-
-
'...rolling balls, i'm elated, i'm going dumb now; drinking liquor i'm faded and having fun now; loaded gun and tripping with everyone around; keep me stuck in the sky, i never wanna come down...'...kaboshOriginally posted by der affeComment
-
I'm not sure if it was already brought up but did anyone see the "deal" Hostess exec's where aiming to slide down the Baker's Union's throats? Fucking terrible. Claiming financial ruin as a company and yet rewarding yourselves (the Exec's) huuuuge bonuses? C'mon.
Justice Department was right to step in. IN BEFORE ALL THE "GOVERNMENT HAS NO PLACE TO STAND UP FOR THE POWERLESS WORKERS!"
Sorry but some of you Anti-Union assholes are way to militant.Need a part? PM me.
Get your Bass on. Luke's r3v Boxes are here: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=198123Comment
-
Hostess has/had several problems.
Management and the investers can't be excluded. The Union is a huge problem with their pensions as was shown in Hostess's 2004 bankruptcy. And the health movement in the US isn't helping sales either.
Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
In case is interested in being informed on the subject... (don't read Faux News: http://mediamatters.org/mobile/resea...-scapeg/191440)
Everyone always talks about the greedy workers with their ridiculous pensions and health insurance, or whatever, people say. But do they ask where these legacy liabilities came from? Was it the workers at fault? The companies for being stupid as commonly said? Or something else....?
100 - Executive Order 9250 Establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization.
October 3, 1942
While we were at war, the government put into place price controls to manage production expenses which capped wage increases but allowed for health insurance premiums to be used to attract workers, since there was not enough to go around and in order for companies to remain in business they had to compete on benefits.
Is it the companies or employees faults that they had to suffer these legacy costs because of WWII or the government? Sure, they could have changed policies in the process and many have, but it is challenging to take benefits away from people... and the benefits from yesteryear is the concern for the companies now. Manufacturing requires fewer employees with more machines and salary people have 401ks instead of pensions, but the liabilities still exist from the past. Some are buying them out now (like GM and Ford) but they aren't "dumb" because they survived the war... and don't benefit from the lack of legacy costs like the car companies who fought on the other side... Irony. Oh well, some companies aren't as fortunate to have grown and re-define themselves so they can afford these legacy costs. Especially if they have unhealthy snack foods when people are more concerned about eating healthy. Even Big Food has gone natural and organic with some of their brands.
Oh well,
By going into liquidation, the pension liability goes to Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. and the company can sell off the facilities and the brands.
This goes along with what RandomTask was saying:
The challenge with selling the company would be the pension and all the workers they might not need or want. They just want the product (brand, recipe, rights) and can bake it themselves: "The industry has overcapacity. We're overcapacity. Our rivals are overcapacity," said Rayburn in an interview on CNBC.
By shutting down operations, they have the ability to let the brands move on from their walking dead status.
Maybe you should do some research on the links/web sites you put up before you claim to be non-partisan. Media Matters is anything but non-biased.Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
Duh dude. The point was that it provided information (aggregated from multiple sources on both sides) that countered Faux News's biased shit and simplistic reasoning.
And does reading a source change who I am as a person? If I read a Faux News article, does it magically force me to think as a RWNJ like you?Comment
-
once fox news sued to be able to present the truth anyway they like on the basis that it's entertainment, they stopped being a legitimate news source.AWD > RWDComment
-
Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
What? How is it not logical to read both sides of an argument? Not everyone accepts the BS from one side and call it a day, to repeat whatever Fox News tells you to think. I'm not saying anyone should be small-minded and take the opposing viewpoint as gospel, but consider both sides.
Who says I didn't read a Fox News article? Only you - claiming what you cannot know to make a moronic argument. Making shit up about someone else doesn't prove anything besides you are full of it.Comment
-
Don't you mean Faux News. Showing your own bias right there. Media Matters is not one side, it's far worse than the twisting Fox news does.
You're just proving more and more you're not what you claim to be.
Why didn't you post up the Fox News opinion on that piece then. Rhetorical because it's obvious...lol.Last edited by joshh; 11-23-2012, 09:12 PM.Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
Are the links in the media matters link biased? Or does the listing of them on the site make them unclean? Because Forbes is totally liberal right?
And hilarious that you are trying to attack one biased source by saying it is worse than the typical twisting of your favorite source.
What does it say about you that you even admit Fox News twists facts and instead of discussing the multitude of other sources I posted or facts I presented you attack one link that pointed out Fox News flaws.Comment
-
It's only you that's insisting I go only by Fox News.
You're going to defend your Media Matters link while calling Fox News "Faux News". But yet you don't use Fox News links. And why would you...you call them Faux News. You can't even be honest with yourself about where you stand politically.
You said it yourself.Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
What is your preferred news source then?
Did you actually read it? Or just ignorantly question it solely based on where it was posted? It included a summary from multiple sources including Forbes, etc.
Why would I post Fox News links as a source of information or facts? That wouldn't make any sense. I read the articles that are posted and to understand other viewpoints but generally it is an extremely biased outlet which goes light on logic, reality/truth, or facts. People who watch Fox News as their primary outlet are less informed than those who don't actively follow the news. Even fake news like The Daily Show is more respectable.
I said if you want to be informed don't read Fox News. It does a poor job informing people beyond what biased shit they want you to think. There are plenty of news sources to get facts from and not relying on the cesspool that is Fox News. Reading their articles are a good starting point for research to know what the extreme closeminded simpletons think and then find the truth beyond the spin. The same can be done with liberal stuff as well, find a subject and discover if what is stated is rational and reasonble, or just full of it that some idiots might repeat.
As I mentioned before, if you want to be an informed conservative, go to NCPA daily digest. They aggregate intelligent articles and provide good analysis,
much better than the slop the sheep like you chow on from Fox.Comment
-
Need parts now? Need them cheap? steve@blunttech.com
Chief Sales Officer, Midwest Division—Blunt Tech Industries
www.gutenparts.com
One stop shopping for NEW, USED and EURO PARTS!
Comment
Comment