Nothing from nothing leaves nothing

[rigney]

I'm posting this in politics rather than immediately putting it in the trash basket. A day or so ago it was announced that my favorite 2 condiments would no longer be produced. "HO-HOs and TWINKIES"!!! Oh Yes! Both are CONDIMENTS; I eat them with everything. But, My God, am I dreaming? A stupid little disagreement over union wages and Hostess closes its doors to 16-18 thousand workers? What the hell is going on? Who does Hostess think they are to deprive hard working Americans of their livelihood and others not employeed by Hostess? How many will there be involved? Then I ask myself, just how many people out there are guilty of believing unions provide such protection? Let me see now: There's K-12 Teachers, Auto Workers, Construction Workers, Cops, Firemen, Electricians, Welders, Plumbers and??? I'm sure that I've left someone out, but who? I know; Non-Union Workers. But then, they really don't count since they can't afford to get in a union. Anyway Hostess will likely not remain closed for any duration. A modern day Carnagie, Vanderbilt or Ford, who today are considered "Entrepreneurs", will let things settle a months or so, get into the cash box and re-open the doors to new hires. Oh! If you by chance worked there at the closing, perhaps your old job is still available, providing you take a hefty reduction in pay. I've got it!! Let's reduce working hours to 24 per week, put everyone back to work doing something with no pay. That way everyone gets the same respect regardless of their position. Hey! you want to talk about equality?

Ok! now I know who I forgot, Carpenters, Cement Mixers and Brick Layers. Everyone in the deal gets a new home with a 2 car garage.

So, from here forward, when a business closes for lack of funds; we keep everyone on the job at no pay. Of course, since a business must be kept aware of its progress, the "former owners" can be retained as mathematical consultants and controllers, but with no pay. Eventually everyone will have no money problems since there will be no cash flow in any direction. Might this be the beginning of a real Utopia? Anyway, I hate classifying people as Wealthy, Middle Class, Poor and/or Destitute.

Edited November 17, 2012 by rigney

[akh]

Huh?

 

I am not sure I even want to reply to this, but can you just state your point/question instead of going off on some blathering rant?

[D H]

Huh?

My sentiments exactly.

 

I am not sure I even want to reply to this, but can you just state your point/question instead of going off on some blathering rant?

Apparently that is not possible.

[rigney]

Huh?

 

I am not sure I even want to reply to this, but can you just state your point/question instead of going off on some blathering rant?

Well, if it's that far over your head or below your station, then please dont try. But a blathering rant? C'mon! What part of "world stability" do you not understand, or aspire to? Isn't this the modern day philosophy of equal opportunity and equal sharing that we are seeking so hard to attain? By the way, I deliberately left out politicians; for good reasons. Edited November 17, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

It is a blathering rant, rigney. The title has nothing to do with the post, and the post is so full of hyperbolic excess that it's hard to tell what you are writing about. Why don't you for once try to write clearly and succinctly so that we can read what you wrote rather than having to try to read your mind?

[rigney]

My sentiments exactly.

 

 

Apparently that is not possible.

Been wondering about your problem. Seems you understand cursive quite well, but can't rationalize the printed word.

 

It is a blathering rant, rigney. The title has nothing to do with the post, and the post is so full of hyperbolic excess that it's hard to tell what you are writing about. Why don't you for once try to write clearly and succinctly so that we can read what you wrote rather than having to try to read your mind?

Did you get up on the "right side" of the bed for a change, or are you always this nasty? Nostradamus wrote in quatrain, yet people of character and wisdom, not necessarily intellect; understood him. While I am no Nostradamus, where does that leave you? See if you might find some meaning in the following:

 

Into this life we are let

First only asking, then to our fame

Oh! So quickly do we leave

Taking not, but as we came.

 

It is a blathering rant, rigney. The title has nothing to do with the post, and the post is so full of hyperbolic excess that it's hard to tell what you are writing about. Why don't you for once try to write clearly and succinctly so that we can read what you wrote rather than having to try to read your mind?

I actually tried being succinct once with my wife and she slapped hell out of me. What I'm saying is, never tell a woman that a size 10 would fit her ass much better than a size 8. Actually, I've never known a "ginch" not to feel that way. Edited November 17, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

rigney, there's a Tastykake program that can help you with the Twinkie withdrawals and the Ho-Ho jonesing. You need professional help, man.

