Michigan........

[menmon]

Or no wage at all. Just ask the union members of Twinkies. because of the Baker's union have effectively cost the other union members THEIR JOBS!!Obviously the management and stockholders decided to liquidate their assets and lay off all the workers. They evidently believed that the return on their investment was not worth the risk, so they just quit.

Somebody will probaly buy the assets, hire new workers along with some of the former workers and start over. Many probably won't be rehired.
Unions always claim that they raise wages. Let me pose to cases and ask for a response from union advocaates. Say management calls in an employee and tells him(her) that they have been an exceptionally good employee and they intend to pay him $2.00/hour MORE that the union contract. You think the union would praise the company for rewarding one of it's members who was an exceptional employee? take another example. A member tells the company that he is an exceptionally good employee and demands $2.00/ hour more than the union contract. The company agrees that his work justifies the wage increase and WANTS to meet his demands. What do you think the union's response would be. Just asking

First of all Hostess did not fail because of the union....they let their competition run off and leave them.

Unions usually are found where companies do not reward their employees as they should....so your seniero is one that wouldn't exist anyway.

Collective bargining by design says that we are stronger as a whole than as indivduals. So maybe there are folks in the union that are more deserving, but they realize that they are better off as a whole. Because managers and owners change regularly

[menmon]

In theory, perhaps.
In reality, not so much.

Our shop is non-union, the employees are compensated above the industry average.
Their collective expertise and performance is generally exceptional.
If someone needs to go, we move them, not beholding to DA UNION makes that easier!

They seem to like what I do....................

Sounds like a good employer that takes care of its employees, thus does not need a union. Having said that, the workers are benefiting from the union by making as much or more than the union wage...and the employer takes care of the employees so they don't organize.

[caryalsobrook]

First of all Hostess did not fail because of the union....they let their competition run off and leave them.

Unions usually are found where companies do not reward their employees as they should....so your seniero is one that wouldn't exist anyway.

Collective bargining by design says that we are stronger as a whole than as indivduals. So maybe there are folks in the union that are more deserving, but they realize that they are better off as a whole. Because managers and owners change regularly

What a joke. First of all, Hostess had signed contracts with all the other unions of the company, but could not come to an agreement with the baker's union. Had they done so, HOSTESS UOLD STILL BE IN BUSINESS and would still be competing with it's competidors. Competition did not shut down Hostess. All the other unions of Hostess did not shut down Hostess. THE BAKER'S UNION DID

Companies do not hire workers to reward them. they hire them to make a return on their investment. Workers, union or non-union can leave anytime should their labor be more valued at another company.

By your own definition, collective bargaining rewards those less productive and punishes those more productive. I can't imagine a system that so reduces the competitiveness in a capital system.

[menmon]

What a joke. First of all, Hostess had signed contracts with all the other unions of the company, but could not come to an agreement with the baker's union. Had they done so, HOSTESS UOLD STILL BE IN BUSINESS and would still be competing with it's competidors. Competition did not shut down Hostess. All the other unions of Hostess did not shut down Hostess. THE BAKER'S UNION DID

Companies do not hire workers to reward them. they hire them to make a return on their investment. Workers, union or non-union can leave anytime should their labor be more valued at another company.

By your own definition, collective bargaining rewards those less productive and punishes those more productive. I can't imagine a system that so reduces the competitiveness in a capital system.

You need to stop getting your information from FOX.

I'm sure that those most productive workers would go off on their own if they thought they would be better off that way.

Unions are why you have the benefits you have today....eliminate them and see what you have in a few years.

Business should be managed to benefit of all stake holders...employees, community, stockholders, etc. Companies that operate with this in mind tend to do the best and usually do not require a union.

