Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#14098 Nov 21, 2012
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>And China doesn't have wealth?? LOL
WOOOOOF
that went right over your head Pops.

woof
Save Yourself

Canton, OH

#14099 Nov 21, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I've suffered more from unions than what I ever got out of them.
How would you sum up the treatment of hard working Americans and the concern of "job creators" for the worker's safety in these factories before there were unions? Justify the top guys at Hostess giving themselves bonuses for running a failing company. Explain the years when Hostess was union but the company was still making money.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#14100 Nov 21, 2012
Save Yourself wrote:
<quoted text>
The non-Union companies I have worked for go as follows. Rich old man buys company for pocket lint and a whistle, way back when. Old man puts his inept son in charge. We work on Christmas day while the owners and their families give themselves a nice bonus and have dinner together. Inept son has no clue how to run the company, grinds every penny he can from it and then the company goes under. You see it all the time. The person running the show is so damn stupid that anyone could walk off the floor and instantly do a better job. Now if only they were born with the right last name...Those are the facts. Everyone I know has seen this first hand and unions had nothing to do with it. The only reason you guys are anti-union is because some rich old man told you to think that and you did.(Also see climate change)
You're not too far off. Historic & banking stats show that most family owned companies do survive the 3rd generation. There's an further explaination for this but the summary is still true.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#14101 Nov 21, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
that went right over your head Pops.
woof
Maybe that is why I am bald! It clipped my hair off. WOOF
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14102 Nov 21, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to misunderstand. The company wanted them to work for less money and benefits. So the workers made a decision. They decided not to work under those conditions. Exactly what you advocated.
No, that's not what I advocated. What I said is that if they don't like the financial changes, leave the company and work somewhere else. That's the problem with unions; you can't just say "leave and find a better job." They won't, and then they go on strike and cause the company to close down anyway.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14103 Nov 21, 2012
Save Yourself wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you sum up the treatment of hard working Americans and the concern of "job creators" for the worker's safety in these factories before there were unions? Justify the top guys at Hostess giving themselves bonuses for running a failing company. Explain the years when Hostess was union but the company was still making money.
For starters, CEO's don't have hourly or salary jobs. They have contract jobs. The only way a company can get these CEO's is to meet them on their terms. It's no different than an actress or a baseball player. If a pitcher is getting paid 4 million a year, but gets injured or has a bad year, he still gets the contracted money. Same for a CEO.

Government adopted many if not all of the safety provisions that the unions came up with. So the question is, how long are we indebted to unions because they were the first to come up with the idea many, many years ago?

I can't tell you what went wrong at Hostess that caused them to want to scale back wages or benefits. But I will remind you that we've had a suck economy for over five years now. Hostess products are not cheap. They have been putting on sales such as buy one box of X and get the second box free. I know because again, I purchased their products every week.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#14104 Nov 21, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is Hugh?
TYPO ...HUGE
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#14105 Nov 21, 2012
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>The company died because Union greed was reaching for too much while the company was already in reorganization bankruptcy since Jan 2012.
The Union did create some jobs, basically job redundancy. Seperate loading dock workers to load ONLY snack cakes & others to load ONLY Rainbow bread even IF one or the other was just standing around. Then there's the FACT that snack cakes & bread could NOT be delivered from the same truck by the same driver. This created MORE jobs by basically doubling the delivery fleet.
This M.O. went throughout the entire operation creating inefficient duplication of staffing.
So YES, the union created jobs, AND a job pyramid that fell in on itself financially.
So IF management was 'mismanaging' under those circumstances, I guess you're right.
Another mistake of the union was not realizing the flexibility of a family owned company that is already in reorganization compared to a company that has a hugh slow moving board of directors.
Who is this Hugh you keep blamming everything on?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#14106 Nov 21, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
For starters, CEO's don't have hourly or salary jobs. They have contract jobs. The only way a company can get these CEO's is to meet them on their terms. It's no different than an actress or a baseball player. If a pitcher is getting paid 4 million a year, but gets injured or has a bad year, he still gets the contracted money. Same for a CEO.
Government adopted many if not all of the safety provisions that the unions came up with. So the question is, how long are we indebted to unions because they were the first to come up with the idea many, many years ago?
I can't tell you what went wrong at Hostess that caused them to want to scale back wages or benefits. But I will remind you that we've had a suck economy for over five years now. Hostess products are not cheap. They have been putting on sales such as buy one box of X and get the second box free. I know because again, I purchased their products every week.
Oh, I get it. A CEO gets to demand whatever ridiculous salary he wants, but the union doesn't get to negotiate at all.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#14107 Nov 21, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not what I advocated. What I said is that if they don't like the financial changes, leave the company and work somewhere else. That's the problem with unions; you can't just say "leave and find a better job." They won't, and then they go on strike and cause the company to close down anyway.
You really are funny.

