The Democrat Thread

[Reddy]

And again, that concept can be applied in millions of cases. Chicago needs to pass a law that protects north side white sox fans from being discriminated against in north side bars. They need to pass a law protecting smokers from being discriminated against in every business establishment in the city, and on and on. Why is it so bad that local governments/communities get to decide who gets that protection and who doesn't?

being a white sox fan isn't a choice? smoking isn't a choice?

[StrangeSox]

very unlikely.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/compa...ostess-closing/

 

Yeah I'm not sure that the words of the guy looking for labor concessions in a negotiation are 100% reliable.

[mr_genius]

Yeah I'm not sure that the words of the guy looking for labor concessions in a negotiation are 100% reliable.

 

i doubt anyone is going to buy hostess and staff it with the union guys at their previous wages and benefits. it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

Edited November 16, 2012 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

Yeah I'm not sure that the words of the guy looking for labor concessions in a negotiation are 100% reliable.

 

About as reliable as the guy trying to get re-elected for saving the auto industry...

[Cknolls]

For now, until someone buys them up and re-opens them and needs to find a skilled labor force to staff them.

 

 

Without the same work rules for sure.

[bmags]

i doubt anyone is going to buy hostess and staff it with the union guys at their previous wages and benefits. it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

 

Correct.

[Jenksismyhero]

It is bad because it often ends with minority groups having their rights violated or denied, often violently. Why is it so good that local governments should be able to violate someone's civil rights?

 

It's funny though, that these protections STARTED at the local level. That's the big momentum swing right now with a lot of issues. One state starts, others, if they choose to, follow. The federal government doesn't need to be involved. I don't buy the "I can't move" excuse. If it's that bad, leave. Just like anything else.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

It's funny though, that these protections STARTED at the local level. That's the big momentum swing right now with a lot of issues. One state starts, others, if they choose to, follow. The federal government doesn't need to be involved. I don't buy the "I can't move" excuse. If it's that bad, leave. Just like anything else.

 

The problem is the feds have instituted just as bad of policies over the years. Should we talk about the 3/5 rule here? Why should something be OK for everyone, just because the federal government decides that it is? I think an unsaid assumption here is that the federal government somehow always makes the best decisions for the masses... that just isn't true.

[StrangeSox]

Correct.

 

Possibly. There's training costs and learning curves associated with bringing in an entirely new staff.

 

edit: I'm sure it would be under a new contract that may be close to what they just rejected, but that's still 18,000 people trained to do exactly what you're looking to hire people to do, who know the equipment and the processes inside and out.

 

edit2: from comments elsewhere:

 

The union had already made concessions during the previous bankruptcy proceedings while the CEO's (6 of them in 5 years, I believe) received annual increases. Hostess, it's equity investors and current CEO had no interest in any negotiation that would save their collective jobs. They were going for a wage concession to bolster their balance sheet before selling the company in its entirety or in parts.

Edited November 16, 2012 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

The problem is the feds have instituted just as bad of policies over the years. Should we talk about the 3/5 rule here? Why should something be OK for everyone, just because the federal government decides that it is? I think an unsaid assumption here is that the federal government somehow always makes the best decisions for the masses... that just isn't true.

 

Your example is from 200 years ago.

[southsider2k5]

Your example is from 200 years ago.

 

You really don't think the feds are capable of making bad decisions today?

[StrangeSox]

The problem is the feds have instituted just as bad of policies over the years. Should we talk about the 3/5 rule here? Why should something be OK for everyone, just because the federal government decides that it is? I think an unsaid assumption here is that the federal government somehow always makes the best decisions for the masses... that just isn't true.

 

I retain my right to endorse picksy-choosey federalism the same as everyone else! The fed's drug policies are terrible and dumb and I'm glad that Colorado and Washington passed their laws. I'm glad that marriage equality is becoming accepted in more and more states, though I think it should have never been an issue due to equal protection.

 

But on the other hand, it's always really, really easy to point to the Jim Crow south.

[southsider2k5]

I retain my right to endorse picksy-choosey federalism the same as everyone else! The fed's drug policies are terrible and dumb and I'm glad that Colorado and Washington passed their laws. I'm glad that marriage equality is becoming accepted in more and more states, though I think it should have never been an issue due to equal protection.

 

But on the other hand, it's always really, really easy to point to the Jim Crow south.

 

I like the balance of having a strong local system that decides what they think is best for them, with the possibility of being overridden by the feds if need be.

[bmags]

You really don't think the feds are capable of making bad decisions today?

 

I think you have many more examples of states and municipalities discriminating against minority groups than the federal government for the long history of the united states. But somehow it is argued that the states have a special right to discriminate because they are states and states have the right to discriminate. I'm not persuaded.

[StrangeSox]

Possibly. There's training costs and learning curves associated with bringing in an entirely new staff.

 

edit: I'm sure it would be under a new contract that may be close to what they just rejected, but that's still 18,000 people trained to do exactly what you're looking to hire people to do, who know the equipment and the processes inside and out.

 

edit2: from comments elsewhere:

 

Granted this is from Daily Kos, but I saw it linked from somewhere else and thought it at least offered a different perspective:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1...-it-liquidates#

 

Of course, Hostess management had already claimed that the strike would be responsible for the closings of specific plants—when it had already planned to close plants even if the workers accepted the cuts and stayed at work. BCTGM President Frank Hurt says the workers understood who they were dealing with:

 

Our members know that the plans all along of the Wall Street investors currently in control of this company did not include the operation of Hostess Brands any longer than it takes to sell the company in whole—or in part—in a way that will maximize the profits of these vulture capitalists regardless of the impact on the workforce.

