Twinkie maker Hostess to wind down ops, lay off 18,500 workers, put brands up for sale
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, November 24, 2012 18:01
VIEWED: 12365
PAGE 1 of 1
Quote:
Hostess, the maker of Twinkies and Wonder Bread, plans to go out of business, lay off its 18,500 workers and sell its snack cake and bread brands.
The Irving, Texas, company said a nationwide strike crippled its ability to make and deliver its products, which also include Ding Dongs, Ho Ho’s and Home Pride bread.
Hostess suspended bakery operations at all its factories and said its stores will remain open for several days to sell already-baked products.
The company had warned employees that it would file a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court to unwind its business and sell assets if plant operations didn’t return to normal levels by Thursday evening. The privately held company filed for Chapter 11 protection in January, its second trip through bankruptcy court in less than a decade.
“Many people have worked incredibly long and hard to keep this from happening, but now Hostess Brands has no other alternative than to begin the process of winding down and preparing for the sale of our iconic brands,” CEO Gregory F. Rayburn said in a letter to employees posted on the company website.
He added that all employees will eventually lose their jobs, “some sooner than others.”
“Unfortunately, because we are in bankruptcy, there are severe limits on the assistance the (company) can offer you at this time,” Rayburn wrote.
Thousands of members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union went on strike last week after rejecting in September a contract offer that cut wages and benefits. Hostess said Friday the company is unprofitable “under its current cost structure, much of which is determined by union wages and pension costs.”
A union representative did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press seeking comment on the company’s announcement.
Hostess has said that production at about a dozen of the company’s 33 plants has been seriously affected by the strike. Three plants were closed earlier this week.
Hostess had already reached a contract agreement with its largest union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
The company, founded in 1930, was fighting battles beyond labor costs. Competition is increasing in the snack space and Americans are increasingly conscious about healthy eating. Hostess also makes Dolly Madison, Drake’s and Nature’s Pride snacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/hostess-to-wind-down-operations
-lay-off-18000-workers-and-sell-brands-following-labor-strike/2012/11/16/0e5a13f8-2feb-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_story.html?hpid=z4
Quote:
The new contract cuts salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries then bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Hostess has also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news/companies/hostess-liquidation-thu
rsday/index.html
Given that the company has been in bankruptcy twice since 2004, is a billion bucks in debt, and is losing market share as folks look for healthier snack options, did the bakers union push them too hard? The Teamsters did agree to the new contract, but now their members will be out of work as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's been much baking industry consolidation going on for decades. Hostess brands are too powerful to ever disappear entirely. I grew up on Devil Dogs, Twinkies, Yodels, and Snowballs. Back in Jr. HS thru HS those items sold for 5-10 cents, and often my friends and I didn't have the money.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eh, it's just run-of-the-mill fodder for our bitter right-wingers like Rap and Geezer, not even worth paying attention to. While I hate that people are losing their jobs, it's been going on all around us since America got driven into the ditch, and it will continue to go on in ever aspect of manufacturing until we're back to where we were before the crash (if we ever are).
Geezer's getting like Rap: Find something, find something, ANYTHING I can blame on Obama/dems/unions/liberals...Ooo, hey, I FOUND something!!! I'll put a post up about it and blame...SOMEBODY!!
Let him have his fun, it keeps him busy.
Twinkies are a food-like substance that will go the way of the Dodo Bird as people seek healthier food. How long have they been doing that now? I think it's pretty amazing Hostess' non-food foods have hung around this long! They're probably quietly diversifying somewhere over under the covers, preparing for the time their old-style crap becomes extinct.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
There's been much baking industry consolidation going on for decades. Hostess brands are too powerful to ever disappear entirely. I grew up on Devil Dogs, Twinkies, Yodels, and Snowballs. Back in Jr. HS thru HS those items sold for 5-10 cents, and often my friends and I didn't have the money.
From what I've been reading, the company may sell off the brand names and other businesses will sell other stuff as Twinkies, HoHos, etc.
I never was that fond of Hostess stuff, liking Little Debbie and Moon Pies more, but its a shame to see them go.
Too bad the indefinite shelf life stories are bogus, or you could stock up and eat Twinkies for years.
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/twinkies.asp
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But think of the poor, poor stoners!!!
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
There's been much baking industry consolidation going on for decades. Hostess brands are too powerful to ever disappear entirely. I grew up on Devil Dogs, Twinkies, Yodels, and Snowballs. Back in Jr. HS thru HS those items sold for 5-10 cents, and often my friends and I didn't have the money.
Those rat bastards at Hostess took over Drake's Cakes. I'll never forgive them for what they did to Funny Bones!
Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Twinkies may have a shelf life of 25 days, but I'm fairly sure I've eaten some from vending machines that had gone on quite a bit longer.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm fairly certain some company will buy the rights and recipes for them. I am a big fan of the Twinkie, though, and am sad to see this happen. Especially, that so many people are going to loose their jobs because the unions couldn't/wouldn't (that's speculating, mind you) come to an agreement on a deal. It is my understanding from a Wall Street Journal article (copied and pasted from a friend - I don't have a subscription to their site and thus can't show the link here) that the upper management rolled their salaries back to $1/year and others took big pay decreases to try and divert this from happening.
Hopefully, I'll still be able to find some Twinkies at the store when I get off work :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another victory for labor. I wonder if Obama will bail them out.
H.
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The workers had taken concessions to help the company survive a previous bankruptcy, and this time around when the call for cuts came, members of the Teamsters narrowly accepted them while members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers union overwhelmingly said no and went on strike.
Blaming the unions for everything is typical by those who don't know the details and are biased against unions.Quote:
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. ( http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/11/13/slay-i-was-told-months-ago-abou
t-hostess-closure/])
As to people taking "cuts" in their pay,Quote:
Hostess is in bankruptcy for the second time in recent years. Workers took concessions just a few years ago and this year the company has stopped making its contractually obligated contributions to their pensions. Meanwhile the company's CEO got a 300 percent raise, from $750,000 to $2,250,000, while other top executives got raises of hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. http://bctgm.org/2012/11/hostess-in-current-condition-because-of-faile
d-management/
For the past eight years management of the company had been in the hands of Wall Street investors, "restructuring experts", third-tier managers from other non-baking food companies and then 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.
Not the way to run a business, so no surprise they've finally failed.
