothing and if they don't like it they get fired out on their asses... we learned those lessons during the great depression when we had people picking fruit for 5 cents a day and long lines of people waiting for bread and shelter. Then the massive amounts of poor and underpaid became a huge social problem - collective bargaining levels that playing field. The Grapes of Wrath is recommended reading.

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

It is true... I said they filed for bancruptcy 8 years ago (true) and were already planning shutting down certain operations before the strike started (true)

to wit:

There were 33 bakery sites, Dornado. Don't be disingenuous here. Even at the height of the strike this week they only shut down 4 of the factories.

You didn't address my point that they filed for Chapter 11 (Reorganization) versus Chapter 7 (Liquidation) in January.

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

The Grapes of Wrath is recommended reading.

Yes, if you wish to be depressed for a week.

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

That might work in your industry, but someone's got to shovel shit, or bake twinkies. In those cases we've seen what happens without Unions... people get paid nothing and if they don't like it they get fired out on their asses... we learned those lessons during the great depression when we had people picking fruit for 5 cents a day and long lines of people waiting for bread and shelter. Then the massive amounts of poor and underpaid became a huge social problem - collective bargaining levels that playing field. The Grapes of Wrath is recommended reading.

If we keep turning back the clock on income inequality, the corporate class might see some actual socialist parties spring up. The unwashed masses are still the masses, and they will wreck shit if they get ****ed too hard.

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

You didn't address my point that they filed for Chapter 11 (Reorganization) versus Chapter 7 (Liquidation) in January.

It means they were trying to save the company instead of just burn it to the ground. They thought they could get more from the unions. They couldn't.

11-16-2012, 09:25 AM	#39 (permalink)
Nimreitz Legend Join Date: May 2003 Location: Milwaukee, WI Age: 29 Posts: 16,247 Rep Power: 14813408	Re: Hostess Liquidating Its Business Uh.. yeah I am happy that these people are eligible for unemployment benefits.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)