Posted by Me Too, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Another person who reads the first paragraph of an article and makes up his mind that unions are evil.
The company had be going broke for a long time. I do believe the unions play a role in it, but you certainly have your head in the sand (or you are really stupid, but I prefer to believe that you just want to believe) if you think the unions are the only reason Hostess is going out of business.
I'm not a union defender and I'm not a union supporter. I've been on both sides and I know the good and bad of unions and the good and bad of management. There are certainly times where unions have caused companies to fail. This is not one of them.
Posted by AL, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2012 at 11:45 am
Considering the fact the hostess wanted to stay open, but the union wouldn't compromise, I say that it is primarily the fault of the union that hostess is gone. Unions are also a huge cause to so many American jobs going out of the country as businesses like General Motors can't make profits AND pay union workers what they demand. Hostess wanted to restructure and cut salaries and the union demanded salary increases. Hostess may have been able to survive if the union would have compromised. Also, look at the money situation from state to state and you will find that the "right to work" states are significantly better off in most cases as compared to union states. Unions ARE EVIL. They had their purpose back when employers were not required to provide a safe and non-hostile working environment. Now, the purposes for having unions have mostly been eliminated with a legal system in place that can help resolve further problems as they come up, therefore eliminating the need for unions. We don't need 19th century labor formats. We are in the 21st century now.
Posted by Ted Jessop, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2012 at 1:55 pm
All you union haters can ballyhoo all you want. Hostess is a lousy company. It represents all that is bad with capitalism. Its products are crappy, overpriced, and bad for your health. Feed your kid a couple of twinkies late in the day and watch him/her climb the walls on a sugar high before then glowing in the dark. All advertising - huge waste of money - and no substance. Now the company is blaming matters on union workers? What a laugh!
Posted by Ted Jessop again, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2012 at 3:12 pm
As Hostess Brands announces its liquidation, the company's management, joined by Tea Party intellectuals across the country, is blaming a strike by members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers union — those darned selfish workers who wouldn't accept having their pay and pensions cut and their health care contributions increased just a few years after they made similar concessions in Hostess' previous, mishandled bankruptcy. It boils down to this: The forces most responsible for the liquidation were two hedge funds that control hundreds of millions of Hostess debt and which have finally decided they won't squeeze any more filling into the Twinkie.
Only Silver Point and Monarch could have kept Hostess out of liquidation and kept the Twinkie bakery ovens firing. But they were, ultimately, unable to reach a deal with the unions that represents the workers who make and deliver products like Twinkies, Wonderbread, Ding Dongs, and other entirely unwholesome, chemically laced 'foods'. Without total union capitulation, the hedge funds decided Hostess would have to die.
Hostess has clearly been mismanaged in recent years after having grown through the previous decades in ways that make its structure, including its labor force, especially complicated. But the end game is that private equity firms came in to do what they do: squeeze profits for their own multimillionaire investors at whatever cost to workers and to the company itself. Who cares if tens of thousands of workers are left unemployed and without the means to retire? Not Silver Point or Monarch, as long as they get their money. Who cares if Hostess exists tomorrow? Not Silver Point or Monarch, as long as they get their money.
These union members had faced a slow bleed for years. The only question for them was whether to accept an accelerated bleed and hope it would stop in a few years — but hope that in the knowledge that that was not a priority or even necessarily a desirable outcome to Hostess' private equity owners—or to fight for what they earned. We're hearing, and can expect to keep hearing, a lot about how it's so unreasonable of union members to expect to get the pay and benefits they negotiated and worked for, the pensions they've planned their retirements around. Because this is coming after a generation-long war on pensions and unions and middle-class wages. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement, "What’s happening with Hostess Brands is a microcosm of what’s wrong with America, as Bain-style Wall Street vultures make themselves rich by making America poor."
Posted by Dim future, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2012 at 3:23 pm
To arrogant anti-American Ted, Why are you here since not only do you NOT value America, you don't even understand it ! ! American is an idea, a concept....personal freedom. It's how we have 30 styles of cars to choose from, and 1,000 choices in candies and booze..personal freedom. All the companies vary by degrees in management styles, profit margins, etc. if you have anything to say about pricing, just look at a company's union situation. IF you think Hostess was overpriced, their unions were the cause. They were being atrangled by a staggering number of unions, not just 10 or 20.
