General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFour Short Sentences Explain Who Killed The Twinkie
http://front.moveon.org/four-short-sentences-explain-who-killed-the-twinkie/?rc=daily.share
Imagine, some people refer to these executives as job creators.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,127 posts)benld74
(9,881 posts)Cha
(295,516 posts)Skittles
(152,918 posts)mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)They've gotten rich enough so they can stop with all that "running a business and employing workers to sell a product" silly nonsense.
Time to take the money and run. It's on to the Wall Street Casino.
....Where they can start to make some Real, Serious MONEY.
Astronomical piles of the stuff. (In the "Beyond the dreams of avarice," category of Real, Serious MONEY.)
The graph is explained and summarized at this link:
http://www.lcurve.org/#
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Thanks for the link.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)Visually, it's the opposite of the fiscal debt cliff. After a certain point gravity reverses itself and income accumulates at astronomic rates, to a stratospheric height.
RiverSong
(35 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Whenever executive pay, or the complete lack of downward wage pressure that applies to every worker outside of the C-Suite, is raised as a (non)issue the right gets stupid quiet, except for the weak-a$$ed, "But that's different" comments.
How is it different?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)DemoTex
(25,334 posts)My pension was stolen on March 31, 2003.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)psychopaths.
femrap
(13,418 posts)the sheeple want to fight and blame each other when there are a bunch of rich dudes who are at fault...and laughing all the way to the bank???
Divide and Conquer...when will the sheeple learn?
GatorLarry
(55 posts)Those who are actively plundering everything from pensions to the national treasure (through crushing debt) keep us all divided in a sick game: Republican vs. Democrat . . . men vs. women . . . right-to-life vs. women's rights . . . middle-class vs. poor "takers" . . . black vs. white vs. brown, etc.
It can't continue for much longer. Too many are waking-up.
I eventually expect lynch mobs that will drag Banksters out of their hiding places and string them up.
Maybe that's why DHS has been buying so much ammunition. To protect their masters . . .
Hotler
(11,325 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:25 AM - Edit history (1)
90% of any income over $3 mill goes to the government.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)at 100%.
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)That would encourage companies to reinvest earnings ... in people, in training, in equipment;
That would recognize capital gains as the income it really is;
That would bring back a progressive tax rate the Repubs can't bitch about without bitching about St. Ronnie
(BTW - I think it is time we start changing the names of things named after Reagan ... remember, they were trying to replace FDR with Reagan on the dime ... time to take back history)
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)... from Daily Kos blogs:
"Inside a Hostess Bakery" - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/18/1162786/-Inside-the-Hostess-Bankery
"RIP: Hostess Brands 1925 - 2012" - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162225/-RIP-Hostess-Brands-1925-2012
ClusterFreak
(3,112 posts)...and Ho Hos, and bemoans the fact that they may soon be no more without mentioning the same information as the OP, should be forced to eat nothing but Twinkies and Ho Hos for the next month till they puke.
Thousands of job losses due to managerial malfeasance is nothing to joke about. So STFU. I'm talking to you Richard Lui of MSNBC.
I mention him cuz I saw him do this a couple of times in the last few days.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Omaha Steve
(98,872 posts)calimary
(80,521 posts)Who's to blame, I mean - REALLY? Let's just look at the facts, shall we?
progressoid
(49,754 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)BainsBane
(52,999 posts)I continue to maintain the problem is the produce a crap product that fewer people want to eat today.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
thelordofhell This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)
A company is on the edge of closing its doors. Most of the union workers accept the skimpy bargaining deal. But the baker's union does not. The baker's union knows the company cannot withstand a strike. Everyone knows. Yet it still does it (although a lot of bakers cross the picket lines). Illogical.
Even tho Hostess gave the execs big raises, which was morally and ethically and fiscally wrong wrong wrong...the facts remain the same. You strike, you have no job.
I hope being right is enough to make their Christmases happy, 'cause that's all they're gonna have. The really sad part is it did away with the jobs of the workers who were not involved in that strike.
Like the judge said, "Many people, myself included, wonder at the logic of striking at this time."
And in the meantime, a few more people move to the group that thinks that maybe, just maybe, unions have gotten out of hand.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)Then they would have little or no power. I just have to ask ... is that what you want?
I applaud them for putting their principles over their pocketbooks. If the numbers are correct in this graphic, then it appears that the fault for the company closure lies at least equally w/the greedy execs refusing to share the pie (pardon the pun). Yet you decline to even mention these numbers. I just have to ask ... why is that, exactly?
