Bye Bye Twinkies

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:11 pm

Flipper wrote:Why? The folks that own Hostess told the union what would happen if they didn't agree to the concessions...they didn't agree so...poof...bye bye went the jobs. With U6 unemployment at 14.6%, I think anyone walking away from employment right now with no other options is an idiot.

Did you bother to read the article?

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:49 pm

No...I don't do "links"...if you have a point to make...make it yourself.

Class of 61 · Post by **Class of 61** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:23 am

Flipper wrote:"The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.

Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors"

If they let the company go under with that deal on the table...they deserve to be unemployed...for a long, long time.

Are any of you guys who are wacking hard on the union aware that the company TRIPLED the salary of its CEO from around 750K to 2250K, along with significant raises to upper level management at the same time as this "offer"? It's not always the little guys who are at fault in these matters.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:17 pm

Apples and oranges.....an emotional argument that seems reasonable until you actually think about it. What's relevant is what management talent costs vs the market value of guys driving trucks and running the machines that make twinkies.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:36 pm

Flipper wrote:Apples and oranges.....an emotional argument that seems reasonable until you actually think about it. What's relevant is what management talent costs vs the market value of guys driving trucks and running the machines that make twinkies.

Thats not what was relevant to the people who were told they were getting pay cuts while the ceo got a substantial raise

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:02 pm

Great...get a job as a CEO then....

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:33 pm

Flipper wrote:Great...get a job as a CEO then....

That is the worst logic, and the predominant logic of the right. And why the middle class is disapearring.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:12 am

It's the logic of the market place and the law of supply and demand....what's flawed is pretending those forces don't exist and pretending that concepts like "fair" vs "unfair" apply where they don't.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:07 am

Flipper wrote:It's the logic of the market place and the law of supply and demand....what's flawed is pretending those forces don't exist and pretending that concepts like "fair" vs "unfair" apply where they don't.

Why are CEO salaries skyrocketing in comparison with salaries? Did this marketplace and this law as you suggest it not exist before 1980? 2000?

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:18 am

Link
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 ... orker-pay/

Since you don't like links....

Since 1978, CEO pay at American firms has risen 725 percent, more than 127 times faster than worker pay over the same time period, according to new data from the Economic Policy Institute:

From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:14 am

Globetrotter wrote:
Flipper wrote:It's the logic of the market place and the law of supply and demand....what's flawed is pretending those forces don't exist and pretending that concepts like "fair" vs "unfair" apply where they don't.
Why are CEO salaries skyrocketing in comparison with salaries? Did this marketplace and this law as you suggest it not exist before 1980? 2000?

Unskilled and semi-skilled labor became cheap. CEOS and other executives are not cheap as they're skill sets are far more uncommon. You also have to remember that CEO's are often paid with stock options that can pay off or not pay off depending onthe performance of the company.

Haven't looked at any numbers at Hostess...I'd imagine finding the people capable of steering that company throuogh the challenges it has would not be cheap

footballguy51 · Post by **footballguy51** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:01 am

Flipper wrote:
Globetrotter wrote:
Flipper wrote:It's the logic of the market place and the law of supply and demand....what's flawed is pretending those forces don't exist and pretending that concepts like "fair" vs "unfair" apply where they don't.
Why are CEO salaries skyrocketing in comparison with salaries? Did this marketplace and this law as you suggest it not exist before 1980? 2000?
Unskilled and semi-skilled labor became cheap. CEOS and other executives are not cheap as they're skill sets are far more uncommon. You also have to remember that CEO's are often paid with stock options that can pay off or not pay off depending onthe performance of the company.

Haven't looked at any numbers at Hostess...I'd imagine finding the people capable of steering that company throuogh the challenges it has would not be cheap

Exactly! It may sound harsh, but unskilled labor does not need to make a ton of money, because people like them are readily available. For jobs that require a larger skill set, the pay increases. That's standard. The person watching Twinkies slide by on the conveyer to make sure they aren't smashed should be making $10/hour or less. The person responsible for maintenance on the machinery should get paid more than the conveyer belt person. Truck drivers should get paid a little more as well, since they need to have a special driver's license.

