General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFormer Hostess Employees Bitter About Wage Cuts (fork lift operator- $11 an hour)
Craig Davis, a former forklift operator at a Hostess cake plant in Emporia, Kan., has been unemployed since November, when the Twinkies maker shut its factories and began liquidation proceedings.
He could have applied to get his old job back now that the plant is churning out Twinkies, Zingers and Ding Dongs in preparation for a July 15 return to store shelves. But he said the current starting salary of about $11 an hour, with the chance to bump it to $14, is "a slap in the face."
"When I left, I was making $16.53 an hour, so I just didn't see the point," said Mr. Davis, who worked at the plant for almost 22 years.
Eight months after Hostess closed amid labor strife, its former workers have had divergent paths, but many of them have failed to regain their previous income levels. Hostess moved to liquidate in November shortly after the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers International Union went on strike in response to a new contract imposed on them at a bankruptcy court's direction. The bakers balked at the company's cessation of pension contributions. Hostess later admitted to using wages that were supposed to help fund pensions for the company's operations.
<snip>
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324260204578583712699551132.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp
How do I hate these fucks? With the intensity of a thousand suns (apologies Will)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Turbineguy
(37,331 posts)Oh wait, it was the capitalists who ran things into the ground.
ceonupe
(597 posts)The truth is you can't make the new ownership pay the old wages. All contracts were voided when the original company failed.
It sucks but I bet someone will take that job and earn that 11hr and move up to 14 eventually. The former worker may be out of luck once unemployment runs out.
Yes it sucks to lose a job and to take another for less money. But you can't blame the new owners chances are they are employing people the old company let go when it failed.
cali
(114,904 posts)what the hell are you doing on DU?
My post has nothing to do with the company and owners who messed up and bankrupted the company.
My post is that the new owners who are investing their money should not be bound by terms of the old owners when a company completely fails.
Maybe the new company is smaller and does not have as many resources as the old company did 10-15years ago.
The new company is stepping in and offering people jobs at what is market rate it appears in that area.
As a former employee you have a choice
You can take the new offer or not and stay on unemployment. If you had other options you prob would have taken them by now.
Again how is it wrong that the new company pays less than the old when the old went out of business?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Those workers can't get their old jobs back at their old wages, because the company can't fund them. It simply doesn't make enough profit to do so. If the company were entirely owned by the workers, it would have had to cut employee compensation to survive.
Companies have to make enough money to pay their workers and worker benefits.
That having been said, I do think current wages could be somewhat higher.
People are poorer in this country, and it means that producers are squeezed too. One can definitely call it a downward spiral - companies pay less, so employees can afford less, so other companies can't sell their goods at prices high enough to pay decently - but one company can't change things all by itself.
Also, the market for stuff like plastic snack cakes has been steadily declining. If the company management had changed its offerings earlier, maybe all this wouldn't have happened. Company management was pretty bad through the long sequence of declining fortunes. The structural costs remained, and market share was doomed to drop due to changing market tastes.
TheJames
(120 posts)The previous owners/managers looted the company, including the pensions. Whoever told you it was mismanagement, either was misled themselves, or was outright lying.
Without "management greed and rapaciousness", the former employees/owners of the former Hostess co. would more likely been able to pay actual living wages.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)They flat out looted the company.
SharonAnn
(13,775 posts)Looted the company for personal benefit.
Failed to even try to plan for competitive pressure (failure to invest but compensated themselves)
Executed a buyout/merger that enriched themselves but left the workers holding the bag.
etc.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)Many, many companies have sought out bankruptcy in order to avoid pension obligations and perhaps merge with another company in order to reset wages and other things. This has been going on for decades. It is really nothing new except for the fact more and more of the public are learning about it.
Large corporations (some not all) track when its workers are close to earning their pensions and try to find ways to fire them about a year, a year and one-half before their eligibility date. My father-in-law was the president of a large union for a number of years, and he talked about this a lot during the 80s and 90s. The place where he worked was a huge corporation whose name almost everyone would recognize. The union constantly fought to get these people re-instated and was often successful. This is of course an illegal practice but it is sometimes difficult to prove that was the motive behind the actual dismissal.
Sam
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)now you should be proud of the pattern that is emerging unless perchance you don't really want people to notice it here.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The executive class sucked big bucks out of that company for decades, drained it of every last drop of blood until it went tango uniform and now the corpse is being reanimated by the same wastes of protoplasm or their evil twins but this time there will be even more for the executive class since the workers are getting less.
Welcome to DU!
ceonupe
(597 posts)So I guess for you the only option would be state owned bakerys.
Seeing as you don't trust business.
The truth is for that $11hr the company could move production out of country and get 2 or 3 forklift drivers.
You can't win for losing with some people. It is a global market for labor. Notice almost all candy and gum are now made overseas and almost all of the base materials for US made candy are imported.
I don't want to bash the new owners seeing as without them some of these towns with plants would be even much worse off. Think of the cleaners, garbage man, retail stores, restaurants, florists ect that are effected when a plant closes.
Yes 11 with bump to 14 ain't perfect but its still better than many had just a month ago when there were no jobs.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Corporations are not naturally democratic. They are totalitarian, and profit driven. They put revenue over reform, and will only embrace civil rights when it is profitable to do so.
What is it that is inherent to such institutions that you feel they deserve our trust?
Response to demwing (Reply #23)
Post removed
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)by the government. And if utilities were owned and run by the government instead of private companies in it for profit, we all might be better off for it (TVA). Utilities are a national necessity as are some other industries that are not owned or run by the government, yet the nation is at the mercy of these energy tycoons and their profits are soaring while the nation is suffering. The things that government should own and operate it does not, while the things that should be totally at the whim of private enterprise the government interferes with...like a woman's body.
TBF
(32,062 posts)at least look up the words before you get here.
Communism comes from the Latin word communis, which means "shared" or "belong to all".
Workers owning the means of production does not imply state ownership.
Enjoy your stay.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)There goes that litmus test.
ceonupe
(597 posts)did you get yours [star] for free do tell?
Just because i am not a collectivism and socialism and marixism advocate does not mean I am not a democrat or even a progressive. My prediction is that this site will back the most corporate connected president nominee in recent memory when they support Hillary Clinton.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)That being said when there is a nominee... "We" do usually support that person.
ceonupe
(597 posts)what happens when you run out of others money to spend?
how do you force others to be apart of the collective? By force of Gun?
and democratic underground does not equal communism anti capitalist.
TBF
(32,062 posts)about it I felt compelled to correct your initial statements. But if you think I'm going to spend my entire day sorting through your red-baiting you are sorely mistaken. If you are truly curious start reading: http://www.marxists.org/
My best guess though is that you are not curious but simply here to disrupt. However, it's not my job (not this term anyway) to do anything about it.
ceonupe
(597 posts)seeing as i took 2 semesters on topics about Marx I just disagree But thats cool.
I dont believe being a democrat equals being a supporter of socialism, collectivism, or communism.
We just disagree. But i would note that even the democratic party supports capitalism and the air apparent to the throne Hillary Clinton is a full throttle corportatist. They only do the populous stuff when the economy is down.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)You're going to need more than "...2 semesters on topics about Marx..." 