[mngundog]

What a joke. First of all, Hostess had signed contracts with all the other unions of the company, but could not come to an agreement with the baker's union. Had they done so, HOSTESS UOLD STILL BE IN BUSINESS and would still be competing with it's competidors. Competition did not shut down Hostess. All the other unions of Hostess did not shut down Hostess. THE BAKER'S UNION DID

Companies do not hire workers to reward them. they hire them to make a return on their investment. Workers, union or non-union can leave anytime should their labor be more valued at another company.

By your own definition, collective bargaining rewards those less productive and punishes those more productive. I can't imagine a system that so reduces the competitiveness in a capital system.

So glad to see that the same management that bankrupted Hostess just received another $1.75 million in bonuses from bankruptcy court.

[roseberry]

Food for thought...if folks are making a better wage they can buy more and you sell more thus you make more. If that is the case...unions are your friend.

food for thought.....if the folks who make the "better wage" are producing the product you are selling, it will obviously cost more. as a result your competitor will then make it in china much less expensively.

you wont sell jack doo doo and the domestic factory with the "better wage" will close. but the workers will not notice their factory closed until their paychecks are not direct deposited since they are out front at the plant gates marching with signs, on strike, not working, not producing and keeping scabs out.

did i miss anything in my economis analysis above?

[road kill]

food for thought.....if the folks who make the "better wage" are producing the product you are selling, it will obviously cost more. as a result your competitor will then make it in china much less expensively.

you wont sell jack doo doo and the domestic factory with the "better wage" will close. but the workers will not notice their factory closed until their paychecks are not direct deposited since they are out front at the plant gates marching with signs, on strike, not working, not producing and keeping scabs out.

did i miss anything in my economis analysis above?

Yes, the part where they still pay dues to DA UNION that contributes the cash to the progressive party!!!

Just tryin' to help!

[HPL]

Do you understand how a pay schedule works?

I don't, would you please explain it.

[JS]

food for thought.....if the folks who make the "better wage" are producing the product you are selling, it will obviously cost more. as a result your competitor will then make it in china much less expensively.

you wont sell jack doo doo and the domestic factory with the "better wage" will close. but the workers will not notice their factory closed until their paychecks are not direct deposited since they are out front at the plant gates marching with signs, on strike, not working, not producing and keeping scabs out.

did i miss anything in my economis analysis above?

I think you missed a lot John. Since you're talking about what COULD happen, how about brainstorming ways that COULD prevent those businesses from taking their work to cheaper labor markets and shipping the product back here to sell to greedy folks who want to buy something for nothing. But then it's pretty obvious you have bought into the "race to the bottom" mentality and see no other answer.

Real Americans Buy American regards,

JS

[JS]

What a joke. First of all, Hostess had signed contracts with all the other unions of the company, but could not come to an agreement with the baker's union. Had they done so, HOSTESS UOLD STILL BE IN BUSINESS and would still be competing with it's competidors. Competition did not shut down Hostess. All the other unions of Hostess did not shut down Hostess. THE BAKER'S UNION DID

Companies do not hire workers to reward them. they hire them to make a return on their investment. Workers, union or non-union can leave anytime should their labor be more valued at another company.

By your own definition, collective bargaining rewards those less productive and punishes those more productive. I can't imagine a system that so reduces the competitiveness in a capital system.

This is the kind of crap that ruins these conversations and prevents a good exchange of ideas. If you have some inside knowledge then I apologize but I'm willing to bet you don't.

I worked for Wonder/Hostess as a route salesman/driver way back when it was Continental Baking Co. That was in the 1960s and admittedly, my knowledge is dated but I have seen so much misinformation posted about this situation it is ridiculous. I can tell you that the baking business, like a lot of the food business started on this slide as far back as then with the competition for private labels. They sold the bread at a loss just to get the best spot on the shelf and recouped it from the salesmen's commission. Just one of MANY concessions made over the years. I liked the job but saw the writing on the wall way back then.

Pretending you have the knowledge to pass judgement in a situation like this is like making a judgement on someone else's divorce. Probably a lot you don't know.

JS