Saddens me; unhealthy as they are, I'll miss my Hostess Cupcakes, which now and again I do enjoy. When I was in high school, my "lunch" almost always consisted of Hostess Cupcakes, potato chips and milk...it's a miracle I lived to the ripe old age I have!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Hostess is in bankruptcy for the second time in recent years. Workers took concessions just a few years ago and this year the company has stopped making its contractually obligated contributions to their pensions. Meanwhile the company's CEO got a 300 percent raise, from $750,000 to $2,250,000, while other top executives got raises of hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece.
Yup, clearly this is all the workers' fault.
In an age of people seeking healthy alternatives, Hostess kept on with fried pies (did nobody think to even try BAKING their pies?!), Ho-Hos, and Twinkies, figuring that they could just keep slashing workers' wages and benefits in the face of a shrinking market for a shoddy product, and nobody would care.
I haven't had a Twinkie in decades, so it's not like I'm really going to miss them.
Meanwhile, plants will be sold to other companies, workers will be hired on to make new products, or the brand's best-sellers will be sold off and made under the same name by a new manufacturer.
But be sure to blame Obama and the unions, no matter what.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, while we're at it:Quote:
Did Congress Kill the Twinkie? The Tariff Behind the Hostess Demise
It’s the end of a lunchbox era as baked icons such as Twinkies, Hostess CupCakes, and Wonder bread face extinction amid a contentious labor dispute, which ended Friday in the declared liquidation of Hostess Brands Inc., the Texas-based confectioner.
So far, Big Labor has gotten the brunt of criticism for the demise of Hostess, since the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers ,and Grain Millers union refused, despite warnings from fellow union heads, to return from strike at some 20 facilities nationwide. That forced CEO Gregory Rayburn to declare, after two rounds of bankruptcy proceedings, that “it’s over.”
Yet as the political recriminations echo amid news of 18,500 lost jobs in an already sluggish economy, some economists suggest that Americans shift their blame from Big Labor to the role Congress might have played in writing the Twinkies’ obituary.
And that, economists say, may come down to one sweet little word: sugar.
Since 1934, Congress has supported tariffs that benefit primarily a few handful of powerful Florida families while forcing US confectioners to pay nearly twice the global market price for sugar.
One telling event: When Hostess had to cut costs to stay in business, it picked unions, not the sugar lobby, to fight.
“These large sugar growers ... are a notoriously powerful lobbying interest in Washington,” writes Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute in a 2007 report. “Federal supply restrictions have given them monopoly power, and they protect that power by becoming important supporters of presidents, governors, and many members of Congress.”
Such power has been good for business in the important swing state of Florida, but it has punished manufacturers who rely on sugar in other parts of the United States, the Commerce Department said in a 2006 report on the impact of sugar prices.
Sugar trade tariffs are “a classic case of protectionism, pure and simple, and that has ripple effects through other sectors of the economy, and, for all I know, the Hostess decision is one of them,” says William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.Far more at http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1116/Did-Congress-kill-the-Twin
kie-The-tariff-tale-behind-the-Hostess-demise.-video?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fwam+%28Christian+Science+Monitor+%7C+Business%29
So I guess it's JUST possible to look beyond the "It's the union's fault!" knee-jerk reaction to find the facts of the story...
Or not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So all of this was the fault of the unions, right? That what you believe?
Socialist and unashamed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But it's all the fault of the workers. None of those CEOs did anything wrong, and I'm sure they earned every penny of their multimillion-dollar paychecks with their hard work!
[/sarcasm]
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
But think of the poor, poor stoners!!!Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
There's been much baking industry consolidation going on for decades. Hostess brands are too powerful to ever disappear entirely. I grew up on Devil Dogs, Twinkies, Yodels, and Snowballs. Back in Jr. HS thru HS those items sold for 5-10 cents, and often my friends and I didn't have the money.
Those rat bastards at Hostess took over Drake's Cakes. I'll never forgive them for what they did to Funny Bones!
My God, what did they do to Funny Bones? I'll admit not eating them in a long time but I wasn't aware they had something done to them. Please elaborate.....mmmmmm peanut butter filling!
Another Drake's gift to humanity from my yoot was Yankee Doodles. It was always a difficult choice....the 2 iced creme-filled chocolate cup cakes from Hostess, or the 3 crumbly non-iced creme-filled chocolate cup cakes from Drakes. And kids today think they have problems!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki - 18,500 workers lose their job because the UNION thugs chose to strike, and it's somehow Bush's fault?
Crassic. 
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thousands of workers lost their jobs because the executives decided, as usual, that looting the company to line their pockets was more important than trying to make a competitive product.
But I didn't see where anyone blamed Bush.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What kind of idiotic group-think morons would take an 100% pay cut rather than an 8%, which would end up being only a 4% pay cut, in a year or so ?
Oh, UNION workers, that's who!
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, well, Mike, we knew the facts wouldn't penetrate that pea-sized brain. I don't know where he got the "Bush" thing tho'...who blamed Bush? C'mon, raise you hand(s), Rap says you blamed Bush so stand up and take your punishment like men!
The timeline pretty much says it all, but ultra-righties like Rap will never get past their lords' and masters' propaganda. It's too bad. I guess he's worked through his five stages of grief and, surprise, came back just the same. Sad.
Let's see...the workers were supposed to keep taking pay cuts (which the CEOs kept getting raises), give up their old-age safety nets (which the company contracted with them to provide their share of), until they're not making enough to survive, right? It never occurs to these people that, if the product is viable, someone will buy it up and employ them again--no doubt at more homorable conditions than they've been getting from the vulture capitalists!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There were several different unions at Hostess. All but the bakers union agreed to new contracts. So that union not only put themselves out of work, they also dragged down thousands of their co-workers with them. And they all made great money and had great benefits. But their union leaders knew better of course. They knew so much in fact that they outsmarted management and led their flock right to the unemployment line. I'm sure the union bosses who live high on the hog with union dues will have a great Christmas. The 18,500 and their families...not so much.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hostess goes through the bankruptcy process only to emerge in a creditor structured form which would allow them to hire non-union workers to fill all those jobs. Even at 2/3 to 3/4 pay and benefits, the lines of people waiting for those jobs would be miles long.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm pretty sure the end of twinkies plays a prominent role in sparking up the zombie apocalypse.
This and that coal miner guy actually reminds me of Enron, only they're trying to use the economy as an excuse instead of openly just not caring about the workers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I say again; it's all too easy to blame the unions. I guess you missed "it had already planned to close plants even if the workers accepted the cuts and stayed at work.", and "Workers took concessions just a few years ago and this year the company has stopped making its contractually obligated contributions to their pensions" and "Six CEO’s in eight years, none of whom with any bread and cake baking industry experience".