Each outdoing the other with their excesses...well, that just got solved !
Hostess, after serving many generations, tried to stick to the product those generations wanted, and expected reasonable pricing.
(reasonable prices and greedy unions cannot CO-exist0.
Today, unfortunately, we have some stupid parents, raising stupid kids, who spend a dollar, two, or three, for bottles of water, implying they have vitamins, when in fact, they have has much sugar as cola. Yet, because they are dumb enough to blow $3, they somehow feel superior, to those who still like the old-fashioned goodies from childhood, at realistic prices, appropriate to the item.
Sadly, unions are pretty well, systematically eliminating most of those business 'models', so future generations will no longer now 'how it use to be' ...before the extreme unions of the 21st century. You're almost there, pretty well destroying all in your path.
Plus, the bonus of tens of thousands of newly unemployed ! !
But, on Obama's FIRST day of business on HOW to deal with the fiscal cliff, that first day back in the WH was reserved for, and spent with
UNION leaders ! ! ...like the eve care about our financial stability, credit ratings, or world standing...they are strictly the "me first" group, as demonstrated with Hostess. They will arrogantly and stupidly shut down US government, as well as Hostess.
Posted by Ted Jessop in the face of complete idiocy, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Hey, loser, yes, long live vulture capitalism and the ungodly sums of money, raked in by the top 1%, while you Tea Party hillbillies cackle about personal freedom. And, yes, the majority of Americans must be utterly stoopid not to have realized that the 20% tax reduction gift that Romney wanted to give the top 1% was in the interests of all Americans. Yup, indeed.
You see, union members take their wages and spend on things like cars, clothes, and other necessities. Vulture capitalists take the profits they squeeze from working people and invest in off shore companies. And so of course in the bizarro world of Karl Rove, Mitt Romney and the rest of the twinkie heads, we want to give vulture capitalists more money to fritter away on foreign labor at the expense of American workers.
Romney lost. And those who supported him are losers as well. Romney proved himself to be an idiot, and the majority of voters, seeing through the ruse of 'gifts' he promised to his wealthy contributors, demonstrated that Romney's followers are idiots as well. Keep harping on unions. Don't change. Don't let your hate abate for one moment. It will help the party of dunces (aka Republicans) in future elections. Yup, it sure will. Oh, and by the way, next election? You lose again. Losers who don't learn from their mistakes are destined to lose in the future.
Posted by Dim Sum, not Dim Future, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Being a union member might mean the difference between buying a used Taurus instead of a Fiesta for one's family. The owners of Twinkieville make hundreds of millions, and the yahoos above can only talk about union greed. Some adjustment of mental screws would seem to be called for.
Posted by Ted dullard, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Jessop and your brother dip sum, you failed to acknowledge that had the bakers union compromised, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. But compromise and partnership with business is not part of union thug culture. And so, you get we have here today....a failure to communicate.
You see, Hostess told the unions well in advance that they would have to shutter the business if they did not compromise. The proud, arrogant union leader took it upon themselves to 'lead' their members down the path to unemployment.
And if you dolts think the owners are making hundreds of millions, you haven't the first clue about bankruptcies.
Bet you all are Obama voters, eh? Made your bed, and now you defecate in it. Happy dreaming.....
Posted by common sense, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm
A company goes out of business, who do you blame? The Management , the Union , the Political party you hate or a combination of all the above. Or, is it just how companies who fail see the business environment and its changes tend to go out of business, ala Montgomery Ward, etal.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2012 at 7:35 pm
" Many production workers earned up to $20 an hour, plus had access to medical benefits, according to Michael O'Brien, a former Hostess employee who had worked at the company for 45 years, in various sales functions, before he was offered a buyout last year.
"People inside the plants really made a good living," O'Brien said. "I feel sorry for them." "
" Striking workers are not entitled to unemployment benefits in most states, but those workers who were not striking will likely have some access to weekly benefit checks.
