Bakers Union Forces Bankruptcy and 18500 Layoffs

[cannabineer]

Yes, obviously. Its called a contract renegotiation. Which was in attempt but obviously failed because of the unions. The companies revenues were declining substantially. Can a company continue to pay out it's pensions which were negotiated when revenues were much higher? No. Did the CEO's deserve a 300% raise? Fuck no. Did that bankrupt the company? No. Paying out some 15000 pensions which it could not pay did.

But the fact that the company was voting raises for its execs does rather suggest that they didn't think the pension problem was severe. That, or they were planning the sort of skulduggery and pension-fund raid that made the 80s so exciting.
Also, what sort of contract has provisions for renegotiation? A pension is an obligation. Pay up, without sympathy. cn

 

[Fungus Gnat]

But the fact that the company was voting raises for its execs does rather suggest that they didn't think the pension problem was severe. That, or they were planning the sort of skulduggery and pension-fund raid that made the 80s so exciting. Also, what sort of contract has provisions for renegotiation? A pension is an obligation. Pay up, without sympathy. cn

But it makes a better conservative narrative to blame unions and people on welfare for all our problems.

 

[NoDrama]

Nope, the ACT of setting fire to anything you own such as a builing is called arson, regardless of your intent and subsequent action.

Nope, each state is different, but most of the time if you are burning property that you 100% own, usually what will happen is some type of misdemeanor and fine for burning without a permit, or causing some amount of pollution.

Much easier to rent a Caterpiller Grader and just run it through the house. Same effect, but no fines or lawyers being involved.

 

[FOUR20 SWG]

Nope, each state is different, but most of the time if you are burning property that you 100% own, usually what will happen is some type of misdemeanor and fine for burning without a permit, or causing some amount of pollution.

Much easier to rent a Caterpiller Grader and just run it through the house. Same effect, but no fines or lawyers being involved.

Unless you live in a very rural area, by yourself with no surronding neighbors and no burn bans in place, I'd imagine you're looking at a pretty serious charge.

Just because it's your property doesn't mean you're not endangering the lives of people around you.

 

[Johnny Retro]

But the fact that the company was voting raises for its execs does rather suggest that they didn't think the pension problem was severe. That, or they were planning the sort of skulduggery and pension-fund raid that made the 80s so exciting.
Also, what sort of contract has provisions for renegotiation? A pension is an obligation. Pay up, without sympathy. cn

Which is precisely why there is so much talk to pension reform these days. It is a flawed system. It is based on the theory of ever increasing revenues whether it be government or private. There ultimately will be a day of reckoning. Which in today's economy seems to be now.

The increase in the CEO's salary, although unjust, did not ultimately lead to the bankruptcy of the company. Declining revenues from a decrease in junk food consumption and the strike did the company in.

 

[Johnny Retro]

But it makes a better conservative narrative to blame unions and people on welfare for all our problems.

You can take your partisan hackery and leave, please.

 

[cannabineer]

Which is precisely why there is so much talk to pension reform these days. It is a flawed system. It is based on the theory of ever increasing revenues whether it be government or private. There ultimately will be a day of reckoning. Which in today's economy seems to be now.

The increase in the CEO's salary, although unjust, did not ultimately lead to the bankruptcy of the company. Declining revenues from a decrease in junk food consumption and the strike did the company in.

I agree that the increase in exec compensation did not suffice to sink the company. It contributed however, and it provided a clear indicator of their collective attitude.

As for pension reform, I'll admit i didn't read much about that. Just so long as the "reform" leaves pensions agreed-upon prior to it "grandfathered", sacrosanct. The corporation entered into an obligation to provide it, and I don't care if they have to borrow the money from Sergio Eight Fingers, they have to honor it. Imagine the weight of legal uh-oh an employee experiences when he breaks a contract with the company. I will not countenance pension reform that reduces the provider's liability. That is the whole point of a pension: reliable assets in the future. cn

 

[FOUR20 SWG]

Which is precisely why there is so much talk to pension reform these days. It is a flawed system. It is based on the theory of ever increasing revenues whether it be government or private. There ultimately will be a day of reckoning. Which in today's economy seems to be now.

The increase in the CEO's salary, although unjust, did not ultimately lead to the bankruptcy of the company. Declining revenues from a decrease in junk food consumption and the strike did the company in.