 

Workers were being asked to accept cuts, but top executives had gotten massive raises as Hostess was about to enter bankruptcy. Investments in the company’s future that had been promised as part of restructuring after the previous bankruptcy were never made. And as for the management, put in place by the private equity companies that now own Hostess, Hurt says:

 

Unfortunately however, for the past eight years management of the company has been in the hands of Wall Street investors, “restructuring experts”, third-tier managers from other non-baking food companies and currently a “liquidation specialist”. Six CEO’s in eight years, none of whom with any bread and cake baking industry experience, was the prescription for failure.

[kapkomet]

the core purpose of the constitution was to strengthen the role of the federal government.

 

 

Are you f***ing kidding me? Pass the bong. I need some of that.

[StrangeSox]

The US Constitution is significantly more federal government than the Articles that they were under

[southsider2k5]

Granted this is from Daily Kos, but I saw it linked from somewhere else and thought it at least offered a different perspective:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1...-it-liquidates#

 

Except that pretty well torpedos all of the old arguments about it not mattering who management was...

[StrangeSox]

I don't think anyone subscribes to a straight-up labor theory of value these days. Management matters, just not nearly to the level they are disproportionately compensated.

[bmags]

Are you f***ing kidding me? Pass the bong. I need some of that.

 

Maybe I should pass you a history book instead.

[Jake]

I'm interested in those that talk about how we're trending to a world in which no one needs to work. While we're far from that end, the need for human hands is certainly lessening as we get better at automating things.

[StrangeSox]

Here's the view of somebody that worked for Hostess:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/18/1...Hostess-Bankery

 

In 2005 it was another contract year and this time there was no way out of concessions. The Union negotiated a deal that would save the company $150 million a year in labor. It was a tough internal battle to get people to vote for it. We turned it down twice. Finally the Union told us it was in our best interest and something had to give. So many of us, including myself, changed our votes and took the offer. Remember that next time you see CEO Rayburn on tv stating that we haven't sacrificed for this company. The company then emerged from bankruptcy. In 2005 before concessions I made $48,000, last year I made $34,000. My pay changed dramatically but at least I was still contributing to my self-funded pension.

 

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.

 

After securing our hourly cash from the bankruptcy judge they set out on getting approval to force a new contract on us. They had already refused to negotiate outside of court. They received approval from the judge to impose the contract then turned it over to the Union for a vote. You read that right, they got it approved by the judge before ever showing to the Union.

 

What was this last/best/final offer? You'd never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go...

1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.

2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.

3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.

4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.

5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.

 

Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in 5 years if I took their offer.

It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.

That $3+ per hour they steal totaled $50 million last year that they never paid us. They sold $2.5 BILLION in product last year. If they can't make this profitable without stealing my money then good riddance.

 

I keep hearing how this strike forced them to liquidate. How we should just take it and be glad to have a job. What an unpatriotic view point. The reason these jobs provided me with a middle class opportunity is because people like my father in law and his father fought for my Union rights. I received that pay and those benefits because previous Union members fought for them. I won't sell them, or my coworkers, out.

 

We may have forced the companies hand but they were going to smack us with it anyway.

 

Hostess Brands will ask a bankruptcy judge on Monday for approval to shut down the company and pay $1.75 million in executive bonuses.

 

Unions representing workers at the maker of Twinkies, Wonder Bread and Drake’s snacks are arguing against the bonuses. [...]

Under the plan, bonuses ranging from $7,400 to $130,500 will be paid to 19 executives. The company argues the bonuses are below market rates for such payments.

Edited November 19, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

Here's the view of somebody that worked for Hostess:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/18/1...Hostess-Bankery

 

This was a lose lose situation for quite a while now. Horribly managed company in a market of terrible margins.

 

Everyone lost in this, from the company itself, to the union, to the workers.

 

In this story, for example, he goes on about his falling wages due to union concession, which sucks...but it is what it is. So they were going to cut his pay from 34,000 to 24,000 over 5 years. Talk about a s*** situation. Well, instead of taking a cut of 34,000 to 24,000 over 5 years, he took a cut of 34,000 to 0 inside of five minutes. Which is better in a terrible situation?

 

In either case, it serves as ANOTHER reminder to the youth (and you college kids), that you'd better be learning something that's useful to the world around you. Very few people get paid really well to do what they love doing. Very few. Odds are you will not be one of them. So, get paid well for something you don't mind doing...and use the money you make to do the things you love doing on your own time.

[StrangeSox]

Probably, in the long run, the $34k to $0k. Because taking that $34k to $24k was only going to benefit the current private-equity owners and the workers would just be taking another beating in a few years. The bakers union was very well aware of what their strike likely meant, and a majority of their members still felt it was more important to make that stand than to accept those drastic cuts.

 

The problem with the "learn something useful" is that it comes with a hefty price tag more often than not and what's useful isn't static.

[Y2HH]

Probably, in the long run, the $34k to $0k. Because taking that $34k to $24k was only going to benefit the current private-equity owners and the workers would just be taking another beating in a few years. The bakers union was very well aware of what their strike likely meant, and a majority of their members still felt it was more important to make that stand than to accept those drastic cuts.

 

The problem with the "learn something useful" is that it comes with a hefty price tag more often than not and what's useful isn't static.

 

That's why you have to try to use that education to make the best "educated" guesses as to what will be useful.