Meanwhile job opportunities at Hostess competitors are hardly plentiful. "
" Another 6,700 Hostess workers were represented by the Teamsters, a union that was sharply critical of the Bakers' decision to strike. Those jobs largely include truckers, many who both transported and sold Hostess products.
Trucking is a higher paying field, offering a national average of $22 an hour. Including base pay and commission, Hostess Teamsters workers could have earned between $50,000 to $100,000 a year, said O'Brien. "
Posted by Dim future, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2012 at 11:38 pm
I think I read it was 35 different unions at Hostess, But the one bad apple concept shows all the Teamsters are now out of work too, since they couldn't convince the Baker's to wise up. Half of something is better than half of nothing....all sink together the the brotherhood of unions.
Posted by Dim Sum, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2012 at 12:20 am
The fevered hater of unions who adopts dozens of different names in order to spew his toxicity, from one thread to the next, obviously has had a traumatic life experience that involved unions. Was he banished from a union because, as his frequent, hate-filled writings indicate, he was unable to get along with anyone while acting within a group? Or did he out of cowardice engage in behavior befitting only of scabs, placing his own narrow interests above the interests of union members and their families, thus earning their disapprobation? Perhaps both. Either way, or both, the venom he unloads indicates a good deal of irrationality that borders on pathological illness. It's too bad his parents never seem to have taught him how to get along with other kids. Perhaps there were no other kids where he grew up. That would explain a few things as well.
Posted by maint worker, a resident of another community, on Nov 18, 2012 at 3:26 am
Many people are so quick to make the judgement call without understanding the facts involved. Regarless of what you believe in union or not, let me ask you this question.
If your employer asks you to make 8% pay cut, eliminate your pension and benefits (beside the cut you already agreed to few years back), would you just bend over and take it?
The unions are not perfect,just like our government and any society, if everything is perfect and everyone is happy, we would be in another planet or in heaven. This is the case of greed by Hostess and the fund managers, they bough the company for the basement bargain price, even if the company went liquidated, the owners and the funds managers will walk away millions ahead of everyone else.
The poor workers only stand their ground, enough is enough. There is so much greed in corporate and finacial sector of our country. Everyone wants get rich quick, and the upper management created such an evil empire that there are so many level of management to bleed the company dry. A few example...CEO,CFO,COO,board of director...they are all in for themselves. All the stock bonuses,perks,golden parachutes and absurd salaries...that's what killing the American industries.
If they don't make their millions, they will go overseas to exploit slave labor,no regulation,no OSHA,no EPA....they don't care about the workers. Guess what, the less the American workers make, the less they are going to buy American products because nobody can compete with the Chineses who work in inhumane conditions for a lot less than many western industrial countries. So the more we buy import products, the more we are putting ourself out of jobs.
You can bash the union all you want, maybe you want to get a job at WalMart, they maybe hiring soon, and the people who walked out of their jobs just had enough of the greed from Walmart.
Walmart have BILLIONS...and all they have to do is share some of that wealth to their workers, there is no end to the human greeds and egos. So they are one of the richest people on the planet, the Walmart family will eventually die like all of us, they cannot take a penny with them to the grave.
The fact many people don't want to know is government workers are the biggest unionized group, Federal,State workers,teachers....so before you say union is evil, someone in your family or friend maybe one of them, and the union is the last defense against corporate greed and government corruption.
If you people want changes, let's start from to top of the source of our country problems: the White House, Congress,Supreme courts,Justice system...there are so much wastes and deceits and lies and corruptions. The house cleaning should start there, that where the real EVILS are. BTW, I did not vote for OBAMA.
Posted by american grunt, a resident of another community, on Nov 18, 2012 at 5:12 am
I have always found it amazing howveryone wanna point a finger an tell us how it ain't thier faults that we have let greed and avirice ruin us. From the top on down we have sat back for years whining about the choices that are made for us by tje people we let lead us. We have given government and big business absolute control over our lives in every aspect an now thet we are all just wage slaves to the banking industry ( the fed) we wanaa cry about how wrongly we are being done. When the money lenders have taken over the government of a country it will end as the ceasers rome did.