In essence, you guys are saying they should work for less and less money while CEOs get raises, let the company renege on their contracts, until the company goes uner? They end up working for less than minimum wage until then? That's how the game is PLAYED...keep taking stuff away and workers will stick it out because they're afraid of losing ANY job, however bad. When it comes to Hostess, in the end it would go under anyway, given the demand for their product has been falling steadily and how badly managed the company had become.
Yeah, it's hard on everyone; hopefully the name will get bought up by someone who can actually make it PROFITABLE, tho' whether that will happen near enough for any of those to get a job is anyone's guess. But the reality is, it's not the workers' faults...they'd made concessions to get it out of bankruptcy already, had their pensions destroyed, and watched the company go downhill for...how long?
Given Hostess had already closed plants--having nothing to do with the union--that their profits had been going downhill steadily for lack of demand of their products, they'd apparently made no effort to produce more viable products, they cheated on the contracts they made with their employees while giving huge raises to the upper echelon, and kept making more and more demands from the workers, it's funny you blame the workers. No, not funny; despicable.
The game has always been played this way: give the workers less and less because they'll tolerate it just to have a job, ANY job. That's what unions are about and why they were created. If they hadn't been, everyone would be working seven days a week, twelve hours a day, without lunch or other breaks, for a pittance. It's too bad unions have become such a whipping boy that current generations forget how it was before they started.
NOT saying there aren't tons and tons of problems with unions these days--seems everything created to do good ends up doing harm. But the mentality of "take less and less, even if it means not making a living wage, just to have a job" and "blame the unions" is one which forgets the past, so left to its own devices, will repeat it.
Eta: Byte, Quote:
This and that coal miner guy actually reminds me of Enron, only they're trying to use the economy as an excuse instead of openly just not caring about the workers.
In a nutshell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Oh, Suzy Q! Don't Be A Ding Dong And Believe The Ho Hos!
As the gentle reader most likely knows by now, the executives of Hostess has decided that they sucked all the money they could out of the company and the workers and shut down all of their operations immediately.
Just like that, more than 18,000 were put out of work.
The failure of a CEO, Gregory F. Rayburn, immediately blamed the unions in his announcement of the shutdown.
The corporate media ran with it. Radio squawkers parroted this. The echo chamber mindlessly repeated it as gospel truth.
Of course it was easier for those without critical thinking skills to repeat the talking points that unions are bad instead of actually looking at the facts for themselves. That might lead to some inconvenient and uncomfortable truths.
Things like the unions were not the only problem, or even the primary one:
The company, founded in 1930, was fighting battles beyond labor costs. Competition is increasing in the snack space and Americans are increasingly conscious about healthy eating. Hostess also makes Dolly Madison, Drake’s and Nature’s Pride snacks.
Click to embiggen
Of course, while union members were being told - not even asked, but told - to make even greater concessions than they already had made, the executives were completely blameless. Well, not really:
Over the past eight years since the first Hostess bankruptcy, BCTGM members have watched as money from previous concessions that was supposed to go towards capital investment, product development, plant improvement and new equipment, was squandered in executive bonuses, payouts to Wall Street investors and payments to high-priced attorneys and consultants.
BCTGM members are well aware that 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.
Over the past 15 months, Hostess workers have seen the company unilaterally end contractually-obligated payments to their pension plan. Despite saving more than $160 million with this action, the company continues to fall deeper and deeper into debt. A mountain of debt and gross mismanagement by a string of failed CEO's with no true experience in the wholesale baking business have left this company unable to compete or survive.
The clearest story of the real course of events comes from who else but a worker that lived through this nightmare roller coaster:
The company of course used it's 'oops' letter to justify asking for concessions from the Union. We gave nothing and gained nothing that year after a 45 minute strike. The status quo continued and I proudly joined the middle class for the first time in my life. I made $14 an hour and had insurance. I even went on vacations for the first time. I had great pride in my job, and the products. We bought a new car for the first and only time in my life. In 2003 I transferred to the Lenexa, KS bakery.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't know where he got the "Bush" thing tho'...who blamed Bush? C'mon, raise you hand(s), Rap says you blamed Bush so stand up and take your punishment like men!
Actually, as I said from the start, Niki, YOU blamed Bush, though w/ out actually saying him by name.
"... it's been going on all around us since America got driven into the ditch"
"The workers " are only suppose to take pay cuts for as long as they want to work there. If not, they're more than free to seek other employment. Like now, since they killed off the entire company. Bravo, " workers ". The jobs don't belong to the employees, they belong to the company. ( Or did ) If you're not keen with getting paid 30 to 40 K a year watching baked goods fly by you on a conveyor belt, then hey, maybe Hostess wasn't a job for you in the first place. But to completely put an entire company under, because you can't take a small pay cut ? Selfish + greedy.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But to completely put an entire company under, because you can't take a small pay cut ? Selfish + greedy.
We are in complete agreement. The CEO is selfish and greedy to put the company into liquidation because he refuses to take a small pay cut.
The workers will likely not be unemployed for long. The factories still exist, the product has a known and recognizable name, and the bakers know how to make it. New ownership will come along. CEOs and executives can be replaced as easily as workers, if not more so, since they have nothing to do with producing anything. They are the takers, not the makers.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lo and behold, a possible sale to a foreign company.
I'm sure this will come as a shock to absolutely nobody here except a few right-wingers.
Quote:
Grupo Bimbo, a Mexican company that is the world's largest bread baker, might hold the key to saving the Twinkie from extinction in a Hostess liquidation.
Though other companies have shown interest in buying some of Hostess' iconic brands, Bimbo might have the inside track, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
A $10 billion sales business, Bimbo has pushed its way into the baked-goods big leagues through smart acquisitions under the leadership of CEO Daniel Servitje Montull.
In 2010, Bimbo bought the North American fresh-baked unit of Sara Lee for $959 million, according to the Associated Press, and with it, well-known brands like Entenmann's and Thomas' English Muffins.
And this isn't the first time Bimbo has tried to save Twinkies. Bimbo in conjunction with a few others made a bid for the Twinkie-maker during its first bankruptcy 2007, but Bimbo ultimately backed out, according to Forbes.
Bimbo's access to cheap Mexican sugar might also give the company an upper hand. Hostess struggled with high sugar prices in the U.S., which were tied to trade tariffs, according to NBC News. Mexican sugar could help avoid those additional costs, but would also take production -- and manufacturing jobs -- south of the border.
