tomato can

It's easier to blame unions and tell the workers to find other jobs and ignore bad management at the executive level. Get over it dude! Thre executives failed and cost all these people their jobs. Those workers showed up every day and produced the product, rolled it onto the delivery trucks and the stores were stocked full of it! Careful with throwing that free society talk around. I'm sure someone can dig through some older posts and find one of your rants and raves about the election and say hey we live in a free society! Don't like the results, move to another country!

Dude do you know stupid you sound? There were many people that were employed at Hostess for 20, 30, & 40 years! They didn't just show up to work for the last few decades sit down in a chair on their ass for 8 hours a day and sleep! Hostess Had Stopped Contributing To Pensions And Wanted To Cut Worker Pay Further. According to The Kansas City Star, union leaders reported that Hostess had stopped contributing to workers' pensions and wanted to cut wages and benefits "by 27 to 32 percent": Union officials said the company stopped contributing to the workers' pensions last year, and 92 percent of union members voted to reject the contract in September. A bankruptcy court judge allowed the company to force the union to accept the new collective bargaining agreement. So management forced the cuts they wanted on the union, and they still went belly up? And you blame the workers??? Hostess Had Stopped Contributing To Pensions And Wanted To Cut Worker Pay Further. According to The Kansas City Star, union leaders reported that Hostess had stopped contributing to workers' pensions and wanted to cut wages and benefits "by 27 to 32 percent": Union officials said the company stopped contributing to the workers' pensions last year, and 92 percent of union members voted to reject the contract in September. A bankruptcy court judge allowed the company to force the union to accept the new collective bargaining agreement. So management forced the cuts they wanted on the union, and they still went belly up? And you blame the workers???

Declining sales, crippling debt from financial engineers and management's failure to freshen up a stale product line and keep up with consumers' changing tastes, bankruptcy twice in a decade, ect. Then I read this : The issue here is the corporation itself. The first clue that something is a bit odd at Hostess comes from the company's description of its chief financial officer, whom we are told: is responsible for driving the planned priorities of the finance organization in both the front and back office and regularly collaborates with the marketing, sales and operations departments. Resist the temptation to mock the consulting-firm-speak ("driving the planned priorities?"), and ask yourself what's missing. Don't C.F.O.'s normally work closely with the treasury departments, too? Turns out that Hostess has no treasury department. It apparently doesn't have anyone who can perform treasury functions at all. The company has asked the bankruptcy court for permission to hire FTI Consulting to do the work. Apparently Hostess does not have much of a finance department either, since FTI is also providing employees for that department. [The New York Times, Dealbook, 1/13/12] And all of these problems were the unions fault?

Reuters: Hostess' Entered "First Bankruptcy With $648.5 Million In Debt, And Came Out With More Than $800 Million." Reuters reported that after Hostess filed for its first bankruptcy in 2004, "it did not deal with its debt": It tackled some issues -- closing bakeries and simplifying some union contracts -- but it did not deal with its debt. It went into the first bankruptcy with $648.5 million in debt, and came out with more than $800 million, according to court documents. [Reuters, 3/6/12] CNBC: After Bankruptcy Hostess' "Sales Declined And Attempts To Roll-Out New Products More In Line With Changing Consumer Tastes Flopped." CNBC reported that the first round of bankruptcy "wasn't enough to save" Hostess, adding: "The company's sales declined and attempts to roll-out new products more in line with changing consumer tastes flopped." [CNBC, 11/16/12] Wash. Post: January Bankruptcy Filing Shows Hostess "Would Have Lost Money Without Any Pension Costs At All." The Washington Post reported in January that Hostess "lost $250 million in the less than three years since it emerged from its previous bankruptcy. That means it would have lost money without any pension costs at all." The Post noted that Hostess "lost money in 30 of the past 37 quarters." [The Washington Post, 1/11/12] Sounds like they did a great job running the company! Must be nice to get a salary increase when the product line is considered stale, sales have completely, dropped and you have failed to deal with the companies other issues! Reuters: Hostess' Entered "First Bankruptcy With $648.5 Million In Debt, And Came Out With More Than $800 Million." Reuters reported that after Hostess filed for its first bankruptcy in 2004, "it did not deal with its debt": It tackled some issues -- closing bakeries and simplifying some union contracts -- but it did not deal with its debt. It went into the first bankruptcy with $648.5 million in debt, and came out with more than $800 million, according to court documents. [Reuters, 3/6/12] Reuters: Hostess "Spent More Than $170 Million On Professional Fees" In Its First Bankruptcy. Reuters further reported that in its first bankruptcy, Hostess spent more than $170 million on professional fees:

Probably!