In addition, learn to spell. Obvious misspellings of things like heir (spelled as "air" in your post and another obvious misspelling in this very thread) makes you look like a Teabagger.
Oh wait...
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
Rex
(65,616 posts)like they are identical? Did you fail those 2 semesters? One would have to surmise that you did by the content you post.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)
So I'll just shorten it. WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! You have nothing to lose, but your chains!
And I personally thought that the Hostess workers should have occupied the plant, made product and sold it WITHOUT profit (ALL costs included of course) and cut the fucking parasitical capitalists out of the picture all together. Communist enuff for you?
ceonupe
(597 posts)nothing stopped them from doing just that in fact there was a group of former mangers and workers that wanted to do just that. the problem was the cost was to high because the business had been leveraged to a point of no return. The banks that own those loans on the plants and equipment arent just going to let others use it for free. the bankruptcy provided a way to close out the old company and give someone else a chance. THis story happens all the time when we allow business to leverage everything and the owners to walk away with profits but it is legal. The banks to a loss on this and so did the original investors. The employees also lost out. I dont blame the unions (even if they took the deal offered the company most likely would have gone belly up in the next year or so. The debt it took on was just to much and it was never going to work out.
My point is why bash the new company? They may be more responsible by promising wages they can actually afford to pay and remain in business. the new owners may not have other business or the vertical integration the previous owner had (and totally meesed up by leveraging). Also keep in mind this leveraging started almost as soon as the company became no longer a family owned business and may date back decades with various Leveraged Buyouts of previous companies and competitors and partners.
you may think im anti worker im not . I believe the best thing for many of these small towns who lost 200-300+ jobs (town population of a few thousand) having another company come in and open the place backup is better than nothing. Go into a discount retailer like dollar tree or family dollar or dollar general and you will notice all the packaged cake snacks are now not even made in america.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)would have reopened the plant under workers' control and funded it with government loans on a 2 to 5 year plan at no, or very low, interest rates.
And fuck the banks. They took over a TRILLION dollars of citizen's tax money to keep them from going out of business during the crash, thereby socializing their losses and putting them on the backs of the working class. That, along with Bush's adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan, MORE support for the capitalist system with the Medicare Part D giveaway to Big Pharma and those tax cuts that funneled wealth ever upwards are the CAUSE of the deficits that everybody's trying to "control" now. And by "control", I mean making the working class pay for the failings of capitalism by cutting programs that we need because "we can't afford it anymore". BULLfuckingSHIT! What we can't afford anymore IS capitalism. If the current government is going to print money, they could have printed it and used it for the PEOPLE, and NOT the capitalist system. IF the banks had been nationalized and their assets expropriated under a worker's government anyway.
Even in this particular situation, I would almost be willing to BET that this company wrangled concessions from local, state, and maybe the feds in order to reopen this factory. IOW, capitalism itself is subsidized by the bourgeois government.
How about them red apples?
TheJames
(120 posts)The form is not as important as that we keep track of who is running/operating it. I'm partial to Social Democracy, myself, but, as I said, that is not as important as that we keep psychopaths out of the leadership.
BTW, that path
is working real well in South and Central America.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
TBF
(32,062 posts)
haele
(12,656 posts)Baroness Maggy Thatcher, Neo-Liberal, was a decent technocrat - a good chemist and saleswoman. She had very little understanding of Money and Market policies other than how she could go about hording enough of it to buy her position of power and whatever else she wanted with it. She had no clue as to what a healthy monetary market is, other than at the time she made her money, she was operating in a fairly healthy "Market" that had a few minor, easily correctable glitches that might reduce the amount of money she could collect off the backs of people who worked for a living or produced tangible assets instead of having their money work for more money. She was a Dragon who set herself above people who weren't as lucky as she was; she was not an economist or frankly, even a good businesswoman. If she had not been lucky enough to have the right personality to get accepted into a rarefied circle of power players early in her political career, we would not be hearing squat about her, and she would be a footnote in history as being one of the inventors of soft-serve ice cream.
Anyway, what is wrong with "What happens when you run out of other's money to spend?" -
1. Money is not finite - it is not a resource, but an agreed upon symbol representing a bargain or means to exchange good. Money is a measure of work required to access a desired good or service at the time of the rendering of the service.
2. Money changes value constantly due to it's circulatory nature: inflation (purchasing ability is less with more money in circulation), deflation (purchasing ability is greater due to less money in circulation), and stagflation (money is stagnant and has "no value"- cannot be lent or borrowed - and costs are set by arbitrary valuation of resource availability).
3. Money relies on confidence to hold any sort of value. That's why currency counterfeiting and fake checks/money transferring is a serious crime that only actually provides a short-term benefit to the counterfeiter; not only does it flood a market with "fake money", people will not want to use money because they're afraid of getting stuck with the fake money that has no crediting value behind it.
It takes both the "Market" force and the community (i.e. governments) to dictate the value of money whether it is a local or global scale - just look at what happens to currency during times of inflation or deflation - when within weeks, what used to be able to be purchased with one of a particular unit of currency "now" requires hundreds or thousands of those measures due to political, environmental or market forces.
Tangible resources - sustenance, housing/productive land, component elements and finished products, are finite, but money isn't finite. So while one can run out of resources or the access to resources, as long as one can work or provide something in trade that can be symbolized through money, and/or the government or a trusted monetary source can one can never run out of money.
That famous "Thatcherism" only makes sense if one looks at money as the primary resource and all other resources as secondary to money. As in, that statement only makes sense if one is greedy and sees life itself as a zero-sum game to be won or lost individually. People who link economics to political systems - i.e. Libertarians, Neo-Liberal/Conservatives, Communists, Oligarchs/Plutocrats often make that sort of tunnel-vision and put actual money in the same critical needs category as air, water, food, social standing rather than as a measure of work.
Practicing the philosophy of economics as a zero-sum game is not a viable economic system, no matter what side of the liberal/conservative, neo-liberal/neo-conservative, communist/capitalist side of the fence you are on.
In fact, I'm inclined to believe that is why there is that old saying "The love of money is the root of all evil". Because the love of money, the hording and over-valuation of money, is what destroys communities, countries, businesses, and empires.
Haele
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)OK for the owners, just not for the workers.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)red baiting fail
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)'communist government control'
Give us Freedom Twinkies!
TBF
(32,062 posts)
heh.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)There aren't only 2 options. Capitalism is not the only economic system. It is on par with feudalism.
Capitalist only make money if they are paying their workers a whole lot less than what their labor is really worth. So why should some CEO or Board of Directors be given total discretion over the products created by our labor? Put in workers as the board of Directors. Let workers vote on who will be the CEO.
Capitalism is a cancer that is destroying America.
ceonupe
(597 posts)america has been capitalist since it founding
I do know of many Communist countries that tried your approach and failed spectacularly.
The problem is you run out of other peoples money to spend and the whole thing implodes.
Do i think capitalism is perfect? NO but it offers more opportunity and freedom than any other system. People from all over the world come here for that.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)ceonupe
(597 posts)who protects scandinavia?
and wasent all of the old money exempt from their form of socialism. (answer yes it was)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)more peace of mind, more happiness, more security, etc. than we provide our own citizens.