[rigney]

rigney, there's a Tastykake program that can help you with the Twinkie withdrawals and the Ho-Ho jonesing. You need professional help, man.

Amen Brother! Get us hick kids turned on to a good food while in our forties or fifties and its worse than dope of any kind. Edited November 17, 2012 by rigney

[rigney]

rigney, there's a Tastykake program that can help you with the Twinkie withdrawals and the Ho-Ho jonesing. You need professional help, man.

Of course you know I was only seeking a bit of frivolous humor, right? But the closing of Hostess.is a very serious matter we all should consider. I don't know the exact income of those workers, but was it worth the pain they will now suffer during the holidays, because union reps demanded more than the company could afford? While these 18,000+ people will be in unemployment lines, those responsible for their folly will still be employeed and at some other location making the same demands on other companies. My Dad, Grandfather and I all fought for unions, fair employment and employee rights, not riches. Is this what equality and protection is coming to? Look at this video. it may say exactly what I have tried to explain.

Edited November 18, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

Welcome to the free market.

[rigney]

Welcome to the free market.

Beg your pardon?

[zapatos]

I don't know the exact income of those workers, but was it worth the pain they will now suffer during the holidays, because union reps demanded more than the company could afford?

I was wondering the same thing. I cannot yet tell if it was the union reps who misread the situation or if it was the rank and file. And while in hindsight the union seems silly for not heeding the warning from management, I believe management made the threat to liquidate once before and did not follow through.

 

Sad day for everyone.

[uncool]

I was wondering the same thing. I cannot yet tell if it was the union reps who misread the situation or if it was the rank and file. And while in hindsight the union seems silly for not heeding the warning from management, I believe management made the threat to liquidate once before and did not follow through.

 

Sad day for everyone.

For everyone: You may wish to dig into the history before making pronouncements about who was being silly. Hostess has had a history of labor relation issues that have involved major concessions from the unions before, without any sign of actually trying to keep the companies open, instead focusing on trying to get as much money as possible for upper management while it lasted. I refer you all to the information provided by the union:

http://bctgm.org/PDFs/HostessFactSheet.pdf

=Uncool-

[rigney]

I was wondering the same thing. I cannot yet tell if it was the union reps who misread the situation or if it was the rank and file. And while in hindsight the union seems silly for not heeding the warning from management, I believe management made the threat to liquidate once before and did not follow through.

 

Sad day for everyone.

Unfortunately we will never know exactly what transpired that the outcome ended as it did. And yes, it's a sad day for the workers. Company officials and union organizers will simply go somewhere else and repeat the debacle. I'm not vindictive, pro or con; but somewhere in this life, greed vs greed must be eradicated, but how?

[zapatos]

For everyone: You may wish to dig into the history before making pronouncements about who was being silly.

The employees are now unemployed. Unless their true objective was to shut down the company and join the ranks of those seeking work, then they look (in hindsight) silly. The past misdeeds of Hostess doesn't change that.

 

If we are going to dig into their history before making pronouncements we may want to dig further than just the union's unbiased position on the matter.

[Moontanman]

Amen Brother! Get us hick kids turned on to a good food while in our forties or fifties and its worse than dope of any kind.

 

 

you using the word "food" rather loosely aren't you?

Edited November 18, 2012 by Moontanman

[rigney]

The employees are now unemployed. Unless their true objective was to shut down the company and join the ranks of those seeking work, then they look (in hindsight) silly. The past misdeeds of Hostess doesn't change that.

If we are going to dig into their history before making pronouncements we may want to dig further than just the union's unbiased position on the matter.

Unbiased my as-! Just whose background do you suggest we explore first, the bad guys or the idiots?

 

you using the word "food" rather loosely aren't you?

 

You know me! Whether it's on the table, out'a the "jug" or on a break from doin' the back 40, food is food.

Edited November 18, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

I've been on both sides of the unionization coin, not an easy choice when dealing with dishonest people on both sides...

[uncool]

The employees are now unemployed. Unless their true objective was to shut down the company and join the ranks of those seeking work, then they look (in hindsight) silly. The past misdeeds of Hostess doesn't change that.

