UPDATE: Bankruptcy Judge Approves Hostess Liquidation - Page 5 - Basketball Forum : Professional and College Basketball Forums

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

Address what, exactly? That 12,000 people lost their job because of 6,000 people? That is unfortunate for them, but every union has to look out for its members and not society as a whole or even other unions. That's not their job. If they did that they would probably be breaching a fiduciary (or union equivalent) duty. I feel bad for the 12,000, that really sucks. But it's not the fault of any union, as I have said repeatedly this is the fault of a couple hedge funds who squeezed Hostess.

These folks will probably start making twinkies again when the brand is sold.

There is no discussing this with you, after this post. Clearly you think union protectionism is much more important than people who need to feed their families.

You just don't get it.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

Oh, so you were just bringing in a completely new argument without explaining what you were talking about. Cool.

I honestly don't understand what you're having trouble understanding.

Tornado brought up union participation dropping and the current economy, I brought up that the global recession may skew the numbers he's trying to use as a point.

He replied again that he had meant over the last 30-40 years.

What new argument am I bringing in here?

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

"Levels the playfield"?

Listen here, comrade, but I don't think the shit shoveler, or the twinkie baker should be on a level playing field with me.

It levels the playing field between worker and employer. Both parties are free to negotiate a fair wage, but unless labor is organized in unskilled and semi-skilled jobs then it's more like companies dictate the terms and workers take it or leave it. Unions level that playing field, yes. It has nothing to do with you, a non-union employee.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

Of course you play games.

If you are in a union leadership position, you have to.

You are not only encouraged, but required (lest you be sued) to proactively argue bullshit grievances from disgruntled employees. You know they don't have a change in hell of "winning" such grievances, but you file them anyway in order to avoid getting sued by the idiot employee. And you have to argue their merits, if the grievance has any, which invariably it doesn't.

I got into union stewardship back in the 1980s in the government because I wanted to stand up for workers' rights. But what I found was an imbedded political machine that resolved such grievances (and legitimate ones as well) through negotiation tactics that would make my grandmother turn in her own grave if she knew.

So don't condescend me, Dornado. I know exactly what goes on in union negotiations. No one leaves the room clean.

The more you keep mentioning "court ordered" the more likely I am to condescend, just being honest with you. The Duty of Fair Representation does not extend to grievances that are without merit. How individual unions choose to avoid liability undoubtedly varies.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

So people without an education should work for shit wages? Shouldn't be able to put food on the table? Do you realize how crazy that is in a country where college is prohibitively expensive?

They could learn a trade - but guess why plumbers/electricians/other skilled trades make decent wages? Unions.

I am in a Union and I represent thousands of Union employees... and I don't "play games". What you did with your position is your own deal.

Yea? And who exactly do you represent?

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

I honestly don't understand what you're having trouble understanding.

Tornado brought up union participation dropping and the current economy, I brought up that the global recession may skew the numbers he's trying to use as a point.

He replied again that he had meant over the last 30-40 years.

What new argument am I bringing in here?

Fair enough. Now you can explain to me how a recession begets income inequality and not the other way around.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

I mean between employer and employee. There will always be more people than jobs... it is the same concept that you just sited for supporting a minimum wage...

The minimum wage is $7.25 an hour here. Assuming you work 40 hour weeks that's $15,080 a year. You cannot support a family on that wage... hell, one could barely support themselves on that wage.

Then maybe your wife has to work as well. Maybe you have to work over 40 hours a week.

And maybe, just maaaaybe, having a kid isn't a right. When I was laid off during the recession, my wife and myself held off trying to have a child. Know why? It wasn't the responsibility of the rest of the Canadian working class to pay for my child.

If you can't afford children on your income, don't have them. If you can't afford a big house on your income, get an apartment suited to your wage. Can't afford a car? Get a bus pass. You're a ****ing brick layer.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

Yea? And who exactly do you represent?

Too many different job titles to list... truck drivers, laborers, equipment operators, snow plow drivers, parks caretakers, custodians, certified nursing assistants, nurses, economic support workers, professional social workers, wastewater plant operators and technicians, police officers and many more.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

It levels the playing field between worker and employer. Both parties are free to negotiate a fair wage, but unless labor is organized in unskilled and semi-skilled jobs then it's more like companies dictate the terms and workers take it or leave it. Unions level that playing field, yes. It has nothing to do with you, a non-union employee.