Their middle classes are much more secure than ours.
If you are defending our corrupted imperial military with its wasted and fraudulent spending as "protecting" Scandinavia I would have to disagree. As, most Scandinavians would too I'm sure.
We could do so much better in this country at providing a better way of life than we do.
telclaven
(235 posts)With an oil-export economy.
Hmm, perhaps there's more to it than just saying socialism?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Like not letting greedy asshats collect a massive amount of money that should be spent on their citizens' health care needs which allows for ALL of their citizens to be treated when needed. In addition, medical bankruptcy are two words that just don't appear together (as they NEVER should).
Like providing forms of REASONABLE regulation that does not allow for greedy asshats to collect more and more of the nation's wealth and income.
Things like that.
Also, they are mixed economies. They are capitalistic, but they have socialistic protections in place which actually help their citizens in areas that are vital and important to all of their citizens.
And, they are becoming less and less homogeneous. We'll see if racists allow for the dismantling of a wonderful way of life due to their hate.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)I know of many Capitalist countries that tried your approach and failed spectacularly. They never seem to run out of our money. If only your theory actually worked!
ceonupe
(597 posts)yep britain who just kept expanding its empire and lost it all in ww2
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I do know of many Communist countries that tried your approach and failed spectacularly....
Very nice. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc, followed by a bumper sticker, and then a rationalization for summation. Very nice indeed.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)go back to the freak republic
rdking647
(5,113 posts)lets say you put some workers on the BOD. now its time for the company to expand. they need more capital to hire more workers,buikd new plants etc....
where do they get the money? from investor
what do the investors care about? maximizing their return,ie maximizing the companies profits
why would an outside investor put his money in a company not dedicated to maximizing his return?
and without that outside capital the business cant expand
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Why not address what I actually said, about profit being leached or leeched if you will from the company over decades only to deliberately fold it for more money?
All that excess value went into the pockets of the Mitt Romneys of the world, not the John and Jane Q Public, then the company was sold for pennies on the dollar only to be resurrected at "Surprise, surprise, surprise" lower wages for the workers.
You may wish to join a global race to the bottom while the executive wealthy class soars to the heavens and indulge in the fallacy of the excluded middle in order to justify it, we are not all that foolish.
ceonupe
(597 posts)The new owners are not the old ones the bought a bankrupt company. they arent the ones who ran up the debt and took all the profits.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That have already started off doing the same things.
If you were part of the .01% you wouldn't be here carrying their water on DU, they have more profitable ways to spend their time.
TBF
(32,062 posts)Seriously. It doesn't matter who is doing the capitalism - it is still an inherently unequal system that rewards a very few at the top at the expense of everyone else below. You may wish to be that top dog and who the hell can blame you - that is the purpose of the whole system. Everybody works their ass off trying to be the top dog and "win" at the capitalism - that is the game. But at some point some of us actually slow down and start thinking about the expense to everyone else and the planet. Sure there are places with worse poverty and folks trying to escape - but that doesn't mean our system is any better. And many find that out when they get here.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)If you don't trust business then you are a communist.
Are you a republican?
Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #63)
Post removed
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)it's clear that it's actually you who's "anti wealth/money".
what if the company that owns it has determined they cant be competitive (thus stay in business) paying the old wage. maybe because the previous owners sucking the money out of the business needed improvements to process and technology wernt done. Because of this they have a business thats competitors have better process more automation and are more profitable. Yes it sucks that the workers are being offered a job from a new company for $11 an hour but seeing as their old company that paid $16 went out of business and left him high and dry with no severance and his Unemployment is about to run out the $11-14 hr job is better than nothing.
I dont blame the new company for the sins of the old company. I rather work for a company that was honest and upfront than promissed me and my union the moon and screwed us all in the end.
And yes the competiton has gone either over seas or south of the boarder or gone up market and used lots of technology.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Hostess Exec's gave themselves raises, 60 to 100% raises while the company was filing it's second bankruptcy. The CEO received a 300% (from 750,000 to 2.25 million) raise while the company was filing it's second bankruptcy.
To sit there and blame labor costs for the downfall of this company is bullshit. To claim that the new company can only pay $11 an hour is also bullshit.
The problem is not wages, or a global economy. The problem is greed. How anyone can sit there and say that $11 or $16 an hour is a fair wage when the CEO takes home 2.25 million plus bonuses from a FAILING COMPANY is beyond me.
Capitalism works when it is well regulated. Your idiotic premise that the only 2 options are Capitalism or Communism is as short sighted as it gets.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)let's try to make a guess what happens with the salaries of the bosses, shall we?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit
George A. Akerlof
University of California, Berkeley; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Paul M. Romer
Stanford Graduate School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
April 1994 NBER Working Paper No. R1869
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=227162
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)did everything they could to save the wages, right?
ceonupe
(597 posts)It is not their job to keep wages artifically high or to contiune to pay a rate that the market wont bare.
MAybe people shopping arent willing to pay $1 more to buy twinkes made by higher paid workers. Maybe the competition from forigen made store brands has push the market for twinkes to the max price people are willing to pay for them.
Not all jobs stay at a pay rate or go up forever.
I wont blame the new company for the old companys policies. Its asimple choice old company went belly up and left the unions and people with ZERO jobs. A new company comes in and offers jobs. Maybe they dont pay as well and maybe the benifts are not as good but its not a mark aginst the new company. Heck i know many jobs and professions that pay less now than what they did 5-10 years ago.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...lessons on civics and economics are in short supply on DU these days. I've been following this thread and agree with a lot of what you're saying...unfortunately it's more in style around here to beat up on anyone who has money. I have a lot of issues with greedy corporations and we have plenty of them in this country...such as the former owners of Hostess, but to castigate all who attempt to build a business as evil is totally counter-productive.
Welcome to DU...not all of us are ready to move to communes...
Response to KharmaTrain (Reply #41)
Post removed
treestar
(82,383 posts)but think to some of the posters you are talking to, the new owners and old are the same capitalist class greedy corporatists and cannot be distinguished.
Also using a term like "other people's money" may not sell so well - I hear that phrase from right wingers a lot. Don't know of another way to say it, but it smacks of the right wing claiming the left are lazy do-nothings and the left is part of the Democratic party too.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)You should post over at the Cave maybe or free republic.
Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #88)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)So clever.
Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #116)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)He has had a very busy month and must realize it is not working out.
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)in and among the black clouds, the great part of this story is that Mr. Craig Davis, the former forklift operator at the shuttered twinkie plant has the personal freedom to either stay unemployed, or he could decide to train for a different job, or he could attend community college and get a degree or accept employment as a forklift operator with a company that needs such an asset. There are certain geographic areas where there is a high demand for the kind of services he can provide.
Spike89
(1,569 posts)These are not systems on an imaginary economy wheel where one system is the opposite of another. Capitalism isn't perfect, it requires a strong regulatory influence to keep it from devouring itself, but it does have many advantages. Corporations on the other hand are almost always detrimental to society in that they exist (today) solely to separate owners from operations. In many cases, corporations make their money not from the actual business(es) they are engaged in, but in the murky investor transactions and "value" changes from the buying and selling of business units that they are comprised of.
