Say Goodbye to Twinkies and Wonderbread

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Dave

Link?

LOL nevermind

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

Because coupled with previous concessions, workers at the Hostess plants can make more money from unemployment than they could under the new proposal.

That's a little misleading. They may take home more with unemployment, but taxes and social security aren't withheld. Come April, they will owe taxes on all that unemployment money.

And then there's the issue of unemployment being a finite benefit.

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by jspchief

That's a little misleading. They may take home more with unemployment, but taxes and social security aren't withheld. Come April, they will owe taxes on all that unemployment money.

And then there's the issue of unemployment being a finite benefit.

I think they are probably assuming that once Hostess re-emerges out of bankruptcy under new ownership, many of the workers will probably be hired back. I dunno, that's my guess anyway....

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by jspchief

That's a little misleading. They may take home more with unemployment, but taxes and social security aren't withheld. Come April, they will owe taxes on all that unemployment money.

And then there's the issue of unemployment being a finite benefit.

You have the option to have federal taxes withheld on unemployment benefits.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

Because coupled with previous concessions, workers at the Hostess plants can make more money from unemployment than they could under the new proposal.

What kind of pay cuts are they looking at? In the article you posted the one guy quoted was making $17 which is about $35,000\yr

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

What kind of pay cuts are they looking at? In the article you posted the one guy quoted was making $17 which is about $35,000\yr

I think it would be interesting to see what kind of concessions the unions had already made in the past. Right now, I think they are looking at an 8% cut.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

What kind of pay cuts are they looking at? In the article you posted the one guy quoted was making $17 which is about $35,000\yr

It said 8% so he would have went to $32,200.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

JFC. They didn't strike for MORE money. They were asked to take dramatic cuts because the company couldn't survive on it's current models. Like it or don't, try not to let your poolitical biases get in the way of facts. The election's over kids...

Well, sometimes you have to ask yourself as an eemployee, do I take a pay cut or lose my job?

Unions have worn out their usefulness.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

JFC. They didn't strike for MORE money. They were asked to take dramatic cuts because the company couldn't survive on it's current models. Like it or don't, try not to let your poolitical biases get in the way of facts. The election's over kids...

I'd rather have 8% less of something than nothing at all. If they were so unhappy, just take the pay cut and earn SOMETHING while you search for employment elsewhere.

The principle is still the same.

[Hoover]

Twinkies are not a political issue.

[Graystoke]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Twinkies are not a political issue.

^This^

We have a Hostess Plant here in Waterloo. I will miss the smell of baking bread in the morning.

[jspchief]

Unemployment benefits typically pay about 66% of the average of your gross income over the previous X number of weeks. Your take home pay from a job is probably in the neighborhood of 75% of gross.

Take an 8% pay cut, and your take home pay may come close to that 66% unemployment benefit.

But like I said, taxes are not withheld from unemployment, but they are still owed on it. Short term you may be bringing home more collecting unemployment. Long term you won't. And it will run out.

[notorious]

****, this thread is going to draw the DC scum into the lounge.

[dirk digler]

Alright I am on the union side now if this true.

They watched as the company illegally withdrew from all Taft-Hartley pension plans, saving more than $50 million in the first five months. The BCTGM learned that the then Hostess CEO was to be awarded a 300% raise, and at least nine other top executives were to receive raises ranging between 35% and 80%.

Since the company ceased making contractually obligated payments to the Hostess workers' pensions in July 2011, it has pocketed approximately $160 million – money earned by and owed to its dedicated workforce.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/09/497...#storylink=cpy

[petegz28]

I don't give a shit why it happened. I don't want Twinkies going away!!!