New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Unions Bankrupt Another Great American Company.

middleview

President
Supporting Member
1. What would you charge them with?
2. Unions are only one side of the bargaining table. If management signs a dumb agreement, who is to blame?
3. Can you name a single instance where the unions were the sole (or even major) cause of a company bankruptcy?
 
1. What would you charge them with?
2. Unions are only one side of the bargaining table. If management signs a dumb agreement, who is to blame?
3. Can you name a single instance where the unions were the sole (or even major) cause of a company bankruptcy?
I am assuming that in number 1 that you are talking about the union. As far as I am aware, the union has done not to be charges with. #2. Perhaps when the contract to have a pension plan paid by the company wasn't a dumb idea. However, things change. If we look back at when the contract with this particular item was accepted Hostess could have financed the retirement plan. Now, with people eating healthier, their confections are not as desireable as they once were, so the union that is charged with protecting the jobs of the current workers should be giving concessions to keep the jobs viable for the current employees instead of forcing the company to file for bankruptcy and jepordizing all of the jobs. #3 You named it earlier, the steel unions.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The steel unions were only a part of the problem. The steel companies didn't invest in new factories or technologies. The factories near where I grew up had been in operation since the 1800s. After WWII the American steel companies were the only ones able to produce steel, other than those mills in the Soviet Union. The CEO and people at the top at USS made horrible decisions investing in steel mills in other countries rather than in the US. Eventually we got to the point where the steel companies began to rely on tariffs and anti-dumping measures to keep them profitable.
 
The steel unions were only a part of the problem. The steel companies didn't invest in new factories or technologies. The factories near where I grew up had been in operation since the 1800s. After WWII the American steel companies were the only ones able to produce steel, other than those mills in the Soviet Union. The CEO and people at the top at USS made horrible decisions investing in steel mills in other countries rather than in the US. Eventually we got to the point where the steel companies began to rely on tariffs and anti-dumping measures to keep them profitable.
I also grew up in a steel town, Johnstown, PA. However, what you state is accurate, the government didn't help by allowing nations such as Japan dump their cheaper steel on the US markets. I also remember my uncles discussing the lose of jobs at the mills. Although they and my grandfather's we in the forfront of the unionization of the mills, they were appauled that a man who was hired as a sweeper sweeping the plant floors could sit around for four hours after his work was done and read the paper because the union contract stated that each employye had to receive no less that an 8 hr. shift per day. The company could not send him home after his job was done because of the union contract, he got paid 4 hrs. for doing nothing. Before the bar, rod and wire mill (the biggest mill in Johnstown) was shut down, I had two cousins that worked in that mill and I was told when I askd how they got so much time off, that there wasn't enough work so what they did was split the work in 6 month increments. Working for six months and sitting on unemployment for six months. The reason that my family moved from Johnstown to the D.C. area in the mid 50's was because my father, who was a train engineer for the mills was layed off because of lack of production at the mill and a direct consequence of that was that my parents lost their house in Johnstown.
 

wobblies

Mayor
While it is certainly true that any group that is competing for the value in a company has to be aware of the available balance sheet, unions have far less ability to force concessions that other entities do. Besides, companies will shut down and move some place else just because they make a higher profit. Do you begrudge a company for doing that.
You didn't respond to worker ownership of companies. Do you have an opinion on the subject?
 
While it is certainly true that any group that is competing for the value in a company has to be aware of the available balance sheet, unions have far less ability to force concessions that other entities do. Besides, companies will shut down and move some place else just because they make a higher profit. Do you begrudge a company for doing that.
You didn't respond to worker ownership of companies. Do you have an opinion on the subject?
If a company can not get the concessions it needs from the union (concessions being legtimate one) and they have a choice between bankruptcy or moving to save the company and wanted to move, I would supprt it. I would also support worker owned companies. That is because those worker unlike the mill and Hostess workers had a stake in the company where the others did not.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I grew up in Pittsburgh. I am not arguing that the union reps didn't contribute to problems. Can't you see that the company CEOs were largely responsible for the very reason that the unions became more and more abusive of productivity problems? It was much the same with American car companies investing in Japanese car companies.....if you were a worker there would you feel compelled to take a cut in pay as your own company invested in Toyota or Mazda?
 
I grew up in Pittsburgh. I am not arguing that the union reps didn't contribute to problems. Can't you see that the company CEOs were largely responsible for the very reason that the unions became more and more abusive of productivity problems? It was much the same with American car companies investing in Japanese car companies.....if you were a worker there would you feel compelled to take a cut in pay as your own company invested in Toyota or Mazda?
Who are we to tell a company what it can and can not invest in as long as it is their own money and not money obtained in the form of a government bailout? The main readon I was not for the bailout of GM and Crysler was that Crysler had gone though a government bailout in the 70s under Iacoca and they hadn't learned their lesson. The management of GM as well did not deserve the bailout they got because they mismanaged their funds. Yet the left thought it was vital to circumvent the established way of doing things instead of letting these companies file for bankrupcy just to save Obama's butt.

Whenever the left does not learn it lessons it is the taxpayer and not the company who always gets the dirty end of the stick.
 
Do you support a company moving to another location just to increase profits?
Yes, I do. An American company just like an other American citizen in this land of ours has the right of freedom of movement and that should be respected. The government should not be able to tell a company where it can and can not move to, just like it should not be able to tell any person in this nation where they can and can not go.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I'm talking about company employees. Ford was buying cars from Mazda, remember? GM bought cars from Toyota. Ford's first effort at a hybrid was using the Prius engine. How the hell do you make money that way? You made the claim that their problems were related to abusive unions. I'm saying that the unions became more abusive with the support of the members because of the abuses of the CEO and company officers. One company I worked for had a unionization vote and there was a lot of info on how much the guys at the top made. It was hard to ignore that while most of the guys on the shop floor made close to minimum wage and worked in fairly unsafe and uncomfortable environments, the guys on mahogany row were making a ton of money and couldn't find the shop floor with both hands and a flash light.
 