The following is just a personal anecdote, but it clearly shows the difference between capitalism and corporatism. I worked in publishing for a small (13 titles, 100-150 employee, ~ $8 million revenue) magazine company run by a sole proprietor. He was a jerk in some ways, but he had a stake in and cared deeply about the products his company produced, because they were the source of any profits he made. After a few years, he sold the company to a large publisher (~120 titles, 1500+ employees, $100 million). This big publisher was a corporation owned in large part by Goldman Sachs. They did NOT know about, or care, for the publishing business. Their entire motivation for investing in the business was not to make money from publishing--they intended to make money by selling the business to another corporation/investment firm.
To make their money, they just needed to make us look better on paper so they could sell us for more than they were into us. Ironically, they didn't care what we actually put on the paper we actually used to generate sales/profit. They cut editorial and support staff, knowing that it wouldn't affect quality for at least 3 months (because most magazines work at least that far ahead), maybe even 6 months, but would show up in the balance sheet immediately. It worked, another investment corporation bought us and Goldman Sachs made $millions on the "flip".
The new owners were not publishers (they were a retirement fund corporation). They were perplexed when advertisers started leaving because subscribers had left because editorial quality had dropped. They tried slashing jobs, but found little fat left, so they instead moved to corporate raider strategy 2--they began parting out the company. They sold off large chunks of the company, then were able to sell the remaining piece to yet another corporate group. By now, the publishing business was still profitable (some magazines had been profitable for more than 100 years), but the margins had dropped because the actual product was irrelevant to ownership.
Over a period of the next 5 years, the company (or at least the core that survived) was sold 3 more times--each time some corporation took money out of the business through profit-taking at the sale. It still exists as a shell of its former self, profit margins are razor thin and they increasingly find themselves unable to compete with independent publishers (who actually care about their business).
Seven corporate entities in about a decade each acted exactly like parasites until they'd virtually starved a once healthy business.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)We had a steel factory (not mill) in the small town where I used to live. They paid very low wages.
The employees voted to become Unionized. The owners brought in many Union busters and somehow(?$) got our small police force to favor the owners.
The company Union busters kept failing.
So, the company kept closing and re-opening under a new name. Of course any former employee suspected of supporting Unionization was not rehired by the "new" company.
Same owners, same office staff and salesmen but they probably closed their doors six times while I lived there.
They would re-open within weeks under a new name....
Capitalism, especially when unregulated, is slavery.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Pointing out why businesses make the decisions they do doesn't undo the economic harm. We need a larger portion of the GDP to be wages than we have now.
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)Their labor cost was only 30% which isn't bad at all considering they were paid well, it was a straight up looting process designed to make a few people richer then they already were. modern day pirate economics.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
but i'm not going to argue with you since you won't be here long anyway.
bike man
(620 posts)would rather remain unemployed rather than "...current starting salary of about $11 an hour, with the chance to bump it to $14..."
Is unemployment compensation and a down job market *that* attractive that one would turn down a job opportunity?
cali
(114,904 posts)That's outrageous and anyway, he's preparing himself for better employment.
Ugh. What is DU turning into?
bike man
(620 posts)mobile position, and with 22 years experience doing it, that tidbit should have been obvious.
This is July. Unemployed since November, and preparing himself for better employment? Really? Where. As often as we read here about 'older' workers not being able to find work anywhere one would think a prudent job seeker would take $11/hour while "...preparing himself for better employment...:
$11 buys more potatoes than does wishful thinking or hope and change.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)race to the bottom supported by members of d.u.
bike man
(620 posts)above minimum wage, or he can remain on unemployment - which won't last forever. But hey, it's the principle, isn't it.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)bike man
(620 posts)dotymed
(5,610 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 10, 2013, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)
This person has probably had to endure financial hardships x2. It is the principle and I know that principles do not pay the bills or feed you. IMO (obviously) that is what America Inc. is counting on. People not adhering to their principles. Hell something is better than nothing..
The next generation comes along and thinks the low wages are great.
My 17 y.o. son is a perfect example.
When I was his age, I made much more money, he thinks it is great to bring home $80 a week for part-time work. I had 2 vehicles and was able to save $ and attend all of the concerts I wanted (that was my thing).
He can't even afford to pay for a used car. He is looking forward to graduating and joining the marines.. 
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)What has he learned in 20 years that makes him worth so much more operating a forklift than some guy with 2 years experience?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)minimum at any subsequent job because why knock yourself out when they're going to screw you regardless?
good life lessons in the new economy, eh?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)However, it is more than the radio silence I expected, so I will give you that.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)i expect that after working 22 years a person would earn more than minimum wage.
and i would not expect to find right wingers defending the impoverisation of workers at DU.
so fuck your bullshit.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Fact is that there are jobs where you learn all the skills necessary within 1 year. To expect to make much more than the entry wage, adjusted for inflation, no matter how many years of experience, is unreasonable. Thus, the argument that he should make more simply because he learned a lot in year 1 and then learned nothing new the next 21 years, is bunk. THAT is a different argument than the overall decrease in wages.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)I'll put you in the column of people who think he didn't deserve it, because a 19-year-old could learn to drive a forklift just as well.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You felt the need to tell me what bucket you put me in.
surrealAmerican
(11,361 posts)Maybe his expenses from taking the job would add up to more than he would be earning. He might have to pay for child care or car repairs or something.
ceonupe
(597 posts)The new owner has nothing to do with the old one and the company is the same in name only the old corporation is bankrupt.
surrealAmerican
(11,361 posts)They also won't get "loyal" long-term workers that way. They want to pay less - they will get less.
Are they legally required to pay the previous wages? - No.
Would it be a good idea to do so anyway? - Probably.
ceonupe
(597 posts)If you have seen new factories in america you will notice lots of automation and robots.
I had a friend that worked at Foodlion (grocery store) distribution center. He was a forklift operator. Unfortunately we had a tornado in 2011 that destroyed the dist. center. It was rebuilt but using modern technology. The new system placed intellegent forklift that move the products from station to station unmaned. its all digital with RFID. Now there are less than half the number of maned forklifts. also for him he now has a head set that he wears and a computer tells him what to pickup and where to place it. (his biggest vcomplaint was nolonger being able to wear his ipod for music.
I have another friend that works for a company that supports installs maintains and trains on these new driverless forklifts. He has gotten offers all the time to cahnge jobs because of his skillset but his employer keeps bumping his pay up almost every atr to keep him. He makes about $30 an hour.
Technology and automation kills lots of low skilled labor. Paying a onetime cost for equipment that does not need benefits or ongoing cost outside of maintenance is something thats been happening in industry for the last 30 plus years. We must train and transition our workforce because we wont stop technology and i dont see us moving away from the various trade agreements we have that encourage companies to shop the world for cheap labor.
Speaking of trade deal Obama just like his predecessors supports the global trade deals. (yes regan, clinton, bush 1 and bush 2 and Obama all support the global labor market
we are supposed to stay back in the days of telephone operators connecting every call, elevator operators ands answering services.
/sarcasm/
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
hatrack
(59,587 posts) demwing
(16,916 posts)buh bye
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)and then see "Mitt Romney and Bain."
