Strikes dont always work.

[HonestChieffan]

On the first business day after bakers went on strike against Hostess Brands, the Irving-based company said Monday it will permanently close three striking bakeries, putting 627 employees out of work.

Late Friday, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union went on strike against Irving-based Hostess to protest cuts and give-backs in the company’s last, best, final contract offer. The contract, which was rejected by 92 percent of the union members who voted, called, in part, for 8 percent pay cuts, a company hiatus from contributions to a multi-employer pension plan and changes in work rules.

As of Monday, bakers had set up picket lines at about 23 of the 36 bakeries and production plants operated by the bankrupt snack maker. Hostess said the strike “has prevented the facilities from producing and delivering products.”

“Our customers will not be affected because we will continue to serve them from other Hostess Brands bakeries, but sadly this action will result in the permanent closure of three facilities and the loss of 627 jobs,” said Gregory Rayburn, Hostess Brands’ chief executive.

“We deeply regret this decision, but we have repeatedly explained that we will close facilities that are no longer able to produce and deliver products because of a work stoppage — and that we will close the entire company if widespread strikes cripple our business.”

The bakeries to be closed immediately are in Seattle, St. Louis and Cincinnati. The Seattle facility employs 110 people and produces Hostess cake products. The St. Louis facility employs 365 people and produces Hostess cakes and Nature’s Pride and Wonder breads.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/h...cincinnati.ece

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Hostess just needs to go from making cupcakes to printing money...then 'sall good.

You rang?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Saul Too

You rang?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by bevischief

Depends on the state.

Really? I would think that if laid off they would automatically get unemployment. I wouldn't think they would be denied unemployment under these circumstances, but I'm no expert.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Really? I would think that if laid off they would automatically get unemployment. I wouldn't think they would be denied unemployment under these circumstances, but I'm no expert.

I would think that refusing to work and choosing instead to picket against your employer would be grounds to have your ui denied.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Does it make any difference to you that the employer is bankrupt, and notified the employees that this would be the result if they chose to strike?

Have you ever been involved in high stakes negotiations? False threats are made all the time. So are real ones. The people on the other side make the best decision they can based on the facts that they have, and sometimes the result is worse than what they had hoped, or what they think is a bluff gets called.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying for these workers. They took the risk and it looks like they lost. I'm just saying I don't understand why anyone would actually be happy about it.

Sometimes there is simply no more money to give, no matter the demands or consequences.
Our country as a whole needs to realize that before they all learn the hard way like these people did.

I represent companies (though not in labor situations), and I have made those same arguments. Believe me, I know. I absolutely know.

Our country needs to realize what? This isn't some super-secret. Meanwhile, some companies take advantage of their workers all the time. And some workers take advantage of their companies. It's the push-pull of the world. People get hurt all the time by it. People who own companies get hurt sometimes too. That's capitalism.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Saul Too

I would think that refusing to work and choosing instead to picket against your employer would be grounds to have your ui denied.

I tend to doubt it. Ultimately they were likely "laid off" and not "terminated for cause", which usually is the key differentiator.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Have you ever been involved in high stakes negotiations? False threats are made all the time. So are real ones. The people on the other side make the best decision they can based on the facts that they have, and sometimes the result is worse than what they had hoped, or what they think is a bluff gets called.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying for these workers. They took the risk and it looks like they lost. I'm just saying I don't understand why anyone would actually be happy about it.




I represent companies (though not in labor situations), and I have made those same arguments. Believe me, I know. I absolutely know.

Our country needs to realize what? This isn't some super-secret. Meanwhile, some companies take advantage of their workers all the time. And some workers take advantage of their companies. It's the push-pull of the world. People get hurt all the time by it. People who own companies get hurt sometimes too. That's capitalism.

How do companies take advantage of employees. There is no such thing as indentured servitude in this country. Employees can leave at any time for any reason.

[loochy]

A large part of the fault lies with the union bosses. The workers trust these guys, so if they recommend to strike, most of the workers will vote to strike and no personal research will be done.

[Dayze]

There's a Wonder Bread facility down the street from me; I drove by the other day, and there were like 8 people picketing across the street. I saw one had a Tobacco Union sign, and wondered WTF they had been putting my my wonder bread.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Dayze

There's a Wonder Bread facility down the street from me; I drove by the other day, and there were like 8 people picketing across the street. I saw one had a Tobacco Union sign, and wondered WTF they had been putting my my wonder bread.

Yeah, the unions that some of these people belong to don't make sense.

Almost all of the hourlies where I work are a part of the International Association of Machinists (IAM). A very small number of them are actual machinists. Most of them are janitors, assemblers, and material handlers.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Have you ever been involved in high stakes negotiations? False threats are made all the time. So are real ones. The people on the other side make the best decision they can based on the facts that they have, and sometimes the result is worse than what they had hoped, or what they think is a bluff gets called.

You mean, kind of like Bush's decision to invade Iraq?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Have you ever been involved in high stakes negotiations? False threats are made all the time. So are real ones. The people on the other side make the best decision they can based on the facts that they have, and sometimes the result is worse than what they had hoped, or what they think is a bluff gets called.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying for these workers. They took the risk and it looks like they lost. I'm just saying I don't understand why anyone would actually be happy about it.




I represent companies (though not in labor situations), and I have made those same arguments. Believe me, I know. I absolutely know.

Our country needs to realize what? This isn't some super-secret. Meanwhile, some companies take advantage of their workers all the time. And some workers take advantage of their companies. It's the push-pull of the world. People get hurt all the time by it. People who own companies get hurt sometimes too. That's capitalism.

In this case it wasn't a threat. It was a promise.

I don't know that anyone is happy these people are out of work; I'm certainly not. I feel no pity for them either. They attempted strong arm tactics and had their bluff called.

I was clumsily saying that our country needs to realize that sometimes there really is no more money no matter how much someone wants something i.e. to not take a pay cut, or to receive entitlements, etc.

Yep, capitalism is blind as to who comes out ahead or behind, which makes it as close to a level playing field as will ever exist and the best system going by a mile.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Saul Too

How do companies take advantage of employees. There is no such thing as indentured servitude in this country. Employees can leave at any time for any reason.

Sure, that's absolutely true. What is also true is that during the last few years, with relatively high unemployment, many companies have been increasing workloads on their workforce with little/no raises and basically saying "you think you can do better in this economy, feel free to leave."

Not that the employers are under any kind of real obligation, of course, to give raises or hire additional employees, but there's really no question that they have been increasing corporate margins and hoarding cash to the disadvantage of their workforce.

Which is legal and all, don't get me wrong, but in times of high(er) unemployment, the "vote with your feet" option isn't as readily available.

[Amnorix]

So, further to my last, here's a telling chart -- comparing corporate profits to employee wages over time.





This, meanwhile, all has a pretty negative effect on helping the economy recover. Employers aren't hiring, and they're not giving raises, which resulted in NEGATIVE real wage growth in 2011. So across the entire American workforce, purchasing power was less in 2011 than 2010. So we have not only high unemployment, but even among the gainfully employed less real wages.

All against a backdrop of record corporate profits.

[HonestChieffan]

Do more with less. Business has been highly successful acomplishing just that. Government is the exact opposite. They deliver inferior results with greater spending. And the next few years will be the ultimate.