I'm talking about company employees. Ford was buying cars from Mazda, remember? GM bought cars from Toyota. Ford's first effort at a hybrid was using the Prius engine. How the hell do you make money that way? You made the claim that their problems were related to abusive unions. I'm saying that the unions became more abusive with the support of the members because of the abuses of the CEO and company officers. One company I worked for had a unionization vote and there was a lot of info on how much the guys at the top made. It was hard to ignore that while most of the guys on the shop floor made close to minimum wage and worked in fairly unsafe and uncomfortable environments, the guys on mahogany row were making a ton of money and couldn't find the shop floor with both hands and a flash light.
I don't know of to many places where the minimum wage is paided in factory work and that include here wher I am at. Most cashiers these days make at the least $9.00 an hour. As I said earlier, when you apply for a job you have some assumption of what you will be paided and you diffently know what you will be paided when you go in fpr the interview. So if you accept the pay at the prevailing wage offered, that is your decission. If you didn't like what was offered you could have gone on looking. Don't blame business for your decissions.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
1. I don't know where you live, but a lot of folks don't have choices. It isn't as though they have the option of turning down a job if it is offered.

2. The factory I worked in was minimum wage. If the pay was better and the attitude from the people running the place wasn't abusive the union might not have been so attractive.

Your attitude is that the managers, VPs and CEO should have all the power. If they feel like treating you like crap, then your choice is to take it or quit. I disagree and that is why workers vote for a union.
 

Figjam

Mayor
...LMAO@Uninformed

...let's ignore the obvious, "...Hostess, previously called Interstate Bakeries Corp., slashed debt and costs during a four-year stint in bankruptcy court that began in 2004. The company has struggled since emerging from bankruptcy proceedings in February 2009." - "...The company's private-equity owner, Ripplewood Holdings, invested $40 million in Hostess last year. Hedge funds Monarch Alternative Capital, Silver Point Capital and others loaned the company $20 million late last year." - See Bain Capital for a example of what "Holdings" companies do...

...and let's not forget market forces, "Hostess also has had trouble attracting consumers who have migrated away from white bread to whole grains and other healthier foods. Hostess released a whole-grain bread called Nature's Pride, but it hasn't sold well compared with some rivals amid a small presence on shelves, according to Mitchell Pinheiro, a Janney Montgomery Scott analyst. Still, Nature's Pride's overall sales have ticked up, increasing 12.3% over the past year or so, said a Hostess spokesman.

Hostess also kept prices relatively high, making it harder to charge even more as costs for ingredients and fuel rose.In the 1960s and 1970s, the company grew by acquiring several other baking outfits across the U.S. By 1995, the company had changed its name to IBC, and purchased its largest rival, Continental Baking Co., for $330 million, maker of Wonder Bread."

...LMAO - another example of a poorly run corporation failing to adapt to market conditions - you really are uninformed about matters of economics...
 
1. I don't know where you live, but a lot of folks don't have choices. It isn't as though they have the option of turning down a job if it is offered.

2. The factory I worked in was minimum wage. If the pay was better and the attitude from the people running the place wasn't abusive the union might not have been so attractive.

Your attitude is that the managers, VPs and CEO should have all the power. If they feel like treating you like crap, then your choice is to take it or quit. I disagree and that is why workers vote for a union.
1. I live in south central Pennsylvania. Here one of the biggest employers is JLG, you know who they are, the lift people. One always has a choice.

2. I worked for JLG from 1995 - 1999 after retiring from my former job. My job was to put the covers and baskets on their lifts and back than I started at ten dollars an hour. My grqandson has been offered a starting wage of eighteen dollars an hr. as a welder out of high school from them next year. In a union state Jlg runs a non-umion shop and has one of the best benifit plans in the state and there is no abuse from management.

3. No my attitude is that of a person who would rather have a job and do that job the best that I can. When I was in the work force (retired now) I kept my mouth shut and did what was expected of me and I didn't need to pay a union to bargain my right for me. If at the time I didn't like working for JLG I would have found another job, given my two weeks notice and left. Infact with a back ground in security a friend offered me a job as a site supervisor for his security company and I was there until I had to retire permanently in 2010.
 

Doubter

Council Member
And here I thought Hostess said declining demand and changes to american tastes was their problem. All along it was the Teamsters. Who knew?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
look at the financial results for Caterpillar. They are near a 52 week high in stock price and are earning $7 per share.

They are going to get rid of workers that your link says make "as much as" $30 per hour to hire people making less than $18 per hour. They have moved jobs to China. Face it....this is a prime example of why unions exist at all. The company says that .50 per hour is all they need to keep the jobs in Canada....according to your link. The management of Caterpillar sucks.
 

TomFitz

Mayor
This is what should have happened to GM and Crysler, but Obie HOPED he could CANGE things with taxpayer money.
And that's what happened. GM came back to life, is now number one, and is making great products. It's workers too substantial cuts in pay and benefits to keep their jobs. And the union is on for a third of the stock, so now the workers are investors with a vested interest in keeping the company moving forward. Which is what they do in Germany.

Ditto Chrysler.

I guess saving a million plus jobs and two companies at the core of the US industrial economy is bad.

You people keep cheering against working people. Your standard bearer keeps telling us how he doesn't care, and that corporations are people.

We get the message!!!!
 
Top