Posted by hoops, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2012 at 10:35 am
Unions....The problem is fairness.Most people want to see a fair wage and benefit for everyone.The problem is greed.People do not like to see others being screwed by companies and underpaid and they do not like to see dock workers making ridiculous wages and retiring at 50 with full healthcare and a ridiculous pension.
As far as the public pensions and benefits that are going to bankrupt our system are concerned...it is a matter of time.Because you are promised something that is unjustified by any rationale evaluation,does not mean that it will always be there.So those raking in all the goodies either will agree to a fair and reasoned adjustment or we will be like Greece in a matter of time.
Posted by No Twinkies, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2012 at 6:46 am
You are missing the biggest problem, most people today don't eat that junk, and don't buy it on a regular basis for their kids. Hostess failed to adapt to healthier versions of their product, and the shoppers moved on to better food chices.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2012 at 8:26 am
"You are missing the biggest problem, most people today don't eat that junk, and don't buy it on a regular basis for their kids. Hostess failed to adapt to healthier versions of their product, and the shoppers moved on to better food chices. "
Yes, and the company actually acknowleded that. It had less revenues, and it was aware of it. And because of declining revenues, they could not afford to continue the existing contract with the union, the costs were too high, so they wanted to re-negotiate, so that instead of 100 million towards pension costs, they would only put 25 million. The uniion refused. Don't forget that in the private, non-union sector, companies are not responsible for pensions, so they were not asking for unreasonable concessions. The union's refusal made them be in debt for about 860 million by 2011, and then the 2012 strike was what finally did it. The company could not survive, and it had to layoff people. THese not highly skilled workers were making 20 dollars/per hour (a lot for the type of job they did), and some 22 per hour (truck drivers). Now they are without a job, making zero dollars, no unemployment benefits because they were on strike, no severance pay, and we are still in a recession, so good luck finding a job. I think the union did not do what was in the employees' best interest. The CEO will be fine, the company will be fine (it will sell its assets), the ones who truly lose are the employees, and they have their union to thank for that.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2012 at 8:36 am
"The poor workers only stand their ground, enough is enough"
And now they have NO JOB, and it is a TOUGH job market, these are UNSKILLED workers who were making 20-22 dollars/hour, and now they are making zero dollars, we are talking about 18500 workers, most of them unskilled, no college education, do you really think they can find that good a deal elsewhere in a private company that does not work with unions? (say a McDonald's for the food production Hostess workers, do you really believe McDonald's would pay them 20 dollars per hour? Dream on! These workers had a fair wage given their educational level, and now they have no job!)
So much for the union doing right by their members! Btw, most states do not offer unemployment benefits to those employees who were on strike, so that is really bad for the employees. No job, a tough job market, no real education, they are unskilled, probably not much in savings, and right before the holidays. Was it worth it? I think most of the employees will tell you no, and their union is to blame for their situation.
Even if Hostess would have eventually gone out of business, the employees would have had time to look for work elsewhere, or go back to school or something. Now there is only panic because it ended so quickly and no severance pay, no unemployment benefits, and no pension as the company declared bankruptcy.
Posted by Dim Sum, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2012 at 8:48 am
The fevered hater of unions who adopts dozens of different names -- resident, liberalism is a disease, arroyo, annaS, dim future, mittens, Ted dullard -- in order to spew his toxicity, from one thread to the next, obviously has had a traumatic life experience that involved unions. Was he banished from a union because, as his frequent, hate-filled writings indicate, he was unable to get along with anyone while acting within a group? Or did he, out of sheer cowardice, engage in behavior befitting only of scabs, placing his own narrow interests above the interests of union members and their families, thus earning their disapprobation? Perhaps both. Either way, or both, the venom he unloads indicates a good deal of irrationality that borders on pathological illness. It's too bad his parents never seem to have taught him how to get along with other kids. Perhaps there were no other kids where he grew up. That would explain a few things as well. But no mistake about it, he has let down his parents. Sad case. He needs help.