Where I sit, this is exactly the kind of thing that Unions (at least once in a while) need to be willing to do, for the sake of the movement having any power whatsoever as a whole.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)it was in dire straits. Yeah, they sucked at giving all those exec raises, but that had nothing to do with causing the closing of the co. And the bankruptcy court approved those raises.
Fact #2: Most of the union workers opposed the strike.
Fact #3: The vote taken in the baker's union was not in secret.
Fact #4: Despite the baker's strike, many of hte bakers in that union crossed the line to work.
Fact #5: Everyone knew, unlike most situations, that if there was a strike, the company couldn't take the monetary loss of a shutdown in business, and that would be the nail in its coffin.
Now, I agree, if all anyone cares about is himself, then he has a right to let his family and himself suffre so that he can be morally right. But many thousands of workers lost their jobs because of what these union workers decided to do. They hurt a lot of other people. And that's not right.
Add to that another bad PR move. More people will have a soured view of unions because of this. More and more people are joining that bandwagon, as they watch these abuses of power of the few unfold. (Power of the few union workers who hold thousands of jobs in their hands.)
Makes no sense. I would not have sacrificed a job because I'm ticked that executives got raises. Sometimes yu have to be practical. I would've kept the company going while I looked for another job.
It really is like cutting off your (and everyone else's) nose, to spite the face.
Initech
(99,881 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Disgraceful treatment by management.
silhouete2
(80 posts)A friend of mine posted it. It's making the rounds.
redqueen
(115,085 posts)And welcome to DU!
silhouete2
(80 posts)musical_soul
(775 posts)Yes, there was some selfishness on the parts of people on top. There always is. However, it's their company. If they want to shut it down, they can. That's not me taking the side of selfishness. That's me being realistic. If I was a union leader, my focus would have been on keeping the jobs of the 18,000 people. I would have also fought to make the hit of wages less severe. Look where the lack of compromise got the 18,000 workers. I don't care about twinkies. I know other brands will have their own version. I ate Little Debbie cupcakes today, and they were mighty tasty. Also always thought Hostess was too high. Good riddence to the junk food, but the last thing we needed was 18,000 joining the unemployment line.
silhouete2
(80 posts)And the management kept coming back for more. In the meantime, they give themselves HUGE raises and did not keep their end of the agreement to put in their share of the employee pension program. The unions saw that they kept on giving so the "company could stay afloat" while the big wigs gave themselves huge raises--for basically running the company into the ground. If I were them, I'd have been pissed off, too. I don't care if it is "their" company. You don't make money UNLESS you have a workforce that puts out your product. Without supply, you don't meet demand--and you don't make money. Pure and simple. Think the managers would go work the line? Hell no. Employees' work helped the company make money--they deserve decent compensation. I mean, why not just pay them crap wages like Walmart and forget about it? That way their employees can be on food stamps and then the taxpayers foot the bill. Yeah, that sounds fair. And truthfully, they were going under no matter what the union was going to do. If they had stayed on, I truly believe that their doors would have shut just the same. They had crap management no matter what. That is what killed that company--not the workers.
The workers are the company, not management. Management just represents the company. Just like the needed machinery needs maintenance and upkeep, so do the workers. Upper management destroyed the viability of the company by short changing the workers as surely as running the machines, without maintenance, till they quit running.
Anyone saying the workers should have caved again, just to have jobs, does not understand what is going on. It is the gutting of the company for personal gain that is the objective of upper management. The workers caving just prolongs the inevitable job loss a bit longer. Why? Because the objective was to bankrupt the company in the first place. And that is just what upper management did.
If I have my facts straight--after their first bankruptcy in 2004 they were taken over--seems to me a la Bain Capital--that included hedge fund managers. So yes, I'd say their primary objective was very clear--put the company into deep debt, bankrupt it again, and collect the leftovers. They NEVER gave a crap about their workers. All they saw ere dollar signs. However, the first group that managed Hostess before the first bankruptcy ran it into the ground as well--but I attribute that to incompetency. If you can't figure out that you aren't making money like you used to BUT then agree to union contracts where you are beholden to something you can't actually deliver on--that's on MANAGEMENT not on the workers.
musical_soul
(775 posts)I knew somebody who worked for Hostess. He got paid very well.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)high end, bakers got the low end.
silhouete2
(80 posts)You said the unions didnt' give enough concessions. I gave you the facts that they did give concessions before and management gave themselves huge raises and then came back demanding more. What would you have them do--I said. Have crap wages like WalMart? Would that have been enough of a concession to satisfy you? That was my point. I know for a fact that don't make those crap wages like at WalMart--that is why they are in a union.