Labor talks between Hostess and the unions that represent most of its 19,000 workers had gone on for months before the company's decision to liquidate Friday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/18/bimbo-twinkies-mexican-hostes
s-liquidation_n_2155070.html
So sell Hostess off to foreign competition, outsource production overseas, and blame it all on those pesky workers while you fuck them out of their jobs and pensions.
Truly a typical dick move by yet another bunch of greedy vulture capitalists.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not a fan of Hostess snacks, but I feel really bad about all those people losing their jobs. I'd prefer other American companies start manufacturing the stuff and hire the current workers to do it, don't want it being outsourced.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.
Interesting to compare to this, which shows the salaries going down 8% for a year and then starting to go up again.
Quote:
The new contract cuts salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries then bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Hostess has also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news/companies/hostess-liquidation-thu
rsday/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanx for the more detailed explanation of what has happened/is happening/will happen, Mike.
Ignore Rap; that he interprets my statement as blaming Bush personally, not the banks, Wall Street, the housing crisis, two wars, illegal mortgages, etc., is an excellent reflection of his mentality and has nothing to do with me. He's not worth bothering with.
It's a shame that, when presented with the facts (if they even bothered to read them), our righties steadfastly continue to blame the unions and come up with mewling excuses for the inexcusable actions of the vulture capitalists who actually caused the problem. As the article said, far too many buy into the indoctrination and don't even really CARE about the true facts. Shame we've gotten to this point in our country.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is the fault of both parties. The pay increases the CEO's and top managment took are no where near the amount of money the company was losing. It was also not close to the cost of pentions and other benifits. Does that mean the CEO's are blameless, no.
Now however stupid the managment was in the past the reality of the situations was such that the Teamsters Union was very close to working out a deal with the company and accepting pay cuts. The Teamsters saw the writting on the wall and could do the math. The Bakers Union could not.
Now will those factories open back up? Maybe, but any buyers of the brands may very well just build new factories in Right to Work states so they don't have to deal with the Unions.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yet another valid perspective on the issue, in my opinion:Quote:
News reports that Hostess Brands will file for bankruptcy— and plans to sell off iconic American brands like Wonder Bread and Twinkies — have mostly centered around the debilitating fight between the company and one of its largest unions. But there’s a more underlying reason why Hostess is disappearing.
While Hostess Brands makes a host of desserts and snacks – namely Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Ho-Hos – the company is primarily a bread maker, and its flagship loaf is Wonder Bread.
For decades, Wonder Bread was arguably the most recognizable brand of sliced bread in the country. It’s the only brand that’s ever truly been national. It’s as American as a white picket fence. And in grocery stores throughout the country, it’s ubiquitous. Since the 1950s and ’60s, toast has been a staple of most breakfasts. Bread was on the dinner table in almost every household.
Gradually, though, our diets changed and our consumer preferences shifted. Almost 95% of Americans still eat bread at least once every two weeks, according to food industry analysis firm NPD Group. But instead of just toast in the morning, we now have a multitude of options for breakfast: frozen waffles, toaster pastries, energy bars, and most importantly, yogurt.
Our dinner preferences have changed, too. More and more we’re opting for one-dish meals, says Balzer. Pizza, casseroles, pasta – anything that is quick and simple is what we’re after when we get home from work, and the tradition of bread as a side dish is diminishing. Believe it or not, NPD Group tracks U.S. households that include a side dish of bread at dinner. In 1984, it was 11%. Today, it’s 7%.
Similarly, energy bars have become wildly popular over the last several years, not only as a snack but also part of breakfast or lunch. Tortillas have become the second most popular bread type in the country, according to the Tortilla Industry Association. There’s been a 3.6% increase in tortilla revenues each year on average since 2007.
To a lesser extent, we’ve also become much more health-conscious, which has hurt sales for companies like Hostess that make highly caloric sugary products. Meanwhile, fitness-based industries are bringing in more and more revenue, according to Agata Kaczanowska, an industry analyst at IBIS World.
Hostess appears to have gotten stuck somewhere in the ‘60s and never really recovered. It failed to innovate. It rarely advertised. It didn’t successfully market itself. And it didn’t contemporize its products.
“Commercial bread has become kind of an economy item,” says Goldin. “In-store bakeries have that image of freshness and quality that consumers are looking for.”
It’s possible that some of Hostess’s brands will survive. The company will be selling off those brands in the coming months. But many of them are likely to wither away right along with the ways we used to eat.
“The industry has shifted,” says Goldin. “Some of them have a chance of surviving. But it’s hard to fathom how many will be relevant going forward.”Excerpts from http://business.time.com/2012/11/19/the-real-reason-why-hostess-went-u
nder-the-way-we-eat-has-changed/
To stubbornly continue to blame the unions exclusively is to be deliberately blind to ALL the various reasons behind Hostess' demise.
Aside from which, the idea that the unions wouldn't concede yet again, given the facts presented by the article Mike posts, isn't logical. To see one's salary cut again and again, while forced to accept higher and higher investments on the worker's part (which is essentially a FURTHER pay cut), isn't logical. To say the enormous raises given to CEOs at the same TIME as pay cuts were demanded wouldn't have salvaged the situation, and would have led to almost a less-than-working wage for the workers, is equally short-sighted. They CONTRIBUTED to it, and if one reads the facts and figures pertaining to the company&#
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They had a liquidation expert on the management team for 8 years. It was always about bleeding the company dry.
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
I don't know where he got the "Bush" thing tho'...who blamed Bush? C'mon, raise you hand(s), Rap says you blamed Bush so stand up and take your punishment like men!
Actually, as I said from the start, Niki, YOU blamed Bush, though w/ out actually saying him by name.
"... it's been going on all around us since America got driven into the ditch"
"The workers " are only suppose to take pay cuts for as long as they want to work there. If not, they're more than free to seek other employment. Like now, since they killed off the entire company. Bravo, " workers ". The jobs don't belong to the employees, they belong to the company. ( Or did ) If you're not keen with getting paid 30 to 40 K a year watching baked goods fly by you on a conveyor belt, then hey, maybe Hostess wasn't a job for you in the first place. But to completely put an entire company under, because you can't take a small pay cut ? Selfish + greedy.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
Good old Rappy, always sticking up for the rich over the working man.
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko: while you fuck them out of their jobs and pensions.
Truly a typical dick move by yet another bunch of greedy vulture capitalists.
Excuse me.. WHOSE jobs ? They're not the worker's jobs, they belong to the company, NOT the employees.
