A simple lesson in business and economics:

Bruce Bell

Registered
2 honey buns, one is a little Debbie, one is a Hostess ( now defunct). Little Debbie 4.02 oz. / Hostess 3.5 oz./ Little Debbie 75 cent/ Hostess 99 cent. Little Debbie non-union and doing fine/ Hostess "was" union and now is history. End of lesson.

100_1195.jpg
 
The only thing I'll say is Little Debbie is based in my back yard. I'm glad they are here, they employee lots o people. Oh, and they just built their newest facility here as well...a honey bun plant.
 
Like them or not, I doubt if any one of us has enough persuasive ability to change another member's opinions on labor unions. (That is not a challenge... :laugh:)

The only thing I'll say is Little Debbie is based in my back yard. I'm glad they are here, they employee lots o people. Oh, and they just built their newest facility here as well...a honey bun plant.

Yep, yep. They're about 2 miles off my front porch. I've known a lot of folks who have worked there over the years, and they all seem to be pretty happy with it.

Here's a related article from the local paper: McKee ramps up amid Hostess fall | timesfreepress.com


 
One of my best friends has his own Little Debbie route and is always telling me that Little Debbie made his millions a quarter at a time :laugh:
 
How big would the union pay cut need to be from the 18500 employees to cover a 304 million dollar reported loss?

Keep pretending it's the guys mixing sugar and flour not the people at the top, it sounds better that way, at least in headlines.
 
Let me just say this, if the company was so mismanaged why didn't the Union offer a buy out of the Company and let them run it. It could of been employee owned, profit sharing. I'd love to see a Union boss negotiate a contract from the other side of the table.
 
Let me just say this, if the company was so mismanaged why didn't the Union offer a buy out of the Company and let them run it. It could of been employee owned, profit sharing. I'd love to see a Union boss negotiate a contract from the other side of the table.

Wow. lol. There are union bosses on both sides of the table. they were already bought out by investors looking to strip the company down and sell out. They've filed for bankruptcy 2-3x since being bought out and have bids already to sell out.
 
How big would the union pay cut need to be from the 18500 employees to cover a 304 million dollar reported loss?

Keep pretending it's the guys mixing sugar and flour not the people at the top, it sounds better that way, at least in headlines.

You need to take the "Blinders" off son and at the very least take a home course in "Economics"!

Cause you ain't gettin it! :dunno:
 
You need to take the "Blinders" off son and at the very least take a home course in "Economics"!

Cause you ain't gettin it! :dunno:

company posts a 304million dollar loss, everyone at the top gets 6 figure raises while asking the employees to take a pay cut, if that makes sense then I hope my home course is better than yours peepaw.

Explain what I'm not getting? I never said the union is completely innocent, but its a drop in the bucket compared to hemorrhaging by the people at the top of the company.
 
company posts a 304million dollar loss, everyone at the top gets 6 figure raises while asking the employees to take a pay cut, if that makes sense then I hope my home course is better than yours peepaw.

Explain what I'm not getting? I never said the union is completely innocent, but its a drop in the bucket compared to hemorrhaging by the people at the top of the company.

You need to broaden your horizon a little Hos, you've been suckin up the Union talking points just a tad bit too long. By the way, the head of the Baker's Union makes $200K annually (Some six times the average worker salary) and won't loose a dime. So let's not point fingers at the CEO.

You forgot the fact that the company was/is under re-organization to keep the company functioning with 18,500 employees. 18,000 of which signed onto the re-organization program while 500 members of the bakers union put the final nail in the coffin.

A twinkie has a very long shelf life. So if the 500 bakers want to keep their job now, they can follow the equipment (That will be sold for pennies on the dollar) they were using all the way to china and continue to bake twinkies and earn $3 a day! This is not the first company that the unions have dragged under. You and I (The tax payer) are now subsidizing GM to keep them from ending up in china. When the union put the Steel Industry under, where did that business go?

I'm not blaming the union for all the problems of Hostess. I do blame them for dragging Hostess under when the company was on the ropes.

Good judgment? You decide! :dunno:
 
You need to broaden your horizon a little Hos, you've been suckin up the Union talking points just a tad bit too long. By the way, the head of the Baker's Union makes $200K annually (Some six times the average worker salary) and won't loose a dime. So let's not point fingers at the CEO.

You forgot the fact that the company was/is under re-organization to keep the company functioning with 18,500 employees. 18,000 of which signed onto the re-organization program while 500 members of the bakers union put the final nail in the coffin.

A twinkie has a very long shelf life. So if the 500 bakers want to keep their job now, they can follow the equipment (That will be sold for pennies on the dollar) they were using all the way to china and continue to bake twinkies and earn $3 a day! This is not the first company that the unions have dragged under. You and I (The tax payer) are now subsidizing GM to keep them from ending up in china. When the union put the Steel Industry under, where did that business go?

I'm not blaming the union for all the problems of Hostess. I do blame them for dragging Hostess under when the company was on the ropes.

Good judgment? You decide! :dunno:

It was inevitable. If you would broaden your horizon and see past the right wing talking points you could see theres more at play than your willing to admit. Its not totally one sides fault or the other, but I blame the people at the top running the company alot more than I blame the employees.

If you believe for a second the union put the steel industry under youre out of your mind. When a country backs new facilities and provides a workforce of slave labor how can anyone compete, not to mention the negligence of facilities by owners in the u.s.

The gm/chrysler/uaw situation is horribly screwed up on both sides with the union being largely at fault, but how did ford make it?

The bottom of the pay in leadership at hostess was over 200k with the cfo being 2 million +.

subsidizing the private businesses with government money is and was a horrible idea. It was political positing too, people like yourselves allow them to do this and turn us against each other, which leaves us stagnated and a community leader with a second term. Class warfare is never a good thing
 
i have an opinion. i have expressed it. i do not know the details of hostess to presume to understand. all i know is for every company i have worked for that is union they post profits that are through the roof, but yet cut wages to "competitive/welfare needing to survive" wages. i have been through one plant closing in which we were offered half our pay and no pension and no health and we said no because we KNEW what type of profit they were making. guess what...they didn't close it...they tried to move it to 8$ a hour labor...guess what...soon as they worked there 6 months they went to union shops where their skills earned them 24!! so they begged us to stay and guess what ...they are still in business!! still making huge profits!! oh...lets take ourselves and our opinons back to elementary school and look up the definition of PROFIT shall we??

profit - definition of profit by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

prof·it (prft)
n.
1. An advantageous gain or return; benefit.
2. The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.
3.
a. The return received on an investment after all charges have been paid. Often used in the plural.
b. The rate of increase in the net worth of a business enterprise in a given accounting period.
c. Income received from investments or property.
d. The amount received for a commodity or service in excess of the original cost.


folks this means all cost of business....ceo salary's down to the union wages to cost of operations to cost of material ect ect ect... profit is PROFIT meaning even REINVESTMENT!! it is excess money above and beyond EVERYTHING! so forgive me when GE posts 6.8 BILLION thats 6,800,000,000) and yet they are cutting all thier non union shops wages to "compettive wages" or half thier salary...(you imagine working for a company for years to come in one day and told you have to now work for half your wage....deal with it...) how would you think of CORPORATE AMERICA and thiers or anyone else's whining saying its the UNIONS FAULT???!!!

link to back claims read for yourself what GE is doing to your fellow Americans

http://www.facebook.com/StopGEWageCuts?fref=ts
 
Business/ Economics 101 Laymen's Term:

You have to realize there is a difference between unions managing their members and a company managing it's monies to pay the union and it's employees.. Keep the foundation strong (The union employees making you the money) and the building shall not crumble( the company and it's leadership of the company who earns the biggest part of the money)... A shaky foundation and you never know what day your doomed...

You must always spend within your means.. My dad says a money and a fool shall soon depart :rofl:
 
Back
Top