Unemployment isn't the worst thing that can happen from an employee's perspective. A bankruptcy still sends some funds towards the employees, including pensions, pay, etc. This can be better than a ridiculous concession, which is what the union is claiming the company demanded. Further, the union is claiming that the company had illegally and unilaterally stopped paying pensions, which further removes any reason to think that the company will treat workers any better should this go through, and therefore making bankruptcy a more attractive option. So while the "true objective" may not be to shut down the company, shutting down the company may be in the interest of the workers in comparison to the alternative.

 

ETA: In other words, in bankruptcy, employees still get money. Should the union think that the longer the company remains open, the less money the employees will get in an eventual bankruptcy due to the misdeeds of the company (for example, if the CEO continues getting enormous raises while employee wages continue getting cut), then bankruptcy may be the best option, rather than stretching out the bankruptcy and cutting the amount of money the employees eventually get.

If we are going to dig into their history before making pronouncements we may want to dig further than just the union's unbiased position on the matter.

I never claimed that the union was unbiased. Nor did I make pronouncements. However, what I was pointing out was that there were several claims that had not been considered which were in the pdf from the union.

 

ETA: Apparently I forgot precisely what I had posted at the end; I did make pronouncements about "focusing on trying to get as much money as possible for upper management while it lasted". I apologize for that.

=Uncool-

Edited November 19, 2012 by uncool

[zapatos]

Unemployment isn't the worst thing that can happen from an employee's perspective. A bankruptcy still sends some funds towards the employees, including pensions, pay, etc. This can be better than a ridiculous concession, which is what the union is claiming the company demanded. Further, the union is claiming that the company had illegally and unilaterally stopped paying pensions, which further removes any reason to think that the company will treat workers any better should this go through, and therefore making bankruptcy a more attractive option. So while the "true objective" may not be to shut down the company, shutting down the company may be in the interest of the workers in comparison to the alternative.

 

ETA: In other words, in bankruptcy, employees still get money. Should the union think that the longer the company remains open, the less money the employees will get in an eventual bankruptcy due to the misdeeds of the company (for example, if the CEO continues getting enormous raises while employee wages continue getting cut), then bankruptcy may be the best option, rather than stretching out the bankruptcy and cutting the amount of money the employees eventually get.

 

I never claimed that the union was unbiased. Nor did I make pronouncements. However, what I was pointing out was that there were several claims that had not been considered which were in the pdf from the union.

=Uncool-

You are right. There are two ways to judge the situation: superficially, or after sufficient effort has been applied. While the two judgements may turn out to be the same, it is only the one based on sufficient rigor that should be considered a reasonable judgement. I errred by making a judgement based on insufficient evidence.

[rigney]

I've been on both sides of the unionization coin, not an easy choice when dealing with dishonest people on both sides...

Then you must surely know, there is no fence; only a rather broad line of ignorance dividing stupidity from stupidity. Edited November 19, 2012 by rigney

[Sergeant Bilko]

Quoted from The Wall Street Journal

 

 

" Hostess Brands Inc., in which the government this week challenged roughly $1.8 million in bonuses proposed for senior managers under a liquidation plan the baker submitted Friday. That challenge will likely be heard by a judge soon after a last-minute mediation failed late Tuesday between Hostess management and its bakers union."

 

Yeah thats right Rigny, its all the unions doing, the management have no interest in the $1.8 million bonus they awarded themselves for liquidationg a company in Chapter 11.

 

The management were probably advised by Bain Capital.

[rigney]

Quoted from The Wall Street Journal

 

 

" Hostess Brands Inc., in which the government this week challenged roughly $1.8 million in bonuses proposed for senior managers under a liquidation plan the baker submitted Friday. That challenge will likely be heard by a judge soon after a last-minute mediation failed late Tuesday between Hostess management and its bakers union."

 

Yeah thats right Rigny, its all the unions doing, the management have no interest in the $1.8 million bonus they awarded themselves for liquidationg a company in Chapter 11.

 

The management were probably advised by Bain Capital.

You evidently have me mixed up with some left wing nut. I am definitely a "right wing nut". I'm not taking sides for or against the workers, hell; I've been one all of my life. Other than pre-arranged distribution settlements, should such a dilemma as this occur, everything else should be sold at auction to prove that two wrongs don't make a right. Then give the proceeds to the really needy not the greedy. Edited November 23, 2012 by rigney