Why people ever thought that doing something basic that requires little or no skill should equate to a living wage for a large family is beyond me. If you want to get paid more, increase your productivity. Be the best employee you can be. Stand out so the company wants to pay you more to keep you. Capitalism, anyone?

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:21 pm

footballguy51 wrote: Why people ever thought that doing something basic that requires little or no skill should equate to a living wage for a large family is beyond me. If you want to get paid more, increase your productivity. Be the best employee you can be. Stand out so the company wants to pay you more to keep you. Capitalism, anyone?

The first sentence is about the most absurd thing I have ever read in print. The rest is strewn with assumptions and right wing talking points not based in fact. Which are all right wing talking points.

This is strict barbaric capitilism at its grossest and it's frankly not very successful in a country's over all wellness. Huge gaps in income inequality are never good. We have our priorities way off in this country. It's all about "I got to get mine" and not about "let's do this together". Those who have believe that those who don't must not be smart, skilled, good enough to have, so what do they deserve? You are the people who see the 47% comment as being accurate. Glad you lost this election.

Pete Segaard · Post by **Pete Segaard** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:28 pm

Globetrotter wrote:
footballguy51 wrote: Why people ever thought that doing something basic that requires little or no skill should equate to a living wage for a large family is beyond me. If you want to get paid more, increase your productivity. Be the best employee you can be. Stand out so the company wants to pay you more to keep you. Capitalism, anyone?
The first sentence is about the most absurd thing I have ever read in print. The rest is strewn with assumptions and right wing talking points not based in fact. Which are all right wing talking points.

This is strict barbaric capitilism at its grossest and it's frankly not very successful in a country's over all wellness. Huge gaps in income inequality are never good. We have our priorities way off in this country. It's all about "I got to get mine" and not about "let's do this together". Those who have believe that those who don't must not be smart, skilled, good enough to have, so what do they deserve? You are the people who see the 47% comment as being accurate. Glad you lost this election.

You might as well lump me in with footballguy51 and the others. This is exactly why I went to college, you know, to get mine. I used to do factory work and construction before I decided that I had enough and went to college as a non-traditional student. People should be compensated on the skillset that they bring to the table. You have a special skill or maintain a license required in the performance of your job, that person should earn more. Don't like it, move on or try to move up.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:52 pm

Pete Segaard wrote:
Globetrotter wrote:
footballguy51 wrote: Why people ever thought that doing something basic that requires little or no skill should equate to a living wage for a large family is beyond me. If you want to get paid more, increase your productivity. Be the best employee you can be. Stand out so the company wants to pay you more to keep you. Capitalism, anyone?
The first sentence is about the most absurd thing I have ever read in print. The rest is strewn with assumptions and right wing talking points not based in fact. Which are all right wing talking points.

This is strict barbaric capitilism at its grossest and it's frankly not very successful in a country's over all wellness. Huge gaps in income inequality are never good. We have our priorities way off in this country. It's all about "I got to get mine" and not about "let's do this together". Those who have believe that those who don't must not be smart, skilled, good enough to have, so what do they deserve? You are the people who see the 47% comment as being accurate. Glad you lost this election.
You might as well lump me in with footballguy51 and the others. This is exactly why I went to college, you know, to get mine. I used to do factory work and construction before I decided that I had enough and went to college as a non-traditional student. People should be compensated on the skillset that they bring to the table. You have a special skill or maintain a license required in the performance of your job, that person should earn more. Don't like it, move on or try to move up.

I think we are making 2 different arguments. No one is arguiing college is a bad thing, nor that ceo's shouldnt receive good compensation.

Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies

Re: Bye Bye Twinkies