Don't like working for greedy vulture capitalists ? Fine. Go work for the govt. Go work for yourself. But don't for a second buy into the fairy tale that the jobs BELONG to the employees.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Excuse me.. WHOSE jobs ? They're not the worker's jobs, they belong to the company, NOT the employees.
Don't like working for greedy vulture capitalists ? Fine. Go work for the govt. Go work for yourself. But don't for a second buy into the fairy tale that the jobs BELONG to the employees.
The employees are the company, or at least the largest part of it. So, they are the employees jobs. Without the employees the company fails. This situation with Hostess proves that.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The union killed Hostess, not the employees. The company does not exist for the benefit of the unions. No company does.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is a case where one union took down another union. Most of the 18,500 were Hostess Teamsters who were ready to go back to work, but they got screwed out of their jobs when the Bakers union refused to do the same. I guess they'll all be holding hands in union brotherly love on the unemployment line, or they'll kill each other. Jimmy Hoffa must be rolling over in his cement pillar.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The union killed Hostess, not the employees. The company does not exist for the benefit of the unions. No company does.
...and who makes up the unions?
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
This is a case where one union took down another union. Most of the 18,500 were Hostess Teamsters who were ready to go back to work, but they got screwed out of their jobs when the Bakers union refused to do the same. I guess they'll all be holding hands in union brotherly love on the unemployment line, or they'll kill each other.
I would guess they are not holding hands.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The union killed Hostess, not the employees. The company does not exist for the benefit of the unions. No company does.
Actually, the executives killed Hostess. The unions didn't decide to liquidate the company and sell off all the assets; that was the execs who decided that.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
This is a case where one union took down another union. Most of the 18,500 were Hostess Teamsters who were ready to go back to work, but they got screwed out of their jobs when the Bakers union refused to do the same. I guess they'll all be holding hands in union brotherly love on the unemployment line, or they'll kill each other. Jimmy Hoffa must be rolling over in his cement pillar.
Color me unsympathetic here, given what the AFL under Gompers used to do to the IWW for being anti-war back in the day, with the help of them American Legion fascists.
I've always considered the AFL-CIO to be a buncha corporate buttsucking toadies and the Teamsters to be little better, if any, than the corporations they oppose - despite this I will always, always side with Labor cause without any check against the power of corporations, especially in their incestuous relationship with government, we'd just be slaves and not paid at all.
If anything, I am of the opinion that Labor doesn't play hardball ENOUGH, cause my ancestors paid a bloody toll for them rights we do have, and sometimes that *IS* what it takes.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When Ronald Reagan fired ALL the members of the Air Traffic Controllers union (PATCO) it didn't take too long to fill those jobs. If air traffic controllers can be replaced I'm pretty sure truck drivers and bakery workers can be replaced, especially with 20+ million people looking for full-time work.
The days of exploitive robber barons like Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, and others are long gone. Unions had a purpose and were necessary back then, but over time the Federal Govt. took on that role and became the protector and enforcer of workers' rights. Today there are Federal and State laws protecting workers in regards to child labor, overtime pay, maternity leave, equal opportunity, worker's comp. disability, racial bias, pay parity, OSHA safety, minority bias, sexual harassment, etc etc etc.
So what do unions really do for the hundreds of millions of dollars they collect (extort) from their members? Seems like the union heads have become the modern day exploitive robber barons.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Aside from which, the idea that the unions wouldn't concede yet again, given the facts presented by the article Mike posts, isn't logical. To see one's salary cut again and again, while forced to accept higher and higher investments on the worker's part (which is essentially a FURTHER pay cut), isn't logical.
Except, as noted above, the "facts" in Mike's post about the proposed contract seen to contradict what pretty much all reports describe the contact as actually being.
From all I've read, the contract lowers pay 8% the first year. For years two through four, it increases pay 3% a year, and in the fifth year increases pay 1%. So at the end of five years, pay is 2% higher than it is now. Company contributions to health premiums also drop from 83% to 66%. Payments to retirement funds (not Social Security) drop 75%.
ETA: This is not to say that the company couldn't have been managed better, or have noticed the change in the American diet and diversified, but more efficient management might also have downsized and closed plants earlier in the process, putting folks out of work anyway.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The days of exploitive robber barons like Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, and others are long gone.
I call bullshit.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The days of exploitive robber barons like Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, and others are long gone. Unions had a purpose and were necessary back then, but over time the Federal Govt. took on that role and became the protector and enforcer of workers' rights. Today there are Federal and State laws protecting workers in regards to child labor, overtime pay, maternity leave, equal opportunity, worker's comp. disability, racial bias, pay parity, OSHA safety, minority bias, sexual harassment, etc etc etc.
Its almost... sweet... that you believe this.
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The union killed Hostess, not the employees. The company does not exist for the benefit of the unions. No company does.
...and who makes up the unions?
It's not who makes up the unions, it's who makes up the union leadership that's so destructive. Forcing employees to join, and then forcing them to fork over their earned $ to the union, and then forcing open votes... it's sheer intimidation and threats that he unions control the employees.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you have any cites to back your claim that unions are "forcing employees to join"?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you have any cites to back your claim that unions are "forcing employees to join"?
Any cites to say they weren't?
Your tedious claim of 'cites', is nothing more than a clear attempt to distract from the issue at hand. The union voted to kill Hostess, as unions have voted to shut down many businesses before.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you have any cites to back your claim that unions are "forcing employees to join"?
Unless you are in a Right to Work state you may have to become a member of the Union as part of employment. Those are called security agreements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Your tedious claim of 'cites', is nothing more than a clear attempt to distract from the issue at hand.
No it is not dumbass. If you are going to make claims be ready to back them up or shut the fuck up.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
No it is not dumbass. If you are going to make claims be ready to back them up or shut the fuck up.
Not only will I NOT 'shut the fuck up', but with Kwickie, his monotonous asking for 'cites' is exactly as I described it. He uses that reply to avoid even having to deal w/ the bigger issue. It's a dodge, a hustle, and quite frankly, boring as hell.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not only will I NOT 'shut the fuck up', but with Kwickie, his monotonous asking for 'cites' is exactly as I described it. He uses that reply to avoid even having to deal w/ the bigger issue. It's a dodge, a hustle, and quite frankly, boring as hell.
If you can't cite your claims they are nothing but opinion a can be ignored, and may times should be. See Rappy facts matter to thinking people. If you produce the citation Kwickie can not longer avoid it without and is forced to deal with it or should be called out on it. Until you back up your claims your the one who gets called out. That is the way it goes.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you have any cites to back your claim that unions are "forcing employees to join"?