"Angered over pay rates, working conditions and benefits, on August 3, 1981, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) union went on strike. This was illegal and violated a law banning government unions from striking. This curtailed air travel, and President Ronald Reagan ordered the workers back to the job. But only about 1,300 of the 13,000 listened, and two days later, Reagan fired the remaining air traffic controllers, and forbade them from ever returning to federal service. After being $40 million in debt, the union subsequently filed for bankruptcy, the New York Times reported. The union was broken."
"Steel Strike of 1959
This was the largest US strike and one of the last mega-scale strikes, when 500,000 steel workers went out over wages and a contract clause that would have allowed management to cut the number of union workers allocated to certain job functions -- a practice known as featherbedding. President Eisenhower invoked the Taft-Hartley Act and ordered the unions back to work. The unions returned after four months, winning cost of living adjustments for the first time and beating back the work rules clause. But the unions may have also sown the seeds of their own destruction. Steel imports soared after the strike and industry jobs in the US have fallen steadily over the decades to about 87,000. China now produces 45 percent of the world's steel."
People complain about companies shipping jobs overseas, but can you blame them? When here in the US you have unskilled workers demanding to be paid as much as people who have master's degrees... that is ridiculous! And on top of high wages, they want pensions (fully financed by the company), and full benefits for themselves and family? What company can survive that?
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2012 at 9:26 am
Here is another article about Hostess:
"But Hostess also suffered nine straight years of revenue declines, tumbling 30% to $2.45 billion last year from $3.53 billion in 2009, according to a report from research firm PrivCo. The companyâ€™s net losses nearly tripled to $341 million in 2010 from $128 million in 2006, according to the report.
Another factor in Hostessâ€™ financial woes? Long-term debt totaling $591 million, causing a severe liquidity crunch, according to PrivCo.
But PrivCo estimates that Hostess brands such as Ho Hoâ€™s and Wonder Bread could fetch $1 billion in an asset sale. The research group names Bimbo Group -- the Mexican company that owns Sara Lee and Entenmannâ€™s -- and Natureâ€™s Own parent Flowers Foods as potential suitors."
Well, if mexican-owned Bimbo buys Hostess, do you really think it will employ workers in the US? And if they did, do you really think the pay would be as high as Hostess workers enjoyed before the strike? (20-22 dollars/hr) I doubt it! Most likely, Bimbo would hire new, non-union employees.
And yes, no one is saying Hostess management and unhealthy products are not to blame. But see, with declining sales and revenue, it could not afford to continue to honor a union contract made when revenues were higher. The private sector (non-union) does that all the time: employees go without pay rise or bonuses during lean years, that is something unions have a hard time understanding: companies can only afford to spend based on revenue; when revenue is down, the costs of running the company must also go down, and if that means less pay, or less employees, or less benefits, so be it. Employeees who are not in a union and work in the private sector know that and adapt to changing industries, some stay and take pay cuts (no bonus), others look for another job. But strike? NO! because they know that would mean financial woes for the company, and that in the end means job losses.
Posted by Joe, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2012 at 9:30 am
In a free market, employers and unions could either reach a compromise, or agree to part ways. If an agreement can't be reached, an employer could "fire" a union, as was done in the PATCO strike. Or, a union could "fire" an employer, as has been done with Hostess.
Enter politics and it becomes an uneven playing field. No matter what their histories are, nor how well-intentioned they might be, government agencies like the NLRB serve to perpetuate the unevenness. As long as there is a political group that can gain capital by supporting unions through regulation, the problem will never go away.
Posted by Arroyo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 6:51 am
I post as one name only - Arroyo - the same nom de plume I've used for years.
When I post verbiage such as, "Unions breed mediocrity in work performance by defending the inept amoung their ranks", it's what I've seen and know to be true after decades as an employer of union labor.
Sorry, Dim if that ruffles your feathers. Oh, and another thing I've also found is the most fervent union supporter is usually the least qualified among their membership.
Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 9:27 am liberalism is a disease is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
The tone of Dip Wad's posts are a clear indication that his precious unions are relics of the past and no longer relevant. Time to fade into obscurity, along with your over-compensated, under qualified 'brothers'.
We will have to see if the unions are smart enough this time to realize that no private company can (or will) spend more money than allowed by its revenues, which in this case, have been declining for years.
Unlike our government (which keeps going deeper in debt because of unreasonable pension liabilities), private companies can choose to go bankrupt and sell their assets: a win-win for them because they get their money, investors get their money, the CEO gets his golden parachute... the losers are the employees, those union members who want high pay and unreasonable benefits (like fully financed pensions) with little education (certainly no college degree).
We will see if the unions are smart enough and are capable of understanding the financial situation of the company.
btw, I have only posted as Resident from "Another Pleasanton neighborhood"
Posted by Arroyo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Of course, unions once had a purpose. And, they still have a purpose. Unfortunately, they wield too much power, and during a strike are about as close to a criminal institution as one can get.
While we're discussing unions. I want to mention Teachers Unions. Does anybody REALLY believe that union sponsored full tenure for a teacher after two years on the job is in the best interest of our children? (One guess only)
I have an aquaintence who is a teachers union representative and negotiator. I asked her point-blank "Are you telling me that you don't know anybody in your membership who is inept at their job, does not deserve tenure, and should be replaced?" She admitted that she knew quite a few, but could not single them out for replacement and still keep HER job.
And, so it goes in our world of unions -- dictate rather than negotiate -- protect the inept amoung your ranks -- demonize the employers who provide the jobs.
So long Hostess, so long Twinkies. Oh well. In a few years, you probably would have been declared illegal anyway by the administration's new Czar for control of oversized soft drinks and excessive calories...!!
Posted by Really?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm
In all your one sided rants against unions, you fail to share any links or facts about the typical private sector executives-
"Many of the executives getting bonuses received substantial pay raises earlier this year, within months of the company originally filing for bankruptcy. The salary of the CEO Gregory Rayburn tripled from $750,000 to roughly $2.5 million, and at least nine other executives received pay raises ranging from $90,000 to $400,000."
The rich get richer and then blame it all on middle class and poor. And you all support this. Seems to be telling which side of the court you play on. No wonder all the vitriol and blame from you. Still dont get why so angry, or is it fear?
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:04 pm
"The salary of the CEO Gregory Rayburn tripled from $750,000 to roughly $2.5 million, and at least nine other executives received pay raises ranging from $90,000 to $400,000.""
No one is saying that this is right. But the way I see it, the cost of the CEO is nothing compared to the cost of union perks that do not exist in other private sector, non-union jobs. The company was paying about 100 million or so for benefits for low skilled workers.
Again, I think the CEO stuff is wrong too, but that by itself would not have caused bankruptcy. I read that a food worker at Hostess used to make 50K - are you kidding? These guys do not even have associate degrees, and that job should pay no more than 12 dollars/hour, no pension, just like other similar jobs pay (ask McDonald's how much their workers make). Hostess' employees would have made a fair wage even with the cuts. You can't expect to have people with little or no education and few skills to make so much money.
Besides, when I have been unhappy with my job, I just quit and find a new one! It is beyond my comprehension that someone would go on strike and such. You don't like your job and pay? Get another one, like the rest of us in the private sector, non-union, do. Not qualified to get something better in this economy? Go back to school, what a concept!
Posted by Arroyo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:16 pm
My rants are rarely balanced -- after all, they're rants...one-sided, yes, but truthful from my life experiences...
I think what the executives did in your example should be illegal. They not only enriched themselves ahead of filing bankruptcy, but have diminished the percentage of monies to be recovered by each of their creditors, post bankruptcy.
Along with my previous comments about unions, I had written a paragraph about my disgust for our banks, their public bailout, mishandling of the foreclosure mess, and their overall disservice to the general public; along with some vitriol reserved for company's like Enron. But, my post was too long -- and I deleted it.
Posted by Really?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 11:57 pm
It just seems that the rants from not just you, but most here have utter shock and disgust for a middle class worker, who has not once but twice reduced their salary in efforts to save a company, yet when the corporate exec greed is brought up it's - oh yeah, that's not right but still....