A strike is a union's tool of last resort in the grand scheme of collective bargaining. Its the essence of unionization when faced with intolerable, or unfair labor practices, to stick together for the greater good of all.

No union wishes to "close up" their shops.

That isn't their decision to make. You're being completely disingenuous in suggesting that it is.

Union members going on strike are sending a message: Address our concerns, or we're prepared to stay home, or find other work.

If an employer chooses not to address those concerns, that's their decision. And closing up shop is only a secondary choice, one of several they could make after choosing not to address the concerns of their workforce.

Get a grip, man. The election's over.

woof
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#14109 Nov 21, 2012
Save Yourself wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you sum up the treatment of hard working Americans and the concern of "job creators" for the worker's safety in these factories before there were unions? Justify the top guys at Hostess giving themselves bonuses for running a failing company. Explain the years when Hostess was union but the company was still making money.
Here's the thing...NO ONE mentioned safety issues that I have heard of, NO ONE.
2nd, as a privately owned company, they could have turned their business into a fish farm if they wanted to.
3rd, The owners stand to make more money NOW by selling off & investing in something else OR sitting on a beach or snow slope somewhere.
BUT they wanted to keep the company going in a profitable way.
NOT just profitable to them, profitable to everyone that gets a paycheck.
IF the employees don't earn enough, they can go to work for Edelman's, Rubel's, Pepperidge Farm, Dunkin' Donuts, Hussmans, the area grocery store, bakery or whoever.
Whether or not the owners were competent doesn't matter, their investment/money is still THEIR investment/money.
They can roll it & smoke it or flush it down a sewer if they want. They did NOT have to provide jobs at any pay rate for all of these years. In fact it was & IS effort on their part to try to keep the company going when they could sit back on investments instead of selling off 10 yrs ago & putting their money in McD's or P&G or WalMart or oil or realastate, coconut farms, take their money off shore or whatever.
By employing people they were sharing their wealth.
OR is this a 'distribute the wealth' issue?
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#14110 Nov 21, 2012
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>You're not too far off. Historic & banking stats show that most family owned companies do survive the 3rd generation. There's an further explaination for this but the summary is still true.
I meant...'do NOT survive' the 3rd generation.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#14111 Nov 21, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Does Pop have a pension?
What the bleep does that have to do with anything? Trying to change the subject?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#14112 Nov 21, 2012
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>What the bleep does that have to do with anything? Trying to change the subject?
I wasn't referring to you. If you weren't so insufferably stupid you would know that.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14113 Nov 21, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I get it. A CEO gets to demand whatever ridiculous salary he wants, but the union doesn't get to negotiate at all.
No, because workers are replaceable, CEO's are not. Like talented athletes, actors and actresses, musicians, they are not a dime a dozen.

Sure, there are CEO's who don't have a record of doing a bang-up job, so they get paid less. Like all the other positions I mentioned, you need a successful record to call your own shots. It's assumed that your past performances reflect your future performance. In some cases, it doesn't work out that way.