Forbes: Hostess Exited Bankruptcy Because Of "Substantial Concessions By The Two Big Unions." Forbes explained that Hostess was able to exit bankruptcy in 2009 for three reasons, including that "substantial concessions" were made "by the two big unions" -- the Teamsters and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. Forbes further explained that "annual labor cost savings to the company were about $110 million" and that "thousands of union members lost their jobs." [Forbes, 7/26/12] Last July, the court documents said, the compensation committee of Hostess's board approved an increase in then-chief executive Brian Driscoll's salary from to $2.55 million from around $750,000. The company had hired restructuring lawyers in March 2011, the creditors said, and filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 11. Besides Mr. Driscoll, "other executives' salaries were increased by from 35% to 80%," the creditors said. The documents said that Mr. Driscoll subsequently renounced a portion of the increase while "other executives did not appear to have done so." Besides Mr. Driscoll, two other executives who saw their salaries increase have also left the company, according to the spokesman.[The Wall Street Journal, 4/4/12]

Pretty interesting article. I understand that this Doctor makes very little profit but he still manages to make enough to pay his staff and run his practice with $5 per office visit. http://news.yahoo.com/5-doctor-practices-medicine-bygone-era-180340207--finance.html

So you support the unions strike for better pay?

Even the musicians want raise! http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-symphony-musicians-strike-030112910.html

You are absolutely correct. How ever there are times when you break from protocol, bend the rules, or laws and I think this was one those times that should have happened.

This just unconscionable. I can't believe that there is not a grandfather, uncle, or someone family friend that would not take this child to the dance.

Not sure all the facts are out, but how does 2 police officers get out maneuvered by a mentally ill double amputee and are forced to kill him as he held one officer at bay with a metal ink pen? http://news.yahoo.com/houston-officer-kills-double-amputee-wheelchair-222540280.html

According to a release from the union, the tentative deal would be a three-year contract, with an option for a fourth year. Both sides would have to agree to the fourth year of the deal. In the first year, teachers would get a 3 percent raise. In the second and third year of the deals, they would get a 2 percent raise. If the sides agree to a fourth year, teacher raises would be 3 percent that year. http://www.cbsnews.c...eachers-strike/ Read and weep! Now lets see your link that all I have posted is unture!

+ 1

I know, I know. A few of us have posted facts in regards to this teachers strike and exposed the fallacious arguments yourself a few others have been clinging to.

The tentative contract in Chicago calls for a 3 percent raise in its first year and 2 percent for two years after that, along with increases for experienced teachers. While many teachers are upset it did not restore a 4 percent pay raise Emanuel rescinded earlier this year!

Dude you are so full of crap its coming out of your ears! Yes they want to be paid like everyone else that works a job. They were suppose to receive a 4% raise last year and didn't get it because the city said they didn't have the money. The teachers were not seeking a kings ransom, they were okay with a 4% increase last year and are okay with it this year. There are more important matters at hand that were not being addressed. In 2011, a provision was added to the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act that makes it illegal for teachers to strike on all matters except compensation involving pay and benefits. The teachers had to make salary an issue in order to strike over classroom conditions in Chicago public schools. What is clear is there are multiple systemic problems with Chicago public schools that certainly warrant the teachers taking a stand. Class sizes in Chicago are largest in the state of Illinois, on average only a quarter of Chicago public schools offer arts and music education, there are 370 social workers for 15,000 homeless children, one hundred and sixty schools do not have libraries, schools lack air conditioning, roofs that do not leak, textbooks, & Chicago continues to close schools or “turnaround” schools by firing by teacher and staff to improve student learning without any evidence that this meaningfully benefits students. Simply focusing on teachers as the reason for low performance ignores the lack of resources in schools that make it difficult for learning. Teachers are striking so that the city of Chicago will allocate more resources for these kids as. You continue to ignor these facts and try and make it sound as if these teachers are just on strike for money only.

If he were to step in know it would reek of BS! He should have stepped up and provided leadership before it even got to this point. Money is a factor, annual increases for teachers in CPS are much smaller than the annual increases in many suburban districts. For example, a teacher with a master’s degree, 30 additional credit hours, and ten years of experience, can expect to earn $87,513 in Evanston this year; last year, in Oak Park, a teacher would have made $88,978. In Chicago this year, the same teacher will earn $75,711 — about $12,000 a year less than in districts to which he or she could walk or take public transportation from a home in Chicago. Over the course of a career, that difference amounts to over a quarter of a million dollars. This disparity should concern everyone, because it’s a primary reason why experienced teachers leave CPS to go to the suburbs — and why CPS has to train thousands of brand-new teachers every year. But not the only factor. Not all schools but in many class sizes are often too large, not enough social workers, not enough counselors, not enough speech therapist's, no new language arts teachers to staff the longer school day, not enough computers, text books ordered and delivered late, not enough school nurses, ect.