How can so many continue to forgive/excuse the banks, the CEO loopholes, off shore investments- all above the law, yet rant when the common citizen attempts to stand up to maintain a fair wage and working condition.
Just look at the Walmart protests- the 6 heirs make the same as the bottom 41% of people in the US. The typical worker there works 6 years before reaching a salary of $12,000. Keeping these workers as part time to avoid paying for benefits, this is a problem.
Continually defending/turning a blind eye to this greater issue while vilifying those who are truly struggling to survive, is a problem. Elected officials calling them "takers" is outrageous.
Listening to the posts here, I just wonder what it really is youre defending. It sounds like a loss of reality for what most people in this country are experiencing.
Posted by To Mr. Really, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:12 am
As long as you promote class warfare your union will continue to promote mediocrity. Markets just don't function when the unions are involved. Supporting mediocricity at higher wages just breeds more mediocricity. It's getting very difficult to support even private sector unions.
Posted by Dim Sum, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:20 am
Again, most of the anti-union posts above --- perhaps all of them --- are coming from the same sick person. He is using multiple computers, or a techno service, that enables him to have different computer id-addresses. Such is his sickness that he would resort to such. He blames the world for his own unhappiness. Identifies in his delusional way with the wealthy, unable to grasp the contradiction between their wealth and his material and mental impoverishment,he projects his self-loathing onto unions.
Joe, Arroyo, Liberalism is a disease, Arroyo, his mental deficiency renders him unable to appreciate how transparent is his grammar, combined with such "clever" name twisting as Dim Bulb and Dip Wad, which gives him away every time. He needs help.
Posted by Arroyo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Dumb Sum, your posts seem to be somewhat paranoid. Sorry, but there's only one of me.
Is it so hard to believe that there are many of us out here who do not subscribe to the "unions are better" concept. And, we accept and celebrate the success and wealth accrued by any person who invests their own savings to start a business, lives their business round-the-clock/7 days a week, and puts everything he or she owns on the line to make it work? If they become successful, they most likely deserve it. And, if they are smart they will respect and value their good employees, the skills they bring to the table, and compensate them fairly.
I have many memories of being in business. I remember the tears my wife shed when we signed the papers to refinance our home to acquire the funds in order to start our new venture. I remember rarely being able to take any time away from the business. I remember being unable to afford a vacation of any sort for my family.
I also remember the union business agent, accompanied by a known union "enforcer", who came into my business and physically threatened me for having non-union workers during a strike. I remember the vandalism done to our trucks by the good union members during a strike. I remember one of our good union members who was working for cash on the side with one of our competitors. I could go on and on -- but you probably wouldn't care.
So, dumb sum, if I don't pray at the altar of the unions, you'll have to excuse me. But, then again, I guess you would need to have walked in my shoes to understand.
Posted by Dim Sum, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Sorry, Arroyo, but you're the same sicko who posted 12 hours ago. Your grammar and childlike reasoning gives you away everytime. And you're apparently too cluttered upstairs to even realize this. You need help. Take those walking shoes of yours and see a trained psychiatrist. Your self hatred is consuming you. Sincerely.
Posted by Dim Sum, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2012 at 6:44 am
I have been posting for the past three weeks or so. I do not understand the comment about disapprobation. I do understand your insinuation that I must be insane for pointing out hate-based language and thought when I see it. Apparently my tendency to point this out is more bothersome to you than the racist hater who uses many different names. You'll forgive me if I suggest your own beliefs appear therefore closer to the racist hater's than my own. Rather than resort to flip innuendo, perhaps you should consider actually specifying what needs to be defended in the sicko's comments, and what deserves criticism in my own.
Posted by joe, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2012 at 6:03 am
I remember while working on offshore oil platforms (making very good non-union wages)a laid off union worker flying down from Michigan every 3 weeks to work with us as what the union calls a "scab" worker.This is one of a number of union "scab" workers I've met over the years,who didn't have a problem working non-union when their pay was absent due to a called strike- think about this...