Any cites to say they weren't?
So you've got nothing, eh? Figures.
You're big on claiming things that simply are not true. It'd be nice to think that you have a factual basis for the things you claim, which is why I ask for cites for your claims. That you can rarely or never provide them says far more about you and your "facts" than it does about me.
Quote:
Your tedious claim of 'cites', is nothing more than a clear attempt to distract from the issue at hand. The union voted to kill Hostess, as unions have voted to shut down many businesses before.
Does the union have the ability to vote to kill a company? Can they unincorporate the company and fire all the board of directors and sign the papers to liquidate all the assets?
Or do you not know what the hell you're talking about, as usual?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, here's the cite I found with a simple Google search:
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
Quote:
You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.
Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.
Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.
If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.) If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.
So *NO*, nobody is "forcing" anyone to join a union.
Your turn, shitbritches.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, no you can't be forced to join the Union, but you can be forced to pay the dues.
I'm glad I'm in a Right to Work state.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Every time I come back here from the real world, or from hunting stuff up on the internet to better understand an issue, I read a post from Rap, then a response, and immediately think "Why does anyone respond to him? He's so obviously clueless and DELIBERATELY not interested in any facts, only able to spout what he's been told." You're arguing with him--debate isn't possible and you know precisely what you'll get from him...so I keep wondering "why???".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Does the union have the ability to vote to kill a company? Can they unincorporate the company and fire all the board of directors and sign the papers to liquidate all the assets?
No, but you know they can go on strike and kill the company that way.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Does the union have the ability to vote to kill a company? Can they unincorporate the company and fire all the board of directors and sign the papers to liquidate all the assets?
No, but you know they can go on strike and kill the company that way.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
Thing is, the union going on strike isn't the same thing as the company's execs filing for bankruptcy and liquidation. The union going on strike is the workers saying that there are minimum conditions for work, conditions below which they will not voluntarily report for work.
According to Rappy, they aren't doing anything to the company, because those aren't their jobs anyway.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Every time I come back here from the real world, or from hunting stuff up on the internet to better understand an issue, I read a post from Rap, then a response, and immediately think "Why does anyone respond to him? He's so obviously clueless and DELIBERATELY not interested in any facts, only able to spout what he's been told." You're arguing with him--debate isn't possible and you know precisely what you'll get from him...so I keep wondering "why???".
Probably for the same reason "why" you keep having to come back and bring up the exact same thing.
I was told that people were being FORCED to join unions; I disputed that. Of the people arguing the point, I was the only one who brought cites and facts to the discussion. I do believe more than one person in this discussion was thereby able to learn something they hadn't known before.
Quit trying to convince yourself that it's about convincing Rappy. I've explained to you ad nauseum that it's not about him, because he has proven himself ineducable.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wasn't talking to you, Mike, I'm well aware of your reasons for engaging him. Guess I was mostly talking to Nick. And yeah, I'll keep making the point, ad nauseum, because there's always hope that enough people will get sick of beating their heads against the wall that they'll stop responding to (encouraging) him and we can scroll right past him while having a REAL discussion, instead of everyone being hijacked into replying to him. Bite me. 
Don't mean I don't still luv 'ya.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Bite me.
Don't mean I don't still luv 'ya.
I have to admit, I LOL'd.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thing is, the union going on strike isn't the same thing as the company's execs filing for bankruptcy and liquidation. The union going on strike is the workers saying that there are minimum conditions for work, conditions below which they will not voluntarily report for work.
Not the same thing but you know that them not showing up to work can force the execs to file bankruptcy and liquidate. If the company is not making anything to sell it will not survive.
Unions are like everything else, some are better than others. If a Union is unreasonable in there demands they can drive a company out of business.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're big on claiming things that simply are not true.
Sort'a like this claim you quoted above?
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Interesting to compare to this, which shows the salaries going down 8% for a year and then starting to go up again.Quote:
The new contract cuts salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries then bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Hostess has also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news/companies/hostess-liquidation-thu
rsday/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're big on claiming things that simply are not true.
Sort'a like this claim you quoted above?
Did I make a claim that is untrue?
Or did I quote a source you have an issue with?
(There's a difference between the two, but in your rapidly deteriorating mental state, you seem not to be able to discern such differences.)
Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Interesting to compare to this, which shows the salaries going down 8% for a year and then starting to go up again.Quote:
The new contract cuts salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries then bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Hostess has also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news/companies/hostess-liquidation-thu
rsday/index.html
That's cute. I noticed how you managed to put your own quoted clips in quote tags, yet made the quotes I posted look like they were things that *I* said, when you know they aren't my claims, but allegations made in an article which I cited.
Further, you've yet to show where the article I posted is "untrue". You've only posted something else which differs from my source. Would it be valid for me to claim that you're citing untrue articles if I have a source that disagrees with yours?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
If you can't cite your claims they are nothing but opinion a can be ignored, and may times should be. See Rappy facts matter to thinking people. If you produce the citation Kwickie can not longer avoid it without and is forced to deal with it or should be called out on it. Until you back up your claims your the one who gets called out. That is the way it goes.
Can and DO offer up cites, but not every single post. In the REAL world, many voice their opinions freely, in the course of having a mature conversation. Not every minute detail is cross examined and 'cited'. Hell, even when I DO offer up cites, the peanut gallery still mocks, dismisses and ignores my views, so I fail to see the point of trying to be taken seriously by the likes of you as a legitimate motivating factor.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
... you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision REQUIRING all employees to either join the union or pay union fees .
Which often means, you're forced to join the union.
As I said...
And then there's the issue of having open votes, or card check, where the unions intimidate the employees by forcing them to openly vote up or down on measures, instead of a secret ballot.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Can and DO offer up cites, but not every single post. In the REAL world, many voice their opinions freely, in the course of having a mature conversation. Not every minute detail is cross examined and 'cited'. Hell, even when I DO offer up cites, the peanut gallery still mocks, dismisses and ignores my views, so I fail to see the point of trying to be taken seriously by the likes of you as a legitimate motivating factor.
Cite when asked, learn what a good citation is. Not very hard. I'm okay with you continuing to be dismissed when you fail to do these things.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Which often means, you're forced to join the union.
As I said...
And then there's the issue of having open votes, or card check, where the unions intimidate the employees by forcing them to openly vote up or down on measures, instead of a secret ballot.
KW's other post provided evidence that a person can't be forced to join a Union, just pay the dues. Now I don't understand why anyone would not join and get a say if they have to pay for it and get represented by one. Techniclly you and I were wrong and he was right. Deal with it.