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)His house is paid for and his two kids are grown, so he and his wife can get by on her salary as a registered nurse for a while. Mr. Davis, 45, considers himself lucky, but worries about retirement. Had Hostess continued contributing to its employee pension plan, Mr. Davis says he would have been eligible to collect about $1,800 a month starting at age 55. Now expects to draw only $500 a month.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)who thinks he is better than the other working class schlubs who are probably happy to get an $11/hour job that he thinks he is too good for.
But he will probably get that power plant job, and stay in the upper class.
Too bad the article does not say how much he paid for the truck he is driving. I am wagering that he and his wife are driving cars that they bought NEW. I'm 51 years old and have never been able to afford a new car.
Gosh, I feel so bad for this guy 
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that hardly makes them the ruling elite. Seems like they were smart with their money and put themselves in a position to weather some storms. And for that they get Wow. Plus the guy's deciding to go get a degree for a better job. Asshole.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)That says 40% of the working class makes less than $11 an hour. He made $16.5 an hour. Puts him well above that 40%. And how much do RNs make?
According to one website their median salary is $64,000 a year in Wichita. Let's say she "only" makes $40,000 a year. Almost twice as much as that bottom 40% is making. So put her $40,000 together with his $16 an hour and you get $72,000 a year. In a country where 60% of households make less than $55,000 a year - his family makes at least 130% more than 60% of the rest of the working class.
And yes, a guy with a well paid sugar momma can afford to goto school, on the taxpayers dime, so he can get yet another good paying job and leave behind the schlubs who are happy to get that $11 an hour because they are not married to an RN.
The "ruling elite"? No, but certainly much better off than many people in this rich country. He's in the top 25% not the bottom 60%.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"a well paid sugar momma"
you are just ridiculous.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)not sure why IRS is getting much higher numbers, but CTJ has much lower brackets http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf
and that agrees with what the census says http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/
which says that 20% of households make LESS than $20,453 whereas the IRS says the average for that bottom quintile was $23,500. Which is one hell of a trick there.
But even taking the IRS' inflated figures, when they both were employed, they made about $90,000 (or more). Which is about the IRS average of the 4th quintile - the UPPER middle class, as I defined it.
But by all means, keep giving your best effort to defend a high income person and attack a low income person. That;s gotta be what worker solidarity is all about.
And yeah, I do consider somebody who makes twice as much as I do, to be fairly well paid. Besides his free college tuition, MR. I am too good to work for $11 an hour is making how much in unemployment benefits?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)for 'disappearing' the top of the food chain & thus painting a skewed picture).
I'm really sick of your 'oh, poor me, everyone who makes more than me is rich' schtick.
It's reactionary & right wing.
He got 'free tuition' because he was downsized in a bankruptcy after 22 years of work. If you meet those conditions you'll get 'free tuition' too. Yet you fault the man for taking it, & judge the world by your solipsistic standards. I wouldn't work for $11 an hour either if I had other options, & he did.
you're just ridiculous.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)according to this breakdown (on page 3) http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf
20% of the American households make less than $20,000
20% make between $20,000 and $33,000 (the lower middle class)
20% make between $33,000 and $53,000 (the middle, middle class)
20% make between $53,000 and $88,000 (the upper middle class)
If his wife makes $60,000 as an RN, then together with his $33,000 they are actually rich. Or they were, until he got laid off.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)I have no problem with UMC since she is a registered nurse. I don't see class structure purely as a factor of income, though, but education as well.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)means of production, not education & not income precisely.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)The poster I responded too linked it to tax brackets, which makes no sense to me. An electrician might be making six figures, but it's still a vocational training program with licensure, plus a fair amount of physical labor that would rule out persons with physical disabilities performing it.
"Means of production" could refer to higher levels of education, especially for fields where licensure is required, couldn't it? CPA, lawyers, MDs, etc?
But ITA that a $500/mo, or even a $1500/mo pension doesn't bump someone into UMC.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)distribution, another is about relationship to the means of production.
By neither definition is this man 'upper-middle-class'. He made $33K after working at the same company for 22 years, & he now takes home $6000/year as his 'pension' after having his job & pension/health benefits STOLEN.
Education has no direct correlation with class by either definition. You can have plenty of education & be dirt poor or no education & control half the world's wealth. Education is a diversion, a red herring, in the same way that 'air conditioners' and 'color tvs' are red herrings & diversions in discussions of poverty.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I say the upper class does, therefore I reject that definition, that framework.
Somebody making $160,000 a year is not in the same class as somebody making $16,000. Anybody with any sense should be able to see that. Just try offering the $16,000 person a $160,000 a year job and see if he doesn't start dancing and whooping like one of those guys in the movie who just found gold.
But some people, apparently, like to call both of them "middle class". Especially the politicians. Then they can propose and promote and pass another "middle class tax cut", like, for example, the accursed payroll tax cut. A tax cut that gives $320 to the $16,000 person (who used to get $400 from the making work pay credit) and gives $2,200 to the $160,000 person (who used to get nothing from the making work pay credit).
But hey, it's an economic stimulus, so the $2,200 that the much richer guy gets is bound to trickle down to the $16,000 guy and to the unemployed. Class is definitely about income and status. Otherwise you are calling a self-employed barber who makes $18,000 a year, upper class, because he owns his means of production. Whereas that RN making $70,000 a year is working class.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)worker who made $16/hr after 22 YEARS, then got his job & pension stolen & now gets $500/mo for a 'pension' is 'upper-middle-class'.
$16/hr full-time = $33K per year, and that's his TOP income after working 22 years. $500/mo = $6000/year.
spare me the blah-blah-blah, you are just ridiculous.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)who makes them upper middle class, not his own income
and you keep talking about his pension income as if that is relevant. He may fall out of the upper middle class when he retires, if he retires far earlier than many others can afford to, but he is still in the upper middle class right now.
And HE is the one looking down his nose, thinking he is better than the rest of us, too good to work for $11 an hour like an idiot like me is forced to.
Yeah, sure, he's the one who has solidarity and all of us who make far less than $11 an hour should be totally supportive of him.
And we are all in the same boat as he would retire at 55 and collect $21,600 annual pension while I will keep shoveling shit until I am 62 for a whopping $13,000 a year.
But I am being ridiculous in saying he is economically far better off than I am, and far better off than many members of the working class.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)since he presently has no income, she'd have to make quite a bit over median to get them into the top 20%. Median income for an RN is $65K.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Healthcare/Registered-nurses.htm
PS: An RN & a bakery forklift driver do not an 'upper middle class' household make.
you're just ridiculous.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)even with the promised pension he would have got just $21K a year.
Median household income in the US = $50K.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)if you can retire at 55 and make that much, and presumably his wife has a pension as well.
I am not sure if it says something about his pension. Is that the pension he will get NOW, because he stopped working for that company at age 45? Or is that the pension he would get if he took that $11 an hour job and worked for ten more years? Presumably if he gets that good paying job at the power plant, he will start earning retirement benefits there.
If 40% of working people are making $11 or less, pr $22,000 a year or less, then $21,000 a year for retirement income at age 55 is hardly "only" $21,000 a year. It's more than a lot of people make for working.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)before commenting.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)because I am following the article.
