Thread: Hostess Strike

Oh that's what I meant about the part where the workers are responsible for their decision along with union to proceed when it was clear that there were no other options.

However, the company would have probably kept happy workers and remained solvent if they weren't greedy jerks for the higher ups.

When are people going to realize that comparing your life to the people who have more money is ALWAYS going to end up badly for you. If they hadn't been so hell bent on worrying about what the CEO and the management people were making and had just been happy to have a job they'd still have them. We don't know why the CEO even got the raise. Maybe they were vastly underpaid compared to others in their same positions? Maybe it was in their contracts that they get the raise when they did?

I can't imagine telling someone (let alone my kids) that I lost my job over a portion of my pension and a 3% loss in pay especially since the company was offering concessions including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors. I really just can't imagine wtf was going through their heads.

We are forgetting (myself included) that often we can't point fingers at the workers. When a union calls a strike they are probably forced to strike and can't go back to work until the union calls of the strike. I didn't think of that initially.

Oh, I"m pointing fingers. If people would quit letting unions and other organizations bully them into stupid bullcrap like what just happened, they would go away. Unions and affirmative action are both outdated ideas that are now doing the exact opposite of their original intent. Seems to be a common thread in our country lately.

From my understanding the CEO at hostess got the raise to keep him in line with what others in his field were making. (heard that on the radio yesterday, but I cant find transcripts)

The employees made a choice to be unemployed, I really hope that they can all find jobs before their unemployment benefits run out.

I do wonder though if there could be a case made for not giving them unemployment benefits since they essentially quit voluntarily?

I don't disagree with you Lillie but unions are powerful and these people were forced to strike I'm sure of it. I think that takes less power out of their hands to make the decisions.

The union tries to get into dh's company all the time and so far they've kept them out. Some of his coworkers like it but they have it too good to bring that crap in.

Originally Posted by mom3girls

From my understanding the CEO at hostess got the raise to keep him in line with what others in his field were making. (heard that on the radio yesterday, but I cant find transcripts)

If your company is on the verge of insolvency, it makes no sense to give the CEO a 7MM dollar raise at that time. Let him earn his raise by bringing the company into the black first.

Somebody mentioned that these employees were making about $11.50 per hour. Assuming that number is correct (too lazy to look it up), that means they were pulling in a little less than $24K per year (pre-tax!).

18,000 employees X 24K per year X a 3% pay decrease = $12,960,000. Over half of their "sacrifice" would have gone towards funding dude's 7mm raise. He could have forgone the raise and offered a 1.5% pay decrease and everyone would have been in better shape. Well, everyone but him, of course.

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

If your company is on the verge of insolvency, it makes no sense to give the CEO a 7MM dollar raise at that time. Let him earn his raise by bringing the company into the black first.

Somebody mentioned that these employees were making about $11.50 per hour. Assuming that number is correct (too lazy to look it up), that means they were pulling in a little less than $24K per year (pre-tax!).

18,000 employees X 24K per year X a 3% pay decrease = $12,960,000. Over half of their "sacrifice" would have gone towards funding dude's 7mm raise. He could have forgone the raise and offered a 1.5% pay decrease and everyone would have been in better shape. Well, everyone but him, of course.

But why would he want to do that if he could just go get a job somewhere else for that amount? If you had a job where you were making $60k but most others in your field were making $100k. You get a job offer at another company for $100k, so your employer offers you $100k to stay. Would you forgo the pay raise because your employer is in financial trouble and stay anyway?

This is why people think the conservatives only care about rich people. It makes sense to you to give a CEO a huge raise even when his company is in the tank, at the expense of people who are probably living paycheck to paycheck on $24K, and let it be on their heads if they try to protest.

I bet this dude was already making a lot more than $60K or even $100K. If his company can't afford his raise (without cutting the amount that they had agreed to pay their other workers) then he doesn't get the raise. Same as you or I. If your company is struggling along, do you really think they'll give YOU a raise, no matter what other people in your field are making? (Hint: they won't.) That's how it works.

Lets remember that they lost their CEO and this was a new guy. I'm not saying its justified, but Gloria has a point. How do you attract a CEO to a struggling business that is going through bankruptcy if you can only pay him a fraction of what he would make elsewhere. You are in a tough position as a company. Perhaps that should have been the end of the company at that point?