- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
Well, to be fair on the Union, the workers did accept a 22% pay cut, aswell as cuts to benefits (Healthcare etc.) when the company last went broke 5 years ago. This time they were asking for even more pay cuts, whilst those at the top were getting pay and bonus increases. This was despite the failure to revive the company from the previous bankruptcy (Despite big concessions from the union), or recognise that they were in a declining market and they should change their product lines to match consumer needs.
I can't blame the Executives, the company was crashing and burning, they didn't have the capital to reverse the declining growth of the company. But to expect the workers/union to take all the flak for the insolvency of the company is complete rubbish.
I know if I had to take a 20% pay cut and the top managers were taking increases, i'd be pretty uncooperative too. It doesn't matter if the bonuses/pay increases were only a drop in the ocean compared to the debt the company has, it's the principle of it; it's blatantly unfair.
I had no idea that the executives were actually getting pay increases, as the rest were getting cuts in pay & benefits. I guess the key question here is, had these executives not received raises, or maybe even taken pay cut, would that have made much difference in a company with 18,000+ employees? I somehow doubt that.
As for the workers continually paying the price, while executives getting pay raises is a complete joke, and I don't think anybody disagrees with that. Unfortunately, I think the public is pretty much used to such news these days.
Still, I think my point still stands. Company was struggling. Union workers chose to stay. Instead of looking for another trade, or another job, I think they made impossible demands leading to Hostess shutting down.