Union Results: 3 Closed Bakeries, 627 Unemployed People

Tsk. Tsk.

Hope you like paying for the unemployment and pensions Coin.

Did Hostess "show those union workers" or did they just show guys like you and me?

 

That is like asking when you stopped beating your wife, right?

 

You would tell a battered woman that if she'd just submit to her husband then he wouldn't have to beat her so badly.

 

Not being a wife beater I really have no idea what in the hell you're getting at here. Can you explain?

Looks like Takiji got it. If he did thanks for pointing out the obviously stupid Tak.

 

I would ask the husband and wife to try to work out their differences if they wanted to stay together and make the marriage work. But, if one partner wants to walk out the door and not come back, the marriage crumbles at that point. In cases like these, it's usually the children who suffer most. In this case, it was 18,500 "children".

 

Actually, no I don't. That's why I was hoping the baker's union would have gone back to work. I don't like to see unemployment go up and the taxpayers footing the bill. Hostess would still be in business today had it not been for the baker's union. That is a fact. The goods would be produced, the trucks would be running, the distributors would be working and the retail shops would be open. The workers would be gainfully employed and taxpayers wouldn't have to pick up the slack. All this because of the damned baker's union. If the baker's union had only negotiated a deal with Hostess like the Teamster's did, everyone would have prospered and the taxpayers would be off the hook. But, they didn't. They called Hostess's bluff and everyone lost. Damned unions.

 

I have two other things to say about this.

The first is that those upper management people will be hired by other companies even after this BS, if they haven't been already. So, win/win for them, they didn't need their own company, especially after legally draining it of it's assets.

The second thing is that some laws are influenced, and even made in some cases, by these same people. They make the laws with these legal "outs", and get away with it time after time because it IS legal

It's corruption we accept, at least for the moment. The question I have is, why the hell do so many of us in America accept this corruption? I guess I know...greed, the belief that they too can grab a piece of that money, and indifference, or lack of will to combat the corruption.

What can be done? Change the laws. But the law isn't easy to change when the lawmakers themselves are corrupt. Lawsuits are about the only remaining legal method that stands a chance when changing the law through the legislature proves to be impossible. But lawsuits take years, even decades, to conclude, and are not a certainty given that the judicial is also subject to corruption.

I'm prevented by law from mentioning other methods.

 

I will be nice to you and give you straight answer. Don't ask why.
If you answer my question with a "yes", that means that you used to beat your wife. With a "no", that means that you are still beating your wife. If you answer your question "before, that admits that they pilfered the pension fund. If they answer after, .......

 

How about you just do me a favor rlm. Replace the word you with one. As in "if one beats his wife".

Take my response as you will but I take this personal. I would NEVER beat my wife. Period.

Thank you for your consideration in advance.

 

Yep, the children always suffer Coin.

However it's just not that simple when it comes to abuse. A wife that is getting slapped around just needs to get out.

Guys that slap their wives around are most likely going to do it again. Same goes for wives that slap their husbands around.

Hostess slapped their wives, husbands and children around. Luckily for them there is no alimony, no child support and no real responsibility.

They can now get Mexican "families" for instance that "enjoy" being abused.

Long live the friggin Twinkie!

 

So why the Tsk Tsk Coin?

Hostess might still be in business if they hadn't given themselves all huge bonuses.
You know "take one for the team" instead of "take one from the team".

Did you read the whole article?

How do people "prosper" when they're taking $3 an hour pay cuts? It certainly wasn't happening to upper management.

Believe it or not I'm not all "pro union". On the other hand I am "anti stupid". I'm seeing a lot of "stupid" in large corporations these days because they can get away with it.

 

Actually, upper management cut their pay significantly more than $3 per hour down to $1 per year. Also, it was not so much how much the workers were making but that the unions required such things as 2 drivers per truck (among other things). The driver had to sit in the truck while the pullup unloaded the truck.

 

No it's like asking when he stopped beating your wife.

 

So, are your employees unionized?

 

David, if they were he wouldn't be paying them only $14 per hour to start. He claimed not to know whether they were unionized or not. What type of manager doesn't know that?

 

I guess I missed his response. Well, if his claim is he doesn't know whether his employees are unionized or not, it does establish the fact that he's a liar.

 

You didn't miss it because he is lying his ass off. Typical of your ilk.
View attachment 1083

 

So why are you so hesitant to tell us whether or not your employees are unionized, huh?

 

Search a little farther back in this thread. He said he doesn't ask if his employees are unionized, so he doesn't know whether they are or not. Any owner of a company is going to know whether his employee's are unionized or not.

 

Ilk and a hunk o poop.

This truly makes me laugh.