What other's have said... WalMart is VERY anti-union and any talk is instantly quashed... they know damn-well that they have crossed many lines that a Union would not allow.
This, incidentally, is also why WalMart's plans to open up in Germany fell through. They refused to pay all the employee rights that law demands of them.
---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 12:07 AM ----------
The sarcasm is very weak with this one...
There's a dumb story out today about how Hostess execs are getting bonuses and how supposedly horrible it is. I call it a dumb article because it doesn't begin to explain why they are getting bonuses nor about why its a good thing. So I thought I'd nutshell it here.
In the corporate world, they have something called "Stay Bonuses".
When a company is basically getting liquidated, top execs naturally start looking to jump ship because there's is no future in their current job. If a mass exodus of the top execs is allowed to occur, it plays havoc with the process of winding down the company. Expertise is needed to help wind the company down and, perhaps more importantly, to preserve the assets knowledgebase that will be sold off to other companies. This expertise is only going to be found within the company.
A specific example would be twinkie manufacturing and distribution. The expertise in the manufacturing, merchandising, and delivering twinkies to the public is a valuable expertise that other companies WILL pay for. But if the top execs all jump ship, that expertise is simply LOST, and the value of the assets of Hostess drops, and that can costs several millions of dollars in lost revenue as you wind down.
As an example, Hostess might be able to recover $40 million by selling their expertise on twinkies to a buyer. But if all the top execs jump ship, the buyer won't pay much of anything beyond the rights to the brand. Further, it will disrupt the process of winding down, making it more inefficient and more costly as all the expertise has left.
So Hostess asks a judge if it can pay top execs a "Stay Bonus". A stay bonus is paid out IF the exec stays with the company all the way to the end.
In this case, Hostess is asking to be able to pay $1.8 million to keep 18 execs on-board, which will ultimately result in a profit when they can sell their expertise to a buyer down the road. This money could ultimately help the workers out as they help wind down operations. They can keep more people on that otherwise would get let go.
Of course, the liberal mainstream press explains NONE of this, and just trashes Hostess and makes them look like the bad guys. "Top execs get big bonuses! Greedy jerks!" is all they say.
If you listen to the mainstream press, you just get dumber with its inane class warfare.
http://gma.yahoo.com/bankrupt-hostes...opstories.html
the same expertise that ran the company into the ground in the first place? yessir, that's one hell of an asset right there.
oh, yeah, we were pinning all the blame on the union... it surely couldnt have anything to do with the company failing to fund its pensions for years, which they were contractually obligated to do. greedy bastards working there for 20 or 30 years and expecting the retirement they were promised. entitlements, rabble rabble, damned liberal media
funny how their profit has been dropping for years now and the announcement of shutdown actually caused them to have a supply & demand problem.
gotta love the herd mentality of western cultures....
actually i do know what i am talking about. if you want to prove me wrong leave the "class warfare" rhetoric in toolbag. none of what you said addressed the fact that they never funded the pensions, or that their demands of the union was that they forgot about the pensions on top of paycuts - after they had already accepted lower salaries
Let's point some things out. The company went through seven CEO's. The workers last year had their pensions cut. The CEO while the company went into bankrupted asked for a 1.8 million dollar bonus. This was a clear drive to drive the company into the ground. It's not even accurate that "No more twinkies" will be here.
Why? Because CNN has reported over 112 serious buyers have contacted the company to BUY it's label and name. Where is this illusion that the unions created this. The workers pay was slashed. They refused to work under horrible conditions. Google the article and you'll find the full information. This is
This is not the case of bad unions. It's very low pay and extras cut so the CEO's could make money
Did no one read in the article where it blames manegment and thanked the people for all the years they put into the company. Everyone just looks at the title and makes wild guesses. I invite you who have not to read the article. Read the number of CEO's they went through in a single year. One CEO when he was hired gave himself a 300 percent raise.
The only fault if anyone is solely on the mangement team. This company will make a ton of money from selling it's brand and people will be paid.
When some people aruge it's liberal media lying on purpose. And most of the network's say the same thing. I tend not to believe that. Look at Bengazi for example. The right wing had a feild day with Susan Rice comments MONTHS after the entire situation. I think the people were just being honest. Could be that it at all?