Many musicians are paid nothing by the recording company they sign with. If their recording is very successful, they make their money on concerts--not how many recordings they sell. Once they have a history of a successful CD, then they can negotiate their new contract for the second recording. If they make a deal for one million dollars to record with that company, and the release is a total flop, they still get their one million dollars.

It's called climbing the ladder. If a CEO gets three million dollars in bonuses, and he or she performs less than expected, that three million dollars is guaranteed in their contract.
Thomas Scutillo

Lima, OH

#14114 Nov 21, 2012
You don't know anything and are probably on disability and government assistance. Clearly from your writing you were not educated.

THAT'S MY JOB!! SCAB!
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#14115 Nov 21, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because workers are replaceable, CEO's are not. Like talented athletes, actors and actresses, musicians, they are not a dime a dozen.
Sure, there are CEO's who don't have a record of doing a bang-up job, so they get paid less. Like all the other positions I mentioned, you need a successful record to call your own shots. It's assumed that your past performances reflect your future performance. In some cases, it doesn't work out that way.
Many musicians are paid nothing by the recording company they sign with. If their recording is very successful, they make their money on concerts--not how many recordings they sell. Once they have a history of a successful CD, then they can negotiate their new contract for the second recording. If they make a deal for one million dollars to record with that company, and the release is a total flop, they still get their one million dollars.
It's called climbing the ladder. If a CEO gets three million dollars in bonuses, and he or she performs less than expected, that three million dollars is guaranteed in their contract.
Man, they have got you buffaloed. You just keep on driving that truck.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#14116 Nov 21, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't referring to you. If you weren't so insufferably stupid you would know that.
Hey...be nice to Pops.

woof
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14117 Nov 21, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are funny.
A strike is a union's tool of last resort in the grand scheme of collective bargaining. Its the essence of unionization when faced with intolerable, or unfair labor practices, to stick together for the greater good of all.
No union wishes to "close up" their shops.
That isn't their decision to make. You're being completely disingenuous in suggesting that it is.
Union members going on strike are sending a message: Address our concerns, or we're prepared to stay home, or find other work.
If an employer chooses not to address those concerns, that's their decision. And closing up shop is only a secondary choice, one of several they could make after choosing not to address the concerns of their workforce.
Get a grip, man. The election's over.
woof
What does this have to do with the election?

Union employees don't just sit home. Some do, but many are out on the picket line making threats to anybody who crosses it. Trust me, I've crossed picket lines before to pick up or deliver products to their company.

No union wishes to close up their shop? Then why have I seen them do so many times in the past?

I remember one customer of ours. It was a printing shop near downtown. I learned that they were packing up shop to head down south. While on a delivery there, I spoke with a few of the workers who were on break sitting outside. I asked why they didn't accept the company's offer and opted to lose their jobs? They explained that's the union way. They may lose their jobs, but the union will find them another one. It was a small shop--no more than fifteen people working there, but their union DID opt to close the shop down.

Unions lose when that happens, but what they gain is a reputation for all other shops that have the same union. That's what I suspect with this bakers union. They are not just in Hostess, they are probably in many other baked goods factories as well. So now the owners or corporations who have these unions knows they mean business. They are willing to close a place down before backing down.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14118 Nov 21, 2012
Thomas Scutillo wrote:
You don't know anything and are probably on disability and government assistance. Clearly from your writing you were not educated.
THAT'S MY JOB!! SCAB!
And you are? If you are educated, you wouldn't need a union.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Elyria Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
North Ridgeville High School Transportation Aug 17 MonicaC 1
Does anyone know Tony and Marti Adkins? Aug 11 Steve 1
News Block watch protests Lorain store Jul '15 Hometown Advocate 1
Gary Loftis (May '14) Jul '15 Concerned Also 2
female seeking detailed rp with guys only Jul '15 ms rp lady 1
PaulPelton--Scumbag.... Jul '15 PaulPeltonIsTrash 1
Debate: Marijuana - Elyria, OH (Aug '10) Jul '15 Melissa 18
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Elyria Mortgages