Beyond Twinkies: Why More Workers Are Striking

Quote from ChkitOut:

i have a question.

so lets say the avg pay (i'll just make up a number) was 15 bucks an hour and management said, we cant do this, we can only pay 10 bucks an hour.

since there are without question 5000 unemployed people of all ages, races and genders willing, able, and eager to take that offer and make some money because they are tired of sitting home scratching their ass, well why couldnt the company fire all the union people and hire non union?

why couldnt they do that? they absolutely could, but they are cowards. and cowards deserve what they get, a failed company.
More...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker

this should be allowed on all levels. including gvt jobs such as teachers and other unhappy strikers,who strikes against things like lowering their early salary increase TEMPORARY from 4 to 2% for couple years(while private sector salaries are in decline for good 10 years or so)..yeah Wisconsin and Chicago, i'm talking about you..
don't like the cut?get the f** out of school and replaced by someone,who would do same job for less.
 
Quit if you dont think you are being paid fairly. I guarantee you every one of those jobs would have been filled by someone who would be happy to get the paycheck.

There is no rule that says job pay has to be ever-increasing and we live in a global economy.

-burn8
 
Gosh dang if only I knew what I was talking about.

I could solve this problem with a six pack. {:>)

Forget the union for a moment and forget the company. (pawns)

The forces at play are ROI.

You have 18 thousand workers vs 2 hedge fund honcho's who want return.

I don't think it would be that tough to provide a few tax incentives to the hedge fund guys and keep the place open.

The Fed's could have negotiated with the hedge funds. The feds have skin in the game, UE benefits, loss of income tax, pension, etc. Besides the Feds have done worse, (Solandrya and others).
 
Quote from nutmeg:

Gosh dang if only I knew what I was talking about.

I could solve this problem with a six pack. {:>)

Forget the union for a moment and forget the company. (pawns)

The forces at play are ROI.

You have 18 thousand workers vs 2 hedge fund honcho's who want return.

I don't think it would be that tough to provide a few tax incentives to the hedge fund guys and keep the place open.

The Fed's could have negotiated with the hedge funds. The feds have skin in the game, UE benefits, loss of income tax, pension, etc. Besides the Feds have done worse, (Solandrya and others).
More...

More ET idiocy. So now we have to nationalize junk food?

Maybe I'm just lacking my sarcasm detectors today but you can't possibly tie their failure to hedge funds. Private equity was only involved because they previously BK'ed.

That's what idiots don't understand about PE. Those guys don't usually get involved in companies with good business models. They are a last resort not the vultures they are made out to be.
 
Quote from clacy:

More ET idiocy. So now we have to nationalize junk food?
More...

Every rule and regulation imposed on a company is one step closer to nationalization. The gov't dictates how you operate your business.
 
Geez, from 48k to 25k. Take home LESS than UI. No wonder they were willing to let it die.

Hostess jobs: 'Great' to 'not worth saving'

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."
 
Quote from Random.Capital:

The only real leverage "normal" folks have against "elites" is the fact that they vastly outnumber them. To exert this leverage, it is necessary to engage in periodic bouts of mob-like irrationality (which is actually rational, in the big picture).
More...

Which is exactly why we are going to replace you all with robots.

If it's any consolation, though, we'll eventually get replaced by robots, too.

But those few decades in between are going to be awesome with none of you around.
 
Quote from lwlee:

Geez, from 48k to 25k. Take home LESS than UI. No wonder they were willing to let it die.

Hostess jobs: 'Great' to 'not worth saving'

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."
More...

Bingo!
 
Quote from lwlee:

Geez, from 48k to 25k. Take home LESS than UI. No wonder they were willing to let it die.

Hostess jobs: 'Great' to 'not worth saving'

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."
More...

At the risk of stating the obvious, the guy could have looked for a job while working.

I don't know how his take-home is going to be less than UI benefits, since those are typically taxed and max out at less than your regular gross pay. I don't think it's a tax bracket thing, either, since at $25K, he should be in a low bracket and he'd probably be in that same bracket for his UI benefit taxes.

In other words, he either didn't do his homework before making this statement or bought a line of rhetoric from his union leaders.

What workers need to realize is that in the years leading to the housing bust, there wasn't only a housing bubble, there was a wages bubble.
 
Quote from clacy:

More ET idiocy. So now we have to nationalize junk food?

Maybe I'm just lacking my sarcasm detectors today but you can't possibly tie their failure to hedge funds. Private equity was only involved because they previously BK'ed.

That's what idiots don't understand about PE. Those guys don't usually get involved in companies with good business models. They are a last resort not the vultures they are made out to be.
More...

As I understand it from people I know in the industry, part of the PE business model is what you describe, i.e. the "distressed assets" approach. The other part is the LBO approach, where they do take companies with good business models, which are not being fully exploited. Sometimes they are combined, as when a PE firm will take on debt for a distressed company in order to fund up-front operational improvements.

I agree that the business press needs to do a better job at distinguishing between those models.

Also, if the government wants to change the laws on how much freedom PE (or other) buyers have in terms of changing union rules or pension rules, they are free to do so. If they do, watch the number of companies bought when they are distressed plummet. Who would buy if they didn't have that freedom?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top