Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Hostess Brands to close as revenge for the striking workers standing up for their rights (351 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes. A non-union shop, or one (12+ / 0-)

    that pays low wages. This is a loss for labor any way you slice it.

    •  Maybe not--I think we are starting to see the (11+ / 0-)

      beginnings of a pushback by workers in this country--more and more strikes, and more workers demanding better wages and working conditions. Companies like Hostess, Wal-mart, and many others may have to adapt or be replaced by companies who value their employees and respect their customers.

      In any case, we are in for a long hard fight.

      •  The simple fact that the economy (4+ / 0-)

        is picking up and unemployment is declining is good for labor. A tighter labor market always leads to better working conditions. When an entire workforce loses their jobs after striking though, that does send a chilled wind toward others considering a long-term strike. It is not a good outcome for anybody.

        •  Then we need to do everything we can to support (4+ / 0-)

          striking workers. I can remember the stories my grandfather and uncles used to tell about the mine strikes in Harlan County, KY. The company men would go as far as attacking the miner's wives and children in order to bully them into backing down. The American people have been bullied by corporate America long enough. If it takes driving some companies out of business in order to secure workers  in this country their rights, then that's what we will have to do.  

          •  I don't think that driving a bunch (5+ / 0-)

            of businesses out of business would ever be a good thing for labor. One message it would send is that labor has gotten much tougher. But the other message it would send is that organized labor is the enemy of business, and on a long-term basis any sensible company should try to shift jobs to non-labor workforces in order to avoid having to face a potentially company-ending strike.

            The labor movement today works best when working with ownership and management. And strikes are fair game. But intentionally driving companies out of business doesn't sound like such a good idea.

            •  If a company has to abuse it's workers and (0+ / 0-)

              rip off it's customers in order to turn a profit and stay in business, then it doesn't deserve to exist. If such a business is offering a product or service that consumers want, then some other competitor will step in and take their place. Workers who were displaced will be able to find jobs with the competition.

              Conditions for workers in America are not going to improve if we are not willing to stand up for ourselves and fight back.

               

            •  Labor doesn't drive businesses bankrupt. (0+ / 0-)

              Let's put away this false narrative that it is labor's fault.  Unions don't strike because just because they can.  They strike because they see unfair labor practices being hoisted upon them by greedy people.  In the case of hostess, the choices for the union were to accept the massive wage concessions (even after having done so before, the company had cheated the union by lying about the investments it was going to do as part of the restructuring) OR striking and hoping that this would induce the company to sit at the table and actually negotiate.  When the company and ownership refuses to work with unions and threaten to shut down, your answer is for the unions to lie down and take it up the a$$.  We see whose side you're on.

        •  Workers didn't organize in the 1930s (0+ / 0-)

          until the economy started to pick up.

        •  I hate raw employment numbers (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah, splintersawry

          they tell so little about the big picture.  Before anyone talks about how employment is going up, consider this:

          Overall, low-wage industries -- defined by NELP as those paying median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83 -- generated 1.7 million jobs over the past two years, or 43 percent of total employment growth in the U.S. (see table at bottom). Middle-income jobs, or those paying $13.84 to $21.13 an hour, contributed only 22 percent of employment growth.
          National Employment Law Project

          These emplyees were making far more than what most new jobs created today are paying.  Less than half, in fact, in most cases.

          That is the economic landscape that awaits them.

          Oregon: Sure...it's cold. But it's a damp cold.

          by Keith930 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:56:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (124)
  • Community (62)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (36)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Environment (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Republicans (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Media (24)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Education (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Congress (16)
  • Labor (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site