The pension mentioned is something he would collect at age 55 - like I said.
"Mr. Davis, 45, considers himself lucky, but worries about retirement. Had Hostess continued contributing to its employee pension plan, Mr. Davis says he would have been eligible to collect about $1,800 a month starting at age 55. Now expects to draw only $500 a month."
But where do those $1,800 and $500 numbers come from? Is than based on him working until age 55 or based on him not working for that company any more and still being able to collect those amounts when he turns 55?
Because, presumably if he takes his old job back for $14 an hour and works it for another 10 years, then he will get more than $500 a month if he retires at age 55. Did the $1,800 drop to $500 because he is not going to be able to work for Hostess for another 10 years? It's not really clear. "Had Hostess continued contributing to its employee pension plan ..."
Continued from when and continued until when? Did they stop contributing in 2010? When they went into bankruptcy? Does he think they owe him another ten years of contributions? It's not clear from those two lines.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)now.
you're just ridiculous.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I would just repeat a phrase like you're just ridiculous
assuming I was a closed minded zealot who couldn't handle somebody with a different perspective.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)to an RN.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)That was 1968 or 1969. Today, with inflation, it would be $11.04 an hour:
BLS inflation calculator
I don't know, maybe it's just me but I would think someone who has worked the same job for 22 years should be making more than minimum wage.
a la izquierda
(11,795 posts)I'm sure the CEO is taking home a pretty penny. Smh
Pelican
(1,156 posts)maddiemom
(5,106 posts)It can only get worse, if we take that attitude.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)can't find work.
tclambert
(11,086 posts)than $11/hour?
According to http://www1.salary.com/Fork-Lift-Operator-Salary.html forklift operators have a median wage of about $16.25/hour. $11/hour falls around the 5th percentile (that means really low).
I really don't understand how we pay investment bankers so much and people with real skills doing dangerous jobs get paid so little.
ceonupe
(597 posts)Go to an amazon.com distribution center or any new distribution center or factory. More machines more technology and less employees.
a beter wage measuer should be what forklift operators make in the US vs other countries because that is what the business owners are looking at and that is what our president and previous ones have advocated.
We keep making it easier and easier for forigen countrys labor markets to depress the wages in the US. We dont have a us worker based trade policy we have a US/Multination company based trade policy.
Even the american brand car companes only asemble their cars and some parts in the US. Most of the parts and even many models are not made in America anymore. Also in our own country you see companys moving in mass to the lower labor cost markets of the south. Pretty much all the big manufactiring plants built in the last 10 years or so are located in the south (AL, TN, SC, TX, ect)
Demit
(11,238 posts)Because it otherwise is not a fair comparison. Workers in other countries have universal healthcare. Not to mention more generous vacation policies.
Business in this country wants to have its cake and eat it too. Not pay for workers healthcare, and not pay them enough in wages to be able to pay for healthcare themselves.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
90-percent
(6,829 posts)I have a theory.
In the old height of baby boomer days in the mid 60's, compensation was more in proportion to the value of your contribution.
The big change that commenced in the election of Reagan in 1980 is that compensation is now power based rather than talent/work ethic based.
The most aggressive conscience-less personality types also infected the business culture with corruption. Corporate employment is strictly them or us, and the most sycophantic ("political"
are those that rise the highest. Talented people that can make a real contribution are even sometimes considered a threat and persecuted out of the organization. (Brings up some of my observations from my working life; half the people you work with contribute to the common company good, and the other half are being rewarded for wrecking the company from within.)
Morality and generosity and basic human decency are for fools and losers. The game is now stealing from the powerless means more money for the powerful. Today the most cruel acts are inflicted on the innocent and decent, and it can be completely justified simply by calling it a "business decision".
-90% Jimmy
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Sounds like a shit job to begin with.
Hard to believe anyone would stay that long at that wage.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)in over half the states of the Union. In the southern United States that is considered really good pay.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...22 years spans much better economic times and many educational opportunities.
I agree though about that pay in the south.
Is this the same in Kansas?
I think minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, should be about $21 per hour...correct?
cali
(114,904 posts)chefing at an upscale market with a big takeout business- full time.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)would be happy if their striving frustrated kids would be in such a position. I trust you were being humorous in your bragging.
cali
(114,904 posts)at lousy pay in so many places. And I wasn't bragging. I wish he hadn't dropped out of college, but if my kid is happy- and he is- than I'm happy.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)didn't want to go to college. He did go to a good technical school which cost college level money for the two years he was there. His first job was as an assistant instructor at a vo-tech school. They wanted him to get a teaching degree in order to become a regular instructor. He still wasn't interested in college. He now has an exceptional, well-paid job. All the other cousins in our kids' generation have college degrees, but only one has a really good job in what would not generally be considered a likely field for employment. Her "luck" was due to super high grades in college.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)The economy is not doing well there. One of their main businesses is meat packing...and one of the major packing companies closed their doors a few years ago.
And let me preface this by stating that I fully support Mexican immigration (and think our economic model based on growth almost requires that we take in more immigrants)...but it can't be ignored that 'under the table' labor in Kansas meat packing has driven down wages. And its not just Mexican immigrants. These companies go to Somolia and find workers...willing to move here and get paid dirt, under the table. This drives down wages in the area.
And then there's the distance factor. Towns in Kansas are a substantial distance apart...so finding a job other than a forklift operator would probably mean moving for this guy (and according to somebody else on this thread, he owns hos house...so moving would be risky). It says he's training to work in a power plant...I think the closest one is probably the nuke one, 40 miles away, or 80 miles round trip. This type of distance to work is not uncommon in Kansas (I drove 130 miles a day for 8 years)...but the gas cost really eats into your wage.
Anyway, for all those reasons, I can see why he stayed. I bet the average wage in Emporia is around $12...so he was beating the curve, at least.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)they go to Minneapolis-St. Paul, which has a sizable Somali immigrant/refugee population.
wercal
(1,370 posts)They hire refugees straight from Somalia. The whole reason I ever became aware of this is that they started bringing TB with them, and it made a minor stir. I found a story on it:
http://www.khi.org/news/2007/nov/27/somali-refugee-influx-topic-of-town-meeting/
They might go to Minneapolis too....but they also get them straight from Somalia.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)had to do with a kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa that had been raided. They hired the replacement workers from the Twin Cities' Somali community. How long they had been there, I have no idea.
dembotoz
(16,805 posts)I guess we are supposed to be fooled again
rdking647
(5,113 posts)im sorry but refusing a job to remain on a government handout??? and people wonder why the right want to cut UE bennies. UE is for those who can get a job,not those who just want a higher paying one. he doesnt see the point of working for $11 an hour? how about zero and zero UE.