Now I agree with you on the issue of secret ballots.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
KW's other post provided evidence that a person can't be forced to join a Union, just pay the dues. Now I don't understand why anyone would not join and get a say if they have to pay for it and get represented by one. Techniclly you and I were wrong and he was right. Deal with it.
Now I agree with you on the issue of secret ballots.
Saying you're not FORCED to join, unless it's part of the labor agreement, still ends up as being exactly as I said, where anyone wishing to want to go work ends up having to join the union OR merely paying a portion of their pay check to the union.
I fail to see any tangible distinction, though you ( and more so Kwickie ) want to play semantics on this point. At the end of the day, anyone who goes to work for company X, is getting $ taken from them, forcibly, and or having to join the union, outright.
And I'm sorry, but merely having folks ask for citations, at a drop of a hat, isn't a valid excuse for me to bother going to the trouble of finding suitable sources for the approval of a message board. Some times it's warranted, but not always. Kwickie loves to merely toss out the 'cites' challenge, simply because he has nothing of substance to offer, ( he seldom does ) and is just being an a-hole , out of pure spite.
It's not a serious request, and he knows it.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Saying you're not FORCED to join, unless it's part of the labor agreement, still ends up as being exactly as I said, where anyone wishing to want to go work ends up having to join the union OR merely paying a portion of their pay check to the union.
I fail to see any tangible distinction, though you ( and more so Kwickie ) want to play semantics on this point. At the end of the day, anyone who goes to work for company X, is getting $ taken from them, forcibly, and or having to join the union, outright.
Holy shit moron... http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
"Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time."
There is not much difference, but there is a difference. Instead of you trying desperatly to show you are right about this small point just move on with your arguments.
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And I'm sorry, but merely having folks ask for citations, at a drop of a hat, isn't a valid excuse for me to bother going to the trouble of finding suitable sources for the approval of a message board. Some times it's warranted, but not always. Kwickie loves to merely toss out the 'cites' challenge, simply because he has nothing of substance to offer, ( he seldom does ) and is just being an a-hole , out of pure spite.
More likely you can back up the vast majority of your claims. You want to be taken seriously you have to provide the citations when asked.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You faux anger and derogatory comments are both amusing and unnecessary.
you may be required to pay union fees.
Note the term - FORCED unionism State.
Quote:
A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be
Even in Right to Work states, employees are beholden to the will of unions, with some industries.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
you may be required to pay union fees.
Okay, I never disagreed with you on that point. It is however not the same as being forced the join a union.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
you may be required to pay union fees.
Okay, I never disagreed with you on that point. It is however not the same as being forced the join a union.
Which is why I bothered to make a distinction between the two. You see, being FORCED to do something, whether it's a little, like merely paying dues to a union you don't belong to, or a lot, like JOINING a union you'd rather not join, is all the same to me. It's coercion, it's intimidation. It's tyranny. And I do not hold to that. Not by the govt, not by anyone.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
KW's other post provided evidence that a person can't be forced to join a Union, just pay the dues. Now I don't understand why anyone would not join and get a say if they have to pay for it and get represented by one. Techniclly you and I were wrong and he was right. Deal with it.
Now I agree with you on the issue of secret ballots.
Saying you're not FORCED to join, unless it's part of the labor agreement, still ends up as being exactly as I said, where anyone wishing to want to go work ends up having to join the union OR merely paying a portion of their pay check to the union.
Not quite EXACTLY as you said. What you said was "It's not who makes up the unions, it's who makes up the union leadership that's so destructive. Forcing employees to join, and then forcing them to fork over their earned $ to the union, and then forcing open votes... it's sheer intimidation and threats that he unions control the employees."
"FORCING employees to join..." Your words.
A portion of my paycheck goes to taxes, some of which go to the military. Is that exactly the same as saying that I'm being forced to join the military?
Quote:
I fail to see any tangible distinction, though you ( and more so Kwickie ) want to play semantics on this point. At the end of the day, anyone who goes to work for company X, is getting $ taken from them, forcibly, and or having to join the union, outright.
And you still haven't shown where Hostess = "company X". You've yet to show where any Hostess employees were forced to join any union, where they were forced to pay union dues if they didn't join, or where they were forced into open votes, all of which you allege are "sheer intimidation and threats that [the] unions control the employees" with.
You can call it "semantics", but I'm going off of your exact words. If they aren't what you meant to say, then you're being ineffectual as a communicator.
Quote:
And I'm sorry, but merely having folks ask for citations, at a drop of a hat, isn't a valid excuse for me to bother going to the trouble of finding suitable sources for the approval of a message board. Some times it's warranted, but not always. Kwickie loves to merely toss out the 'cites' challenge, simply because he has nothing of substance to offer, ( he seldom does ) and is just being an a-hole , out of pure spite.
It's not a serious request, and he knows it.
Couple things:
1) So now you know exactly what I mean when I ask for cites for your claims? You're the final arbiter of whether or not I'm serious?
2) Will you now pretend that you've never done anything of the kind? Have you NEVER "played semantic games" and picked apart someone's words and assigned them meaning?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Which is why I bothered to make a distinction between the two. You see, being FORCED to do something, whether it's a little, like merely paying dues to a union you don't belong to, or a lot, like JOINING a union you'd rather not join, is all the same to me. It's coercion, it's intimidation. It's tyranny. And I do not hold to that. Not by the govt, not by anyone.
It's not coercion, or intimidation and certainly not tyranny. It can be part of legal agreements between a Union and an Employer. So while I agree with you that people should not have to pay dues as part of employment I do not share your hyperbole.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
you may be required to pay union fees.
Okay, I never disagreed with you on that point. It is however not the same as being forced the join a union.
Which is why I bothered to make a distinction between the two. You see, being FORCED to do something, whether it's a little, like merely paying dues to a union you don't belong to, or a lot, like JOINING a union you'd rather not join, is all the same to me. It's coercion, it's intimidation. It's tyranny. And I do not hold to that. Not by the govt, not by anyone.
Riiiiiiight. For you, it's FORCE, coercion, and intimidation for someone to pay union dues, but it's none of those things when your government holds someone's head under water and drowns them in order to make them answer questions. That's just a harmless frat prank, right?
You have odd notions of what "force, coercion, and intimidation" are, boy.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you have any cites to back your claim that unions are "forcing employees to join"?
Any cites to say they weren't?
So you've got nothing, eh? Figures.