Would you continue to work if your bosses expected you to do the same job for 30% less pay, while giving themselves outrageous bonuses?

 

[Johnny Retro]

Would you continue to work if your bosses expected you to do the same job for 30% less pay, while giving themselves outrageous bonuses?

If I knew that if I went on strike there was a very good possibility of the company closing its doors I would continue to work happily and look for another job. No job or a job that doesn't pay as much as before? hmmm

 

[ArcticGranite]

Which is precisely why there is so much talk to pension reform these days. It is a flawed system. It is based on the theory of ever increasing revenues whether it be government or private. There ultimately will be a day of reckoning. Which in today's economy seems to be now.The increase in the CEO's salary, although unjust, did not ultimately lead to the bankruptcy of the company. Declining revenues from a decrease in junk food consumption and the strike did the company in.

I disagree with the statement of pensions being based on the theory of ever increasing contributions. It's not a ponzi scheme. The type of pension is a consideration too. Defined benefit or defined contribution pension? Pension contributions are a negotiated benefit and they do require time to mature and draw from. Like any investment, pay now, play later, in the meantime give the market time to compound and grow the contributions. And let's remember these are heavily regulated by ERISA rules. And the limits imposed are restrictive to active growth fund managers. So let's not ever blame unionized workers pensions for a corporations failure. Contracts are negotiated, both union and management agree to the terms. And the corporation, whether solvent or not, has a fiduciary obligation to escrow those funds for PENSIONS, not any other purpose. Unfortunately the reality is that the legislative and judicial branches of government enable corporations to raid pensions. If anything needs reform it is that and ERISA.

 

[ArcticGranite]

As for the striking bakers voting down the contract, that is true democracy in action. They obviously did not agree to the terms offered. And that is a risk one shoulders when being in a union. One for all and all for one. Stand for something or fall for anything. Sure it's not ideal. Ponder this though- which worker generally has better working conditions, wages, benefits, union or not?

 

[FOUR20 SWG]

If I knew that if I went on strike there was a very good possibility of the company closing its doors I would continue to work happily and look for another job. No job or a job that doesn't pay as much as before? hmmm

Brush up on your Mandarin then, Johnny.

Because with that mindset there won't be a job worth having this side of Beijing 10 years from now.

Companies act in their own self-interest by definition. It's a necessary component of Capitalism. But that doesn't mean we need to stand by and let them go about raping and pillaging unchecked. Unions are in place to defend the worker from being bullied by people who call the shots, people that would love to make slaves where once were employees.

If it weren't for the contributions of organized labor during the end of the 19th and first half of the 20th century, this country would never have flourished into the superpower it became. End of story.

Pensions aren't a present, a handout, a benefit. They are a company's sworn guarantee to compensate their valued employee for services rendered throughout the course of a long career. A guarantee that employees' worked hard for and contributed to. So don't try and tell me that a boardroom decision to closedown, made by the same people who lined their pockets oh-these-long years with raises and bonuses, is anything other than a load of crap. When times are tough in a business, executive bonuses and privileges should be the first thing to go. Not pensions, benefits, and salaries of middleclass workers.

 

[Red1966]

a pension program is a contract. if the contract cannot be fulfilled by the company, then the company is in default and MUST pay up or be forced to pay by the courts even if that means the company and it's shareholders go tits up. i if decide i cant afford my car payments or my mortgage i cant simply say, sorry bro, the deal is off, but im keeping the car and the house. the employees fulfilled their part of the contract, the company is now obliged to do what they promised. legally, morally and ethically. the bankruptcy court is WRONG if they propose that the more powerful party (the employer) can simply change the contract at their own discretion.

That's what bankruptcy courts do.

 

[Red1966]

Which is precisely why there is so much talk to pension reform these days. It is a flawed system. It is based on the theory of ever increasing revenues whether it be government or private. There ultimately will be a day of reckoning. Which in today's economy seems to be now. The increase in the CEO's salary, although unjust, did not ultimately lead to the bankruptcy of the company. Declining revenues from a decrease in junk food consumption and the strike did the company in.