No they just pay lobbyist to sit behind closed doors and cry for them!

That is false. If you are going weigh in on the CTU-CPS negotiations know the facts please, instead of believing that these people are holding the city of Chicago ransom for some ridiculous 25% pay raise because Rahm Emmanuel told you so....The fact of the matter is that 25% is b.s.. What they are asking for is the 4% contractually bargained raise they were due last January that Rahm decided they couldn't have in spite of the contract because of "budget shortfalls". As well as, to actually be paid for the extra hour that Rahm added to their days this year, attempting to sneak it in unpaid. I don't know how you would feel if your employer decided not to give you the raise your union had bargained for you, then made each of your workdays an hour longer with no compensation thus costing most teachers more money for that extra hour of childcare for their own children. Sounds like a real sweet deal huh? Oh yeah, and despite the budget shortfalls, he found $55 million last week to build a new park in honor of the wife of his predecessor(Daley), the most crooked mayor this city has ever seen. Rob, advocates for teacher tenure say that teachers need protection from power hungry administrators and school board members who have personality conflicts with a particular teacher. Tenure status protects a teacher, when a school board member’s child fails their class, from having the repercussion of being fired. It provides job security for teachers, which many believe, translates to happier teachers and teachers who perform at a higher level. Tenure also ensures that those who have been there longest have guaranteed job security in tough economic times even though a newer teacher is cheaper to the district. Gary, they are on strike. Yes unions donate to pols that might give them favorable treatment. Bankers, wallstreet power brokers, and a lot of others do the same thing.

Ahhh yes I must have hit a nerve! You sure loved those words (American Exceptionalism, successful hard working people, dont vilify success, ect) when they were rolling off someone else's tongue! Hell you championed that rhetoric, you probably jumped off the sofa and began cheering when that individual so eloquently delivered those words! Come time to eat that crow it didn't taste so good! So you lob a few obscenties my way! FWIW I have teachers in my family and have friends that are teachers right here in Chicago. I know about all the kids that show up at school with no paper, no pens, no pencils, or the needed supplies because their parents are poor, couldn't afford everything, or lost their job. I know about those teachers that care so dam much that they reach into their own pocket and provide that child with the supplies because they are good hard working people that care about those kids and they want them to learn. But according to you they are just "poor downtrodden group who have been nailed to the proverbial cross"!

Stop begrudging the teachers union for being good negotiators. They have been successful on behalf of the teachers who signify American Exceptionalism. The teachers earned their degrees through dedication and hard work and went on to become successful teachers! Shame on your for trying to tear them down, you should celebrate their success not vilify it!

Got it! I knew there were no facts to back that claim up. Its just a bunch of baloney used in negotiations when it comes to pay. In regards to tenure, a teacher must teach at the same school for three consecutive years with satisfactory performance to be considered a teacher with tenure. See the teacher gained tenure because they were successful and you want everyone to believe they are not qualified to be burger flippers and its all the unions fault.

What percentage of teachers is the union protecting that couldn't be successful burger flippers? Also please provide a link. Thanks.

No. That wasn't the point that I was trying to make. My point is there are so many of these politicians whether it be a dem, repub, or tp pol that runs around spreading that certain message but its hard to take most of them seriously. Joe Walsh is suppose to be an adult that is taking the country back so the younger generation don't get screwed, so people are suppose to believe that he is going to this for us when he wouldn't even take care of his own kids? Charlie Rangel chairman of the ways & means committee that writes important tax legislation yet he is caught cheating on his own taxes, yet were suppose to believe that he is going to whats best for the people? Tom Delay was the house majority leader and he gets convicted of money laundering, yet people were suppose to believe this guy was doing what was right for the people. Look I really believe that there are some dem, repub, & tp pols that are really smart people and they are willing to sit down with each other and do some things that need to be done because thats what is best for the country, yet they seem out numbered by the others. You know the overwhelming majority of people whether you are a small business owner, public sector worker, or entry level job, ect, all seem to be in survival mode. It wasn't just Obama that put us there, he certainly hasn't helped get us out if the position most people seem to be in. I mean really when people who have mortgages, bills, families, college to pay for and there lively hood is being threatened what do you think they are going to do? They are going to fight like hell to keep that lively hood. Has dems, repubs, or tp pols gotten any meaningful legislation passed in that last few years? The political system seems so broken.