Skip to main content

View Diary: New Hostess Brands blacklisting union workers falsely accused of demise of Old Hostess (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the truth is........... (0+ / 0-)

    Here's the reality folks. Rayburn made it clear that if the deal was not accepted, they would shut. The deal was not accepted and they shut. Who likes a giveback? No one I know.

    Now who likes gong from $39,000 per year down to $34,500 that would go up to $37,000 in year five with seniority as well as up to $15,000 in OT, a CBA, benes and a job versus struggling to find a $10 an hour job with nothing but a paycheck of $300 take home? So for those who say it was 'the right thing to do' by cutting off your nose to spite your face because you hate the company, explain how that works. Tell me how you explain to your family you went from a full dinner to pork-n-beans because some bloated,self-serving slob told you to walk. Explain the upside of being a tool and a lemming for Hurt. And here is how stupid the strikers were. They made the debtors more money at the end. They drove up the price thanks to the run on Twinkies when we closed. You have to be a stupid fool to listen to some BA to tell you to throw your job away because of a pissing match between Rayburn and Hurt. BCTGM are morons for walking. Screw the 'working man standing up to corporate America' crap. And those idiots black-balled themselves. What HR manager will hire a former Hostess baker who walked?

    •  also wrong... (0+ / 0-)

      Your scenario assumes that that the bakeries that accepted new cuts would remain open after a sale to new owners, and that the new owners would fully honor the promises made by the old owners. Thats wrong.

      Also wrong is the headline of this post. New owners of Twinkies have said they would not sign a contract with the union prior to opening the bakeries, not that they would blackball former union members who applied for jobs.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site