We can argue all day about who is at fault for hostess going under. personally I thing both sides are to blame. but that dosnt change things. the old company is gone. the new company has no responsibility as to the old contracts.
that would be like telling the new owners of a foreclosed house that they owe the unpaid balance for the previous owners.
frylock
(34,825 posts)both sides are at fault? really?! the CEO gave himself a 300% increase in salary, and you want to tell me this guy pulling $17/hour is at fault? please do share your wisdom with the group.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)that one union cost everyone else their jobs.
you may not like it but it is what it is
regardless of how the company had been mismanaged the fact was they were broke. nothing would change that. even if they cut all managment salarys to zero the company was still broke.
so the union had 2 choices. cut their salary or lose their jobs. they chose lose their jobs.
so the union is partially responsible for the job losses
frylock
(34,825 posts)and the company was so broke that the CEO gave himself a 300% pay raise? really?! it's odd that you would gloss over that fact as mismanagement. management didn't simply mismanage, they robbed the company blind. but let's lay everything at the feet of the guy pulling a whopping 32K a year. fuck that guy, amirite?
you never answered my question either. how much are you bringing home and how much of that could you afford to lose so that your boss could buy another yacht?
rdking647
(5,113 posts)were talking the here and now.
putting it another way.
lets say you inherited 1,000,000. you also had a job paying 50k a year.
you go out and blow the million over a couple of years,buying a big house,nice cars etc....
now the 1m is gone.
you cant afford the taxes on the house anymore.
what do you do?
you have 2 choices.
either downsize to a smaller house or lose the house in a tax auction.
same idea...
as to your question. Im retired. i have no boss.
and the ceo in question of hostess who tripled his salary was given the boot 8 months before the liquidation.
and even if they cut the pay of the ceo to zero that wouldnt have made a difference. that works out to less than $10 a month/employee.
yes the old ceo was a jackass for tripiling his salary. but that didnt change the fact that the company was broke
rdking647
(5,113 posts)they had little cash on hand..
what would you do if you were the CEO.
what would you cut....
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)They'd been looting the company for a decade, while asking repeatedly for concessions from labor. In & out of phoney 'bankruptcy'.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)it can lead to you espousing repug-sounding sentiments. I'm not accusing you of repuglicanism, I respect your post count and length of membership. As a retired commodities broker, you may never have been in the unemployment system, but if you had been laid off from a company in the past, you would have been entitled to unemployment insurance. It was your money, you paid it into the system, and I'm sorry if you didn't know about it and receive it.
Unemployment isn't a government handout. It is called 'unemployment insurance'. It is earned by workers, and the fund is paid into by workers, through federal deductions from all workers' wages, set up by the SS Act. There are also employer contributions to unemployment, which the worker earned. These are sometimes reflected in the worker's pay stubs, but even when they aren't, they're part of the workers' total compensation package. The employer claims them as business expenses, but the employer only pays them to unemployment on behalf of the worker, because the worker earned them.
Two corporate repug double-thinks disgust me: First, the same people who scream against tax increases for the repug 1% by saying "You can't punish success! America wants shared prosperity, not shared sacrifice!' also scream 'The economy is hurting! How dare those workers demand a living wage? We need shared sacrifice!' when they want to justify corporations slashing all working Americans' salaries to poverty/serfdom levels.
Second, the people in this country that do the dirty, dangerous, grinding, repetitive, boring, disrespected work are told they don't deserve any money for it, while the bosses and tick-like 'investor' class show up to work when they feel like it, golf, take 3 martini lunches and long weekends and vacations, attend business conventions, and do no work, but are 'super important' and get paid immense amounts. The people who have the toughest jobs get the least money and respect, and the people with the easiest jobs get the most money and respect. It KIND of makes sense, because you're only going to take a warehouse job (assembly-line, garbage collector, janitor, laborer, etc.) if that's the best you can do, so you're at the mercy of the employer for whatever wage they feel like giving out. But the boss/'job creator' class is doing super well, earning 300 times the compensation rate of the average employee, and benfitting from a booming stock market. They're not creating jobs, they're eliminating them, but all that means to the repugs is that they can try to blame the Dems by yelling 'where are the jobs?', then the same repugs turn around and gut unemployment because the unemployed worker won't take those jobs the repugs just admitted DON'T EXIST.
I'm not accusing you of either type of double think, your call to eliminate the man's access to his money because you don't understand unemployment just evoked my disgust against some of the other troublesome ignorant thinking that buttresses the current inequitable system, and I had to type it to get it off my chest. I'm not trying to use a strawman argument against you or put words into your mouth, so if you've taken it that way, I apologize in advance.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)should be given only up until you refuse a job offer.
not taking a job because your waiting for a better job doesnt cut it in my opinion. especially after the 26 weeks the UE originally covered. it was only due to the stimulus that it was extended beyond that
also calling it "his " money isnt correct. the maximum amount per worker that is paid via taxes into UE varies from state to state
the federal share is $42/year per worker
in kansas the state rate for an employee is anywhere from between .11 to 7.4% a year om the first 8k earned.
the state average is 1.7% so that makes the average state tax on UE 136/yr.
after 22 years he would have contributed a maximum of about 4k in total to the UE fund
he would have gone thru that in a couple of months
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)You can see it by the title of this U.S. Labor Dept. Link:
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/unemployment-insurance/index.htm
Like any insurance, the rate-payers pay in, and some of the payers receive payments, so 92+% of workers are paying into the program, and less than 8% of the workers are getting payments. They're no more 'lucky' to receive unemployment compensation than a 'death and dismemeberment policy' holder is 'lucky' to get paid when losing an arm in an accident. Actuarially speaking, the system is set up so that the aggregate pay outs don't exceed the aggregate pay ins, but the added benefit here is there is no corporate entity taking profit from the Social Security Act, as opposed to for-profit insurance providers.
Unemployment was set up by the Social Security Act of 1935. Here's a link ProSense posted a few years back:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html
Long link, but Title III, Title VIII, and Title IX show you where the worker earns the money that goes into the system.
There's a direct tax to the employee, FICA Social Security, which is non-deductible for employees' income taxes. There's also a tax on the employer, which is deductible as a business expense, but which the employer has to pay to the Unemployment Trust Fund for the employee. The employer is only paying into the system because the employee is EARNING it. The employer then pays less taxes after they deduct the business expense.
In my last quarter of employment, out of $19k gross, I paid $1,195 in FICA (FICA Soc. Sec., not including Medicare), and PA Unemp Ee. That's $4,779/year. The employer liability, which they have to pay due to my working for their profitable business, was $968 to Fed Unemp and PA State Unemp ($3,872/year), and their FICA SS was $1,181, or $4,725 /year. Though FICA includes Social Security Pension, aid to blind people, dependent and crippled childern, maternal and child welfare, and public health, (all of which I favor, though might not receive as a benefit, and all of which the repugs oppose), the whole program is paid for solely by the worker, or the employer has to pay it as a part of the employee's total compensation package (again, it was earned by the worker). By my count, the total contribution amount I worked for is $13k/year. The forklift operator's contributions might be 'merely' $5,900/year (a rough guess), but x 22 years, that's $130k, which he'll never 'suck out of the system' in unemployment insurance compensation benefits paid to him.