You can take your partisan hackery and leave, please. -jk-

 

[Red1966]

I agree that the increase in exec compensation did not suffice to sink the company. It contributed however, and it provided a clear indicator of their collective attitude. As for pension reform, I'll admit i didn't read much about that. Just so long as the "reform" leaves pensions agreed-upon prior to it "grandfathered", sacrosanct. The corporation entered into an obligation to provide it, and I don't care if they have to borrow the money from Sergio Eight Fingers, they have to honor it. Imagine the weight of legal uh-oh an employee experiences when he breaks a contract with the company. I will not countenance pension reform that reduces the provider's liability. That is the whole point of a pension: reliable assets in the future. cn

Perhaps in an ideal world, but we do not live in an ideal world. If you have a company pension, you're basically invested in that company. If the company goes belly up, usually, tho not always, so does your pension. Assuming your pension is reliable is a mistake. Demanding the company borrow to pay the pensions is unrealistic. The company may not be able to borrow the money. This is why they created 401k's, because too many pension funds were unable to meet their obligations.

 

[cannabineer]

Perhaps in an ideal world, but we do not live in an ideal world. If you have a company pension, you're basically invested in that company. If the company goes belly up, usually, tho not always, so does your pension. Assuming your pension is reliable is a mistake. Demanding the company borrow to pay the pensions is unrealistic. The company may not be able to borrow the money. This is why they created 401k's, because too many pension funds were unable to meet their obligations.

Are you sure about this? The pensions I've seen are held by a third party in a fiduciary relationship. I can agree that once a company goes under, it can no longer pay into the pension. But the insurance/investment firms that hold and administer the pensions are rather stable entities, unless they choose to snort the CDO cocaine.
A pension is a guarantee, and it survives the sponsoring firm. I consider it to be a deep wrongness that companies can even place themselves in a position to raid the pension fund. I would feel thus if I were plainly to the left or the right of my current spot near the center.
I have both a pension and a 401(k) from my old firm. I expect both to be available to me, even should the firm get dismantled by the ferment of the business world. cn

 

[ChesusRice]

Perhaps in an ideal world, but we do not live in an ideal world. If you have a company pension, you're basically invested in that company. If the company goes belly up, usually, tho not always, so does your pension. Assuming your pension is reliable is a mistake. Demanding the company borrow to pay the pensions is unrealistic. The company may not be able to borrow the money. This is why they created 401k's, because too many pension funds were unable to meet their obligations.

401k's were never meant to retire on. 401k plans were pay incentives for middle age managers to get tax free income

 

[Red1966]

Are you sure about this? The pensions I've seen are held by a third party in a fiduciary relationship. I can agree that once a company goes under, it can no longer pay into the pension. But the insurance/investment firms that hold and administer the pensions are rather stable entities, unless they choose to snort the CDO cocaine. A pension is a guarantee, and it survives the sponsoring firm. I consider it to be a deep wrongness that companies can even place themselves in a position to raid the pension fund. I would feel thus if I were plainly to the left or the right of my current spot near the center. I have both a pension and a 401(k) from my old firm. I expect both to be available to me, even should the firm get dismantled by the ferment of the business world. cn

Generally, the company can borrow from the pension funds. If the company goes under or otherwise can't pay the loan back, the pension is shit out of luck. The "third party" may be influenced by the company, the workers union, or may honestly believe loaning the company funds to keep it afloat is a good investment (they may get higher than normal interest) or that is a good thing to keep the employees working. There were tons of pension funds that couldn't meet their obligations in the 70's, so the gov. came up with 401k's. Even those aren't guaranteed.

 

[ChesusRice]

Generally, the company can borrow from the pension funds. If the company goes under or otherwise can't pay the loan back, the pension is shit out of luck. The "third party" may be influenced by the company, the workers union, or may honestly believe loaning the company funds to keep it afloat is a good investment (they may get higher than normal interest) or that is a good thing to keep the employees working. There were tons of pension funds that couldn't meet their obligations in the 70's, so the gov. came up with 401k's. Even those aren't guaranteed.

Goverment didnt come up with 401k's
They just came up with the tax scheme
Companies used the tax loop hole to funnel extra compensation tax free to their executives

 

[Red1966]

401k's were never meant to retire on. 401k plans were pay incentives for middle age managers to get tax free income

You pay taxes on your 401k. You can't draw the money until you retire. There is no minimum age for a 401k. Your statements were all false.