Actually it does.

If a guy shoveling up shit somewhere is getting paid twice what his actual worth is because unions strong arm companies into having no other choice, it has a lot to do with me. It has a lot to do with you as well. It has a lot to do with what things cost at the local Walmart.

If you don't understand that, I'm not sure why you're in this thread.

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

Then maybe your wife has to work as well. Maybe you have to work over 40 hours a week.

And maybe, just maaaaybe, having a kid isn't a right. When I was laid off during the recession, my wife and myself held off trying to have a child. Know why? It wasn't the responsibility of the rest of the Canadian working class to pay for my child.

If you can't afford children on your income, don't have them. If you can't afford a big house on your income, get an apartment suited to your wage. Can't afford a car? Get a bus pass. You're a ****ing brick layer.

I don't think anyone is really arguing against this.

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

Actually it does.

If a guy shoveling up shit somewhere is getting paid twice what his actual worth is because unions strong arm companies into having no other choice, it has a lot to do with me. It has a lot to do with you as well. It has a lot to do with what things cost at the local Walmart.

If you don't understand that, I'm not sure why you're in this thread.

Oh please. Paying that guy $8/hr instead of $3/hr is not going to have an impact on prices, especially at somewhere like Walmart. I'm not saying everyone deserves 100k/year and a company car, but it seems like that's what you think I'm saying.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

Too many different job titles to list... truck drivers, laborers, equipment operators, snow plow drivers, parks caretakers, custodians, certified nursing assistants, nurses, economic support workers, professional social workers, wastewater plant operators and technicians, police officers and many more.

That complicates what was supposed to be a quick and simple retort.

Are you going to sit here and tell me the highschool dropout truck driver is worth the wage you and others have squeezed out of the trucking company? Are you going to tell me produce prices haven't gone up in the supermarket because the trucking company now charges more to try to recoup their losses?

The same could be said for any of the menial workers you represent. If it now costs twice what it used to to have someone sweep your floors and stock your shelves at night, you raise the price of your goods to make up for that.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

Fair enough. Now you can explain to me how a recession begets income inequality and not the other way around.

No, because that wasn't what I was talking about. It was brought up because of course numbers he wanted to show would be low, seeing as how unemployment rates have been at recent all time lows.

The point was, it would be like me saying "The recent average wage for pro hockey players have plummeted recently! And its all because of........." well no, its because the NHL is currently locked out.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

Oh please. Paying that guy $8/hr instead of $3/hr is not going to have an impact on prices, especially at somewhere like Walmart. I'm not saying everyone deserves 100k/year and a company car, but it seems like that's what you think I'm saying.

You think paying $8 instead of $3 changes nothing?

Go tell that to the local family grocer that was there for 50 years...... oh wait, it doesn't exist anymore. Nor do most of the mom and pop businesses that used to exist. And that's only one aspect.

Walmart exists to make money. If their millions of workers make $8 an hour instead of $3 (your numbers, not mine. I'm fine with minimum wage), that's billions of dollars every year in worker costs. Hey, maybe the rich ownership should just take a paycut to pay for it...... No. The price of your good goes up.

Look man, this comes down to you simply not knowing what you're talking about.

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 10:05 AM

His point was about income inequality being a direct consequence of the declining role of unions in our society. You said that the recession could affect the numbers. The way the recession would affect the numbers is by increasing income inequality. From what I've seen, the rich got taken to the cleaners until we went into recovery, which would paradoxically show that the top 10% actually made less relative to everyone else (even all those newly unemployed) during the recession, which means the numbers are not skewed in favor of his point.

11-16-2012, 10:05 AM	#75 (permalink)
Nimreitz Legend Join Date: May 2003 Location: Milwaukee, WI Age: 29 Posts: 16,247 Rep Power: 14813408	Re: Hostess Liquidating Its Business His point was about income inequality being a direct consequence of the declining role of unions in our society. You said that the recession could affect the numbers. The way the recession would affect the numbers is by increasing income inequality. From what I've seen, the rich got taken to the cleaners until we went into recovery, which would paradoxically show that the top 10% actually made less relative to everyone else (even all those newly unemployed) during the recession, which means the numbers are not skewed in favor of his point.

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)