Your feeling and opinions aside, red king, there is a requirement that an unemployed person be able and available to work, or they don't get unemployment. But they would be risking bankruptcy, loss of home, reposession of car, inability to feed their family, if they take a job that pays so much less than they were making previously, so there is no requirement that they do so, instead of looking for some job earning closer to what they originally made. The tired repug meme of people sitting around until they exhaust their unemployment benefits was statistically disproven long ago. The length of time it takes an unemployed person who has benefits to get a new job is only a couple of weeks more than the length of time it takes a person who doesn't receive benefits to get a new job. And since we're not living in a communist dictatorship where the worker is forced to go to work at a job the government wants them to do, I guess the forklift operator won't be taking that McDonald's job any time soon, even though the repug party really really wants him to.
dtom67
(634 posts)If we wanna get that corporate cash, we need to change; no more support for Labor, no more support for the poor, or the elderly. We can still have gay rights and womens rights because the does not cost Wall street any money or Power.Of course, we cannot ever be allowed total victory on these non - monetary issues,, because then we miight focus on something that might threaten profits.
Ever feel like a stranger in your own house?
cali
(114,904 posts)Javaman
(62,530 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)
first: leverage buy out. destroys a union shop (if it were one to begin with)
second: return with new owners with lower wages
three: those who stay in town (not being able to afford to leave) have to take the same job again at a lower wage but work more hours to make up the difference.
four: workers get burned out having to work additional hours to make ends meet so they turn to "help" to get them through the shifts
five: meth, crank or crack is that help.
six: the slow disintegration of what was a solid working class town.
seven: repukes blame the problem on unions "being too strong or unwilling to compromise"
eight: the middle class overall continues to vanish and is replace by low wages workers who have no power and are meant to feel thankful they have a job, all the while being mentally whipped into servitude.
Nails it! 
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)to the entire globe.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)And as a kid nearly 35 years ago, picking tomatoes on show up for pocket money basis, I got almost exactly what a dawn to dusk picker in Floriduh gets today.
FFS working as a carnie ten years ago I got $12.57 on the books and 10 off.
The apologists for driving wages even further through the floor over there sicken me.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I was in the grocery store yesterday and a couple was gleefully giggling out loud about how excited they were that Twinkies were coming back. They even quoted the new marketing campaign..."The greatest comeback in the history of ever!" Har har! They got a good laugh and one step closer to diabetes. Meanwhile, the Hostess workers got the shaft.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)But I have to get back to facebook, it appears one of my friends has just poked me.
crim son
(27,464 posts)too idealistic or too practical. Of course the new owners don't have to pay what the old owners paid, and of course it's ridiculous to make only eleven bucks an hour no matter what the job. Not knowing a thing about the new owners I still bet they can afford to pay more but unless they are compelled, they won't... there are too many desperate people who will take any job just to try to stay afloat. It isn't right and it isn't fair, but it is reality. What we need to do is work together to change that reality.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)Now on to more important matters. For a detailed report of what happened in this case i urge you all to read the link provided.
Vulture Capitalism Ate Your Twinkies.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171331/vulture-capitalism-ate-your-twinkies#
This action took place in my town when some Mitt Romney type vultures took control of Delphi. Delphi was a General Motors division until it was spun off as an independent business. Shortly after the vultures arrived, they did their work and put the company into bankruptcy. This allowed them to throw out the union contract and start over cutting the workers pay in half and eliminating the pensions of many who had spent their working years expecting a pension upon retirement. But the real sore spot for me was when a federal judge ruled the vultures were allowed to pay themselves $10 million in bonuses. The vultures claimed they had to provide these bonuses to retain the best managers available and the judge agreed with them. This happened sometime back and I personally was not affected by this but, thinking about it still pisses me off!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)They won't be happy until we're the next Bangladesh.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)And it's disgusting.
Response to Apophis (Reply #107)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)I support the workers and I believe they should make the same amount of money pre-layoff.
I was talking about tone of the article. FFS.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)I get it now.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)in return for a lousy 16 bucks an hour and then when he doesn't want to take a 30% pay cut half of DU starts shitting on him. Unbelievable.
People do understand that if the minimum wage kept up with the cost of living it would be near $20 an hour. And that's the MINIMUM wage. Somehow, I personally feel that if you give 20 years of your life to a company you ought to be compensated a little better than minimum wage...
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Second, no one is really shitting on him. He's turning down a job that a hundred million American's would think was pretty good, and he is continuing to collect unemployment while he does it. As for the rest of your post, the minimum wage did not keep up, so talking about it is pointless. Wages haven't kept up and costs have only exploded. And while it might be true that giving twenty years of your life should entitle you to something, in the real world it does not.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Got it.
11.00 an hour is $1760 dollars a month. BEFORE TAXES. You think that's a good wage? A living wage? YEah keep lowering your expectations and keep telling people to stop whining. Before long you'll have us making 2.50 an hour and telling us to be happy about it because they make $1 a day in China.
Oh and BTW in "THE REAL WORLD" there are companies and people who do reward loyalty and hard work. Hostess was just not one of them and apparently the company that bought them isn't either.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)leftstreet
(36,108 posts)None of them are feeling the pinch
Why do you wanna shit on your working class brothers and sisters?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)The point is not what we would like to see, the dream, but the reality. The REALITY is that this is a country in which half of our population lives in poverty. One in five kids go to bed each night without food. One in ten kids are homeless. Every day millions make the choice between food or a roof, and healthcare. They work two and three jobs just to eat. They work at Walmart or McDonalds or Home Depot for as close to minimum wage as their employer can get away with.
And somehow we are supposed to get worked up over a story in which a guy is BLOWING OFF a full time job starting at $11 an hour and moving up to $14?
Seriously? A hundred million Americans would cut your throat for a job like that.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That's a position reserved for the right-wing talking heads.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)fyi, median wage in the US is $16/hr.
take the neolib talking points and shove them.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)This guy can just take one of the MANY jobs in which employers are lining up to offer him more. Right? If I am completely full of shit and $11 or $14 or $16 is nothing, then he should have no problem. No need to collect unemployment, just snatch up one of those other less insulting jobs.
Or maybe, just maybe, some of you responding to this don't have a freaking clue how bad things actually are for the people living on the bottom. The ones working three jobs and the ones fighting to get just one. For them, and it's about half the country, sixteen an hour full time is pretty damn nice. How nice?
That's the median pay your earn with a CDL driving a tractor trailer. Little more difficult than running a forklift.
http://cdltraininghub.com/cdl-driver-salary
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)The race to the bottom needs to stop somewhere
reformist2
(9,841 posts)$11 an hour gets you less than $400 a week after taxes. That's not "nice", that's barely subsistence level. And if there's just one mouth to feed, it's below subsistence.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Five people in this thread alone defending the slow asphyxiation of the middle class. Idiots.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Well, the consumer supposedly has all the power in a capitalist economy, eh?
So fuck you, new twinky makers. I'm not buying your shit.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Through no fault of our own. Any system that allows this is complete crap.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)economy is getting better. We will never feel the effects of the economy getting better until we are willing to fight for fair wages.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)Well friends thanks for the inspiration. I used this thread as a basis for my silly story type blog today. you can check it out here...
http://larryjben.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/suzys-lemonade-stand/
And i did see some very good comments here thank you!
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Not sure about this.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)How ever i do not view this post as a financial statement, I view it more as a condition the workers of America are being forced to accept. As mentioned here the twinkie folks did not go out of business because of union wages, they went out of business because of corporate greed.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)K&R
