Mr. Mike 10,446 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites
RandyOdom 314 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Like two trucks to deliver to one store Actually, the AFL-CIO represented the truckers who delivered the products and they had already reached a deal with Hostess. As a matter of fact, the AFL-CIO tried to stop the strike from happening. The workers who made the products did not deliver the products. So your point has no point. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Mike 10,446 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 "Silence implies consent" ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,good night! Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Mike 10,446 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Actually, the AFL-CIO represented the truckers who delivered the products and they had already reached a deal with Hostess. As a matter of fact, the AFL-CIO tried to stop the strike from happening. The workers who made the products did not deliver the products. So your point has no point. Still,,,,why two trucks to deliver product to the same store? 2 Link to post Share on other sites
KID 9,678 Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Sorry mike-- had to get a slab of ribs off the Q I was just wondering--- If these CEO's deserve all this money--WHY did they not lead their companies through this economic down turn with out a problem ??? So I guess Your gonna have to answer your own Question !!! How many current visionary business leaders can you name off the top of your head? Where ever they are hiding--they are not at hostess bakeries !!! Now it time for some KC BBQ Edited November 30, 2012 by KID Link to post Share on other sites
RandyOdom 314 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Still,,,,why two trucks to deliver product to the same store? Not being a Union executive and not having been a part of the negotiations when that rule was put into effect, I have no idea. I would surmise, however, that originally it had something to do with protecting jobs. You have to remember that this company came into being after many mergers and acquisitions. Bread being one company and snack products another. Two trucks equal two drivers where one truck only needs one. A unions job is to protect the workers and bargain on their behalf. If management at one time agreed to this arrangement, then it's their fault, not the union's. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Mike 10,446 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Sorry mike-- had to get a slab of ribs off the Q I was just wondering--- If these CEO's deserve all this money--WHY did they not lead their companies through this economic down turn with out a problem ??? So I guess Your gonna have to answer your own Question !!! Where ever they are hiding--they are not at hostess bakeries !!! I never said "these CEOs" deserved anything! They have an impressive CV, a history in business, and they are sought after, prized and valued. You refuse to acknowledge, or even address, my previous posts because you refuse to believe that some people are valued more than others,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and the market compensates them for it, big time! Edited November 30, 2012 by Mr. Mike Link to post Share on other sites
Kodiak570 525 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I never said "these CEOs" deserved anything! They have an impressive CV, a history in business, and they are sought after, prized and valued. You refuse to acknowledge, or address, my previous posts because you refuse to believe that some people are valued more than others,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and the market compensates them for it, big time! True market conditions dictated that MANY companies, banks, and small businesses, maybe even Hostess, go belly up to be no more. The government bailouts of the banks, car companies, etc. helped prolong this "kicking the can down the road mentality." When the workforce is expected to take pay cuts of up to 20%, why aren't the Chairman's Of the Board, or whomever is in charge, taking the same cut off the top? Membership has it's privilege, no? What we currently live in is a Corporatocracy, and no TRUE market will be seen until this hybrid monstrosity is separated. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Mike 10,446 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Not being a Union executive and not having been a part of the negotiations when that rule was put into effect, I have no idea. I would surmise, however, that originally it had something to do with protecting jobs.Why would anyone of any value to a company need a paid , third party to protect them ? You have to remember that this company came into being after many mergers and acquisitions. Bread being one company and snack products another. Two trucks equal two drivers where one truck only needs one.Duh! A unions job is to protect the workersincluding redundancy and bargain on their behalf.What, the workers cannot speak for themselves? If management at one time agreed to this arrangement, then it's their fault,not the unions.Both sides are to blame! Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Mike 10,446 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 True market conditions dictated that MANY companies, banks, and small businesses, maybe even Hostess, go belly up to be no more. The government bailouts of the banks, car companies, etc. helped prolong this "kicking the can down the road mentality." When the workforce is expected to take pay cuts of up to 20%, why aren't the Chairman's Of the Board, or whomever is in charge, taking the same cut off the top? Membership has it's privilege, no? What we currently live in is a Corporatocracy, and no TRUE market will be seen until this hybrid monstrosity is separated. See post #14 Link to post Share on other sites
A_Simple_Man 6,199 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 "Silence implies consent" It is this silly little idiom that compels otherwise rational individual to prolong senseless arguments. You have 2 minutes to reply. Other wise your silence will imply agreement. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Kodiak570 525 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 See post #14 Liked! Link to post Share on other sites
A_Simple_Man 6,199 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 You have 2 minutes to reply. Other wise your silence will imply agreement. Times up! I win! Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Mike 10,446 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Times up! I win! After much thought and contemplation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,You $uck! Edited November 30, 2012 by Mr. Mike 1 Link to post Share on other sites
RandyOdom 314 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 What, the workers cannot speak for themselves? The unions are the workers. One worker stands up and gets fired, a thousand workers stand up and then management has to deal with them and their concerns. You obviously are anti-union. That's your right. But the right to collective bargaining is the law of the land and you have to respect that. Companies will do ANYTHING to increase profits. The laws that are in place to protect workers are there because of unions. The unions gave us weekends, sick pay, paid holidays, safe working conditions and they built the middle class. I would suggest you do some reading on the history of unions and their impact on building a strong America. The WTO and NAFTA have helped to destroy unions in this country. American companies are chomping at the bit to send American jobs to poor third world countries that have none of these benefits. Yes we have income re-distribution in this country but it's income going from the bottom to the top, not the other way around. Class warfare is going on but the rich are winning. Until we come up with a solution to level the playing field, then the decline of unions will continue and I despair at the thought of America becoming more like the Philippines, with the haves and the have nots and not much in between. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts