[Harry Rex Vonner]

Be sure and buy a Papa John's pizza today.

[TheRealThing]

Yes, I have been reading a few parts of it, and most of what is being told here is false. Most of you report from conservative type places, and I was pointing out that if you want to post, find it in the official ACA site, and post it from there, not the Washington examiner, or Fox News. It has all parts of the ACA listed on the website.

LOL, the dominos are falling. An American food industry icon just announced the loss of 18,500 more jobs. Union demands for enhanced benefits and/or wages along with the strangling effects of the ObamaCare mandates, have dealt the killing blow to Hostess. Seems like the managers at Hostess have been reading a few parts of it too. Their interpretation must be flawed though, cause they seem to think they can't stay in business anymore.

[TheRealVille]

LOL, the dominos are falling. An American food industry icon just announced the loss of 18,500 more jobs. Union demands for enhanced benefits and/or wages along with the strangling effects of the ObamaCare mandates, have dealt the killing blow to Hostess. Seems like the managers at Hostess have been reading a few parts of it too. Their interpretation must be flawed though, cause they seem to think they can't stay in business anymore.

When you mismanage your company for decades, file bankruptcy twice, you just blame the unions for your failure. Yea, I get it. Their products made people fat anyway. Very unhealthy.

[TheRealThing]

When you mismanage your company for decades, file bankruptcy twice, you just blame the unions for your failure. Yea, I get it. Their products made people fat anyway. Very unhealthy.

LOL, There is a couple of conditions you need to look up, rationalization, and living in denial. How unhealthy will the loss of 18,500 high paying jobs be for their families and the American economy?

[TheRealVille]

LOL, There is a couple of conditions you need to look up, rationalization, and living in denial. How unhealthy will the loss of 18,500 high paying jobs be for their families and the American economy?

You do realize that the company was already in bankruptcy before the week long strike, right?

[TheRealThing]

You do realize that the company was already in bankruptcy before the week long strike, right?

What I realize is that Obama's oppressive business policies will force more and more folks to shut their doors just like I have been saying. Obviously, those whose margins are the closest will hit the road first. For the more healthy companies, it will more a decision to wait out the new direction America has taken under the zombies who are pulling all the levers right now. Possibly to throw their hat back in the ring after the nightmare is over, hopefully in 2014.

[Beetle01]

The overwhelming majority of people will grow to loathe Obamacare when it takes full effect. Wait until the doctor shortages kick in and long lines queue up for common surgeries like hip replacements. That is what has happened everywhere the government has taken over healthcare. Single payer is Obama's goal and it will become a reality because the law encourages people to make decisions that will eventually put most insurance companies out of business.

As for links, I was just pointing out that RV often posts links that he has not read to support his positions. He just assumes that what Obama has whispered in his ear is true and then tells people who doubt him to read a few thousand pages of legalese. So, links do not lend credibility to a poster unless he or she already has credibility. When I post links, I almost always include excerpts to show that I have at least read enough of an article to recognize the relevant part that supports my argument.

I don't see MD shortages occuring as you say. Which is why there is going to be such a large growth in the PA and NP field. The future will be seeing MD's for the critical things and specialties, while seeing PA's and NP's for the common things, colds, flu, stomach aches, and follow ups. When you go to have your heart cath or surgery, the MD will see you, but following that you will mainly be face to face with the NP's, while the MD reviews your chart and any changes.

This will benefit everybody. The MD's will be able to focus more on the serious cases, while the clients receive faster and less expensive care. Anything short of dying, I go and see the NP's or PA's.

As far as the long lines for hip replacements?? I'm not sure what you are talking about? Maybe it is due to your lack of experience in the medical field, but more people are not going to be needing hip replacements now that they have insurance, and if you think there are people out there that go without them due to insurance, then you truly do not understand how our current health care system works. (maybe there are some cases, but not enough to be statistically relevant.)

This applies to any type of major surgery or procedure. If you have no insurance, and go into the ED at any local hospital in this area with chest pain, EKG comes back and shows acute MI, you will get your heart cath, stents, pacer, whatever is needed, and follow ups to ensure you are recovering if you survive.

I know many talk about paying for people's insurance, my point is that you ALREADY PAY FOR IT. Those costs that are absorbed by the hospital and MD's are just passed on to those with insurance.

Now let's say acute MI guy would have had insurance all along, when he was having health problems for the last 2 years, he maybe could have went to a doctor, got put on some meds, and never had his MI, this would maybe have cost a couple thousand (maybe less), instead of the hundred+ thousand that was spent.

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't see MD shortages occuring as you say. Which is why there is going to be such a large growth in the PA and NP field. The future will be seeing MD's for the critical things and specialties, while seeing PA's and NP's for the common things, colds, flu, stomach aches, and follow ups. When you go to have your heart cath or surgery, the MD will see you, but following that you will mainly be face to face with the NP's, while the MD reviews your chart and any changes.

This will benefit everybody. The MD's will be able to focus more on the serious cases, while the clients receive faster and less expensive care. Anything short of dying, I go and see the NP's or PA's.

As far as the long lines for hip replacements?? I'm not sure what you are talking about? Maybe it is due to your lack of experience in the medical field, but more people are not going to be needing hip replacements now that they have insurance, and if you think there are people out there that go without them due to insurance, then you truly do not understand how our current health care system works. (maybe there are some cases, but not enough to be statistically relevant.)

This applies to any type of major surgery or procedure. If you have no insurance, and go into the ED at any local hospital in this area with chest pain, EKG comes back and shows acute MI, you will get your heart cath, stents, pacer, whatever is needed, and follow ups to ensure you are recovering if you survive.

I know many talk about paying for people's insurance, my point is that you ALREADY PAY FOR IT. Those costs that are absorbed by the hospital and MD's are just passed on to those with insurance.

Now let's say acute MI guy would have had insurance all along, when he was having health problems for the last 2 years, he maybe could have went to a doctor, got put on some meds, and never had his MI, this would maybe have cost a couple thousand (maybe less), instead of the hundred+ thousand that was spent.

Beetle, you obviously have more experience in the medical field than I do - I have none, but you have the same amount of experience in a government run system as I do. Socialized medicine, which is the goal of liberal Democrats, has always resulted in longer waiting times and reduced quality of care everywhere that it has been implemented. That is why so many people from around the world have traveled to the U.S. for medical treatment.

You are correct in asserting that the cost of providing care for the uninsured is already being passed on to those of us who have insurance and pay income taxes, but the difference that is coming with Obamacare is the increased interference of the federal government in the free market system. When government attempts to control costs, costs go up and shortages result. Do you believe that more than $700 billion can be cut from Medicare without impacting the quality of care for its recipients?

Capitalism is the most efficient way of controlling costs and matching the availability of goods and services with the demand for those goods and services. Massive government regulations creates shortages, rationing, and black markets. Medical care is no different in that regard than any other service.

Obamacare is all about creating new bureaucrats that will generally support Democratic politicians and the transfer of money and power from the private to the government sector. The government does not create wealth, it consumes it.

[Do-double-gg]

Is it just me or are we getting to a point where we are starting to blame the people in the class above us and who make more money for all our problems. AT one point or another if you trace the history of just about every successful buisness you will probably find a person who had a dream and a little money and went out and made that buisness what it is today. Every person in this country has the oppertunity if they are willing to do what it takes and work hard to be successful. You can't look at the people in this country today and then look me in the eye and say that this country hasn't got a little lazy. Back in the day people were proud of a little hard work but I see a lot of people who want it right now and don't want to work hard to get it. I believe we have an epidemic of people abusing things like welfare and disability. I see it every day. I know of about 5 people just on the block where I live who are on disability who are just as able as me to work. They will even brag about it like, hey look at me I just got one over on the government but then I bring up the fact that the money comes from the taxpayer and they don't want to talk to me anymore. I can and do try to turn every person in that I can and I think we all know people who do this and you should turn em in also.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

When you mismanage your company for decades, file bankruptcy twice, you just blame the unions for your failure. Yea, I get it. Their products made people fat anyway. Very unhealthy.

Obscene union contracts cause the failure of more companies who must deal with unions than any other single cause. Unions and their leaders have two absolute traits: they are greedy and they are less than bright.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

You do realize that the company was already in bankruptcy before the week long strike, right?

Certainly. They were in Reorganization Bankruptcy (Chapter 11). And you do realize what was the single most material cause of the bankruptcies, don't you? Union contracts. Their sales were fine. Their labor commitment was obscene.

As a point of fact, General Motors and Chrysler should have gone through reorganization in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy rather than in a manipulated bailout. Of course, your boy had to play his usual kissie butt with the unions. So, to hades with the general public and GM creditors. The boy had to protect those precious, but unconscionable, union contracts. Community agitators are always cut from the same mold as union thugs.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Need an example of the idiocy in the union contract with Hostess? Did you know that the contract forbids the delivery of Wonder Bread and Twinkies in the same delivery truck? Did you know that separate workers must be used to stack Wonder Bread and Twinkies on the shelves of each store?

[Hoot Gibson]

Is it just me or are we getting to a point where we are starting to blame the people in the class above us and who make more money for all our problems. AT one point or another if you trace the history of just about every successful buisness you will probably find a person who had a dream and a little money and went out and made that buisness what it is today. Every person in this country has the oppertunity if they are willing to do what it takes and work hard to be successful. You can't look at the people in this country today and then look me in the eye and say that this country hasn't got a little lazy. Back in the day people were proud of a little hard work but I see a lot of people who want it right now and don't want to work hard to get it. I believe we have an epidemic of people abusing things like welfare and disability. I see it every day. I know of about 5 people just on the block where I live who are on disability who are just as able as me to work. They will even brag about it like, hey look at me I just got one over on the government but then I bring up the fact that the money comes from the taxpayer and they don't want to talk to me anymore. I can and do try to turn every person in that I can and I think we all know people who do this and you should turn em in also.

Just the gullible morons who voted for Obama. Even in Russia, the Bolsheviks constituted a small minority when they seized power using class warfare. In this country, a small majority of voters voluntarily gave the country over to a Marxist without a fight. Pretending to be a part of the middle class as they work to destroy it is one of Saul Alinsky's "rules for radicals," and Obama applies the rule in almost every speech that he gives. Obama's power is derived from the parasite class, not the middle class.

[TheRealVille]

Here is why the strike happened.

The recent claim by Hostess CEO Greg Rayburn that a strike by members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers (BCTGM) is forcing the cake maker to close three of its bakeries is a classic example of a corporation turning on its employees in the midst of a bankruptcy restructuring.

According to documents filed with the bankruptcy court earlier this year, Hostess was planning to close at least nine bakeries as part of its reorganization plan, although the company refused until recently to disclose which bakeries it intended to close.

St. Louis, MO Mayor Francis Slay also rejected the claim by Hostess that the closures were related to the strike. “I was told months ago they were planning on closing the site in St. Louis,” said Slay. “And there was no indication at that time it had anything to do with the strike the workers were waging.”

Responding to the statement by Hostess, BCTGM President Frank Hurt declared, “The recent claim by Hostess CEO Greg Rayburn that our strike is the reason for the closure of the three bakeries is simply not true,” said Hurt. “That statement is a continuation of a disturbing pattern by the company of issuing public statements that are erroneous at best and disingenuous at worst.”

BCTGM members voted to strike Hostess after the company imposed cuts that included ending payments to the employees’ pension plan while executives awarded themselves massive bonuses. Among the raises was a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) for the then-CEO of Hostess. At least nine other top executives of the company also received massive pay raises, including one who received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one that brought his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

In the latest effort by Hostess to break the strike, a Hostess spokesperson declared on November 14, “If the strikes do not end soon, we will move to liquidate the company. And we’re talking about a matter of days, not weeks.”

http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imail/lat...-on-strike

[Hoot Gibson]

Here is why the strike happened.



http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imail/lat...-on-strike

Straight from union HQ. :biglmao:

A majority of former Hostess employees stood their ground and refused to take pay cuts to save the company and now 100 percent of them are unemployed. Most likely, non-union bakers will be making Twinkees and Ho-Hos soon and the taste will be just as sweet.

Poor management leads companies to sign union contracts that they cannot afford. In the end, both management and employees suffer the loss of their jobs.

[TheRealVille]

Straight from union HQ. :biglmao:

A majority of former Hostess employees stood their ground and refused to take pay cuts to save the company and now 100 percent of them are unemployed. Most likely, non-union bakers will be making Twinkees and Ho-Hos soon and the taste will be just as sweet.

Poor management leads companies to sign union contracts that they cannot afford. In the end, both management and employees suffer the loss of their jobs.

Find you an article that says that isn't the reason that the workers went on strike, that the execs weren't giving themselves massive raises, and that Hostess wasn't already planning to close the 9 stores that the article states. If you don't trust my link as true, find one that states otherwise, then we can compare. Is Hostess the only side to be trusted?


I googled "hostess executives" and got this :,
http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...8&oe=UTF-8

[TheRealVille]

On January 10, 2012, Hostess Brands filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for the second time. In a statement in its filing, the company said it "is not competitive, primarily due to legacy pension and medical benefit obligations and restrictive work rules." The company said it employs 19,000 people and carries more than $860 million in debt. The company said it would continue to operate with $75 million debtor-in-possession financing from Monarch Alternative Capital, Silver Point Capital and other investors.[5]
Television talk show hostess Wendy Williams started a "Save The Twinkie" publicity campaign shortly after the bankruptcy filing.[19] The campaign included promotions on The Wendy Williams Show.[20]
In March 2012, Brian Driscoll resigned from his position as CEO.[21] Gregory Rayburn, who had been hired and named Chief Restructuring Officer only nine days earlier, assumed the leadership position. Fortune reported that unions within the organization had been unhappy with Driscoll's proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million "long term compensation" package. Additionally, the court had discovered that Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year prior. In an effort to restore relations, Rayburn cut the salaries of the four top Hostess executives to $1, to be restored on January 1 the following year.[22]
In July 2012, the New York Post reported that negotiations (led by Silver Point Capital) with the Teamsters Union were close to a possible agreement that could allow Hostess Brands to cut employee pay and benefits, if the company maintained funding of existing pension plans.[23] In May, all 19,000 workers had been warned (as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) that they could face a mass layoff. In an email to the Appeal-Democrat Hostess spokesman Erik Halvorson said that the May notices were to alert employees to possible sale or wind down of the company, but that "our goal is still to emerge from bankruptcy as a growing company with a strong future."[24] These layoff notices listed the dates as July 7–21, but on July 5 another company spokesman told the Financial News & Daily Record that there were no immediate plans to start laying off Hostess employees.[25]
In November 2012, Hostess employees nationwide went on strike. The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers' International Union, which represents 6,600 Hostess employees, took the strike action after the latest contract proposal from Hostess Brands was rejected by 92 percent of its members. In response, Hostess Brands issued the following statement: "A widespread strike will cause Hostess brands to liquidate if we are unable to produce or deliver products. If that's the case, the company will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,300-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders. We urge our employees to remain on the job to rebuild the company."[26]
On November 16, 2012, Hostess announced that it was ceasing plant operations and laying off most of its 18,500 employees. It stated that it intended to sell off all of its assets, including the well known brand names, and liquidate.[27][28] The CEO, Gregory F. Rayburn, stated, "Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders."[29][30]
However, in order to actually liquidate, it needs the permission of U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Drain.[31

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Brands

[TheRealVille]

^This doesn't bode well with the "anti union" model, so I fully expect people here to claim it's just more liberal media.

[Hoot Gibson]

Find you an article that says that isn't the reason that the workers went on strike, that the execs weren't giving themselves massive raises, and that Hostess wasn't already planning to close the 9 stores that the article states. If you don't trust my link as true, find one that states otherwise, then we can compare. Is Hostess the only side to be trusted?


I googled "hostess executives" and got this :,
http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...8&oe=UTF-8

All that matters to me is that the union refused an offer from a bankrupt company that would have saved their jobs and now there are 18,000 mouths that the rest of us will be feeding. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Obama's economic policies will continue to destroy jobs because his most enthusiastic supporters are the ones without jobs who buy into his class warfare rhetoric.

[TheRealThing]

Here is why the strike happened.



http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imail/lat...-on-strike

:hilarious: And who were the genuis union leaders that encouraged the membership to strike for even more wages and benefits in the middle of a restructuring bankruptcy action? Because of course, ultimately it was way better for the rank and file to lose everything by striking right now, than to take the high road and give managers an opportunity to get the house in order before they dropped the hammer.

[Hoot Gibson]

:hilarious: And who were the genuis union leaders that encouraged the membership to strike for even more wages and benefits in the middle of a restructuring bankruptcy action? Because of course, ultimately it was way better for the rank and file to lose everything by striking right now, than to take the high road and give managers an opportunity to get the house in order before they dropped the hammer.

Those union leaders sure showed Hostess and its greedy managers. Taking away the People's Twinkies and Ho-Hos is no way for unions to gain sympathy from consumers. nicker:

I have never allowed myself to fret over what other people in my company earn. If a person is not satisfied with their own compensation, then they need to either ask for a promotion or raise or find a company that will pay them for what they believe their work is worth.

[TheRealVille]

^ Would you be mad if they were cutting your salary, and benefits, while giving themselves massive raises? The major difference is that Hostess signed a contract.

[WideRight05]

^ Would you be mad if they were cutting your salary, and benefits, while giving themselves massive raises? The major difference is that Hostess signed a contract.

I blame this one more on the union, but I will go along with your line of reasoning. If my pay and benefits were being cut by people who were giving themselves massive raises, I would look around and find another job. Despite the tough economy, if you go at it full force you will be able to find a solid job somewhere.

[Hoot Gibson]

^ Would you be mad if they were cutting your salary, and benefits, while giving themselves massive raises? The major difference is that Hostess signed a contract.

If I was mad, then I would start looking for another job. I would not deliberately destroy my own opportunity to earn a living. You speak as if executive compensation only affects union employees. Good managers earn the pay that they receive. I have no idea whether the current managers at Hostess were doing a bad job or if they were executives who were hired to turn around a bad situation. I don't really care enough about the issue to research it. Those affected are a small sample of the millions of people who have found themselves unemployed or have left the workforce since Obama took the oath of office. They will not be the last.

I have worked in a company that had far too many vice presidents working 9 to 5 in comfortable offices, while those who were putting in long hours - both union members and white collar professionals - were being laid off throughout the company. That company also shacked itself by signing some very bad UMWA contracts over the years and by establishing ever worse "past practices" at local operations. My reaction was to find a job with a better managed company that had a brighter future.

I will leave it to you to continue to find people to blame for this country's anemic economy instead of placing the blame where it belongs. You are well suited to the task.

[TheRealVille]

I blame this one more on the union, but I will go along with your line of reasoning. If my pay and benefits were being cut by people who were giving themselves massive raises, I would look around and find another job. Despite the tough economy, if you go at it full force you will be able to find a solid job somewhere.

You are leaving out the contract part, though. Hostess didn't have to sign a contract with them, but once they do, there should be no reason for the workers to find another job. Again, there is no law on any book that makes Hostess hire union employees, they did that on their own.

[TheRealVille]

If I was mad, then I would start looking for another job. I would not deliberately destroy my own opportunity to earn a living. You speak as if executive compensation only affects union employees. Good managers earn the pay that they receive. I have no idea whether the current managers at Hostess were doing a bad job or if they were executives who were hired to turn around a bad situation. I don't really care enough about the issue to research it. Those affected are a small sample of the millions of people who have found themselves unemployed or have left the workforce since Obama took the oath of office. They will not be the last.

I have worked in a company that had far too many vice presidents working 9 to 5 in comfortable offices, while those who were putting in long hours - both union members and white collar professionals - were being laid off throughout the company. That company also shacked itself by signing some very bad UMWA contracts over the years and by establishing ever worse "past practices" at local operations. My reaction was to find a job with a better managed company that had a brighter future.

I will leave it to you to continue to find people to blame for this country's anemic economy instead of placing the blame where it belongs. You are well suited to the task.

And I'll leave it to you to continually blame all of companies' problems on union workers.

[Hoot Gibson]

And I'll leave it to you to continually blame all of companies' problems on union workers.

Why do you even bother responding to posts that you either have not read or do not understand? It makes you look foolish. My post, which was not even a long one, detailed my own experience with a mismanaged company having too many chiefs for the number of Indianas, yet you dishonestly state that I blame all problems on union workers. Did you lie or just misunderstand what you read? :hilarious:

[TheRealVille]

Why do you even bother responding to posts that you either have not read or do not understand? It makes you look foolish. My post, which was not even a long one, detailed my own experience with a mismanaged company having too many chiefs for the number of Indianas, yet you dishonestly state that I blame all problems on union workers. Did you lie or just misunderstand what you read? :hilarious:

Misread. You have in the past put most of the blame on unions when companies fail, or layoff.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Here is why the strike happened.



http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imail/lat...-on-strike

Your cites have always been dubious at best. This one is hilarious. Who would believe anything from these parasites.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

And I'll leave it to you to continually blame all of companies' problems on union workers.

No one is placing the blame on union workers. Now the Neanderthal leaders of the unions are something else. Your boy, Trumka, is a perfect example of the Neanderthal mentality. He is also a good example of social promotion in our public schools and colleges. Check out his salary and benefits.