Im betting the chump tried to find proof after he made the claim (which he did because he was Just. SO. Sure.) and quickly discovered it is in fact illegal in all 50 states to force workers to join a union.
But rather than admit that, he went on the offensive, and attacked you for daring to ask him to back up a claim he at this point knew wasn't true - but didn't have the courage or integrity to back down from.
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do let's not forget what Rap said some time ago:Quote:
. I do speak off the cuff, mostly, as I view these forums as more as free flowing conversations, and not term papers, to be accompanied by voluminous pages of cut and paste, or twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.
Ergo, he doesn't feel the need to back up whatever he posts, he's just having a "free-flowing conversation". He just chooses to state it as fact.
Someone might mention that, the times he DOES provide "cites", they are generally from sources that are so very right wing that nobody takes them seriously...like, I mean, Breitbart???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
It's not coercion, or intimidation and certainly not tyranny. It can be part of legal agreements between a Union and an Employer. So while I agree with you that people should not have to pay dues as part of employment I do not share your hyperbole.
It's not 'hyperbole', but the way things are. You think because it's "legal", that makes it O.K. ?
If buying of slaves is deemed " legal ", then what's the problem, right ?
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're big on claiming things that simply are not true.
Sort'a like this claim you quoted above?
Did I make a claim that is untrue?
Or did I quote a source you have an issue with?
(There's a difference between the two, but in your rapidly deteriorating mental state, you seem not to be able to discern such differences.)
That's cute. I noticed how you managed to put your own quoted clips in quote tags, yet made the quotes I posted look like they were things that *I* said, when you know they aren't my claims, but allegations made in an article which I cited.
Further, you've yet to show where the article I posted is "untrue". You've only posted something else which differs from my source. Would it be valid for me to claim that you're citing untrue articles if I have a source that disagrees with yours?
See Mike squirm. Squirm, Mike, squirm.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Ergo, he doesn't feel the need to back up whatever he posts, he's just having a "free-flowing conversation". He just chooses to state it as fact.
No, Niki, you're have it completely wrong. I did say cites ARE appropriate, but not for every single conversation. If I like crunchy peanut butter over creamy,and say as much, that shouldn't require 3 independent citations form " neutral " sources. You folks love to pick and choose who you call ' cites ' for, and more times than not, it's done to me, simply to avoid having a serious discussion on the matter.
And you said it yourself, that my sources are " right wing " , so you feel free to dismiss what ever I post anyways, so what'st he fucking point ?
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're big on claiming things that simply are not true.
Sort'a like this claim you quoted above?
Did I make a claim that is untrue?
Or did I quote a source you have an issue with?
(There's a difference between the two, but in your rapidly deteriorating mental state, you seem not to be able to discern such differences.)
That's cute. I noticed how you managed to put your own quoted clips in quote tags, yet made the quotes I posted look like they were things that *I* said, when you know they aren't my claims, but allegations made in an article which I cited.
Further, you've yet to show where the article I posted is "untrue". You've only posted something else which differs from my source. Would it be valid for me to claim that you're citing untrue articles if I have a source that disagrees with yours?
See Mike squirm. Squirm, Mike, squirm.
See Geezer spin. Spin, troll, spin.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
It's not coercion, or intimidation and certainly not tyranny. It can be part of legal agreements between a Union and an Employer. So while I agree with you that people should not have to pay dues as part of employment I do not share your hyperbole.
It's not 'hyperbole', but the way things are. You think because it's "legal", that makes it O.K. ?
If buying of slaves is deemed " legal ", then what's the problem, right ?
Learn to read moron.
"So while I agree with you that people should not have to pay dues as part of employment I do not share your hyperbole."
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, Niki, you're have it completely wrong. I did say cites ARE appropriate, but not for every single conversation. If I like crunchy peanut butter over creamy,and say as much, that shouldn't require 3 independent citations form " neutral " sources.
Please learn the difference between opinion and facts.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That would be nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't think it will ever happen. The problem he doesn't see is that he makes flat statements and states them as "fact" without providing any backup, then complains when asked for same. It's one thing to state an opinion, another to claim something is fact. Whether he realizes that or not, he'll continue to do so, then complain whan asked to back up his "facts".
As to right wing, everything's biased. But there are some sources SO right wing that they're not credible, and it is those to which I was referring. I try not to quote MSNBC or others so obviously left wing for just that reason. That will probably never change either.
I think part of the problem is that Rap hears something from the only sources he claims to enjoy, FauxNews and right-wing talk radio, spouts it here then has trouble backing it up from anything but those sources or their ilk on the internet, so he grouses about requests for backup.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, Niki, you're have it completely wrong. I did say cites ARE appropriate, but not for every single conversation. If I like crunchy peanut butter over creamy,and say as much, that shouldn't require 3 independent citations form " neutral " sources.
Please learn the difference between opinion and facts.
My opinions are based on facts.
Deal w/ it.
Niki, what you can't get your mind around is that I have a different take on the world than you. You see your 'facts' , and ignore all else.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We keep arguing about the unions, but I put something about this up earlier, and tho' nobody noticed at the time, I think it's a valid question which is one of those "perspective" issue regarding Hostess' demis:Quote:
Did Congress kill the Twinkie? The tariff tale behind the Hostess demise.
Since 1934, Congress has supported sugar trade tariffs. In a sign of the power of the sugar lobby, Hostess picked unions, not the lobby, to fight when it had to cut costs to stay in business.
Since 1934, Congress has supported tariffs that benefit primarily a few handful of powerful Florida families while forcing US confectioners to pay nearly twice the global market price for sugar.
One telling event: When Hostess had to cut costs to stay in business, it picked unions, not the sugar lobby, to fight.
“These large sugar growers ... are a notoriously powerful lobbying interest in Washington,” writes Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute in a 2007 report. “Federal supply restrictions have given them monopoly power, and they protect that power by becoming important supporters of presidents, governors, and many members of Congress.”Further at http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1116/Did-Congress-kill-the-Twin
kie-The-tariff-tale-behind-the-Hostess-demise.-video
It's easy for those of a certain mindset to say "It's the unions!", without looking any deeper at what might have contributed--more than the unions--to a problem such as this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
My opinions are based on facts.
If that is true you should have no problem backing them up with citations.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bingo. If we want to give our opinions, or talk "off the cuff", that's one thing. But when Rap claims his "opinions" are "based on" facts, then he has the onus of showing said facts so we can come to our own opinions. Simple as that.
Otherwise, he's just blowing off steam, talking through his hat, or repeating talking points from right-wing sources, which is what I believe he's doing 99% of the time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME