Breitbart
It’s come to this
Lamont Phillips, an employee, said the company had been, “holding this over our head for a long time,” and he was relieved he did not “have to deal with that anymore.”
“They always hold that over our heads, that they’ll close it down,” he said. “So, I’m like, ‘OK. Close it down.’”
Phillips said his potential layoff was a “relief” and his “plan is to find another job.”
“We have unemployment, but nobody wants unemployment without the health benefits. So, we’re pretty much going to find another job,” Phillips said.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Wow those folks are complete asshats.
dogsoldier on November 18, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Destroying a company is a victory? Wow totally clueless.
dogsoldier on November 18, 2012 at 12:34 PM
oops sorry for the double post
dogsoldier on November 18, 2012 at 12:34 PM
I hope you have lots of problems finding another job phillips and everyone else involved! I hope if you get a job with another business that has to deal with union thugs like you and you lose that job by ‘sticking to your crater the business’ as you did hostess! I have zero use for union thugs!
L
letget on November 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Interesting article…their “so what” attitude may be proof that we’ve actually tipped to the recipient society completely..
No worries, the government will see that my needs are met…Think about it, any of them that own a home know dam* well they won’t have to move OR make the mortgage payments for years, if they are renting they can get rent assistance, they can get all the food they want via EBT, unemployment checks for God knows how long (it’s bound to be extended)free cell phones, and a myriad of other helpful government programs..
It’ll be like a paid permanent vacation for them..on our dime of course…
Tim Zank on November 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM
After months of watching the anti-Romney and anti-Bain ads I though for sure when you lost your job you might as well be dead.
Weird the difference in the outlook./
CW on November 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Check back with them in 3 months and see if they’re ‘relieved’ then.
michaelo on November 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM
We all may be Hostess soon.
President Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is considering a rule that would force private businesses to turn over their workers’ personal information — such as phone numbers, email addresses, and work schedules — to union organizers.
While this rule would be intended to make it easier for union bosses to organize workers at businesses that do not have a union presence, it would also have the unintended effect of making workers vulnerable to harassment.
The Heritage Foundation’s James Sherk argued this will allow union organizers to bother workers even after the worker tells an organizer “no” by bombarding them with phone calls, emails, and visits to their home.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has already said unions would demand card-check legislation from Obama during his second term. Card-check would essentially end secret ballot elections and force workers to vote on whether or not to join a union in front of their colleagues and union bosses, making them more susceptible to peer pressure, harassment, and intimidation.
In addition, the Labor Department is considering forcing “companies to reveal relationships with so-called union-busting consulting companies even if the companies have no contact with workers.” Such a rule could deter these consulting firms from working with private businesses to combat unions.
Akzed on November 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Unions = extortion outfits
darwin on November 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Well remember, from their perspective, should management get any hint that labor is willing to take wage cuts while keeping productivity steady, they will cut wages whether they have to or not. From their perspective, it is better to hold the line on exploitation, to accept no lessening of their living standard, even if it means one company goes under. For some firms, like the anachronistic Hostess, this means the end. For others, like Walmart or Apple, this can mean a cut in their bottom line, but not the end.
ernesto on November 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Of course they will… all their government funded benefits will have kicked in. Let’s see a year from now, when they find out that there’s not much of a demand for a person who wants a lot of money and benefits for a very limited skill set.
Hill60 on November 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Heh. Let’s artificially close down a whole bunch of businesses – that’ll mean oodles of “open doors”.
No wonder Obama won – the looters are in charge.
batter on November 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM
Are we talking about Hostess or Walmart?
Sheesh.
CW on November 18, 2012 at 1:03 PM
Simple question – If the country reaches 10.0% unemployment (reported number), who will be upset by it?
If you rule out those who know they will receive government money, those that already have a job, the media, the unions and the White House, that leaves those pesky small business owners who rely on discretionary income to keep their businesses afloat.
salem on November 18, 2012 at 1:06 PM
What a nut.
Outrageous pay and benefits drive up the cost of a company’s product making everything more expensive, especially for the middle class and low income. Between unions and the EPA new cars have been priced out of the grasp of many people.
All increases in the cost of doing business are passed on to the consumer. Outrageous union demands, higher taxes and increased regulatory costs. Democrats and their policies make people poorer. They then blame it all on Republicans and demand even more government intrusion making everything worse.
darwin on November 18, 2012 at 1:07 PM
Er, certain labor decreases in value over time as new demands, efficiencies, and skill sets are valued higher in other areas. By your reasoning, wages should only increase regardless of market/consumer valuation and companies should be forced to shut down. Suits me – lets shut down virtually all low-skilled manufacturing businesses as I’m expect that their wages have not kept up with inflation and cost of living. That will be a boon to the economy and workers, right?
batter on November 18, 2012 at 1:09 PM
If unions get their way and unionize Walmart workers, then the entire reason that people shop at Walmart … low prices … will evaporate. Sure Walmart workers will get more stuff, but they will have screwed the people who rely on Walmart to stretch their paycheck.
Way to go unions!
darwin on November 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM
…and the same people scream about companies moving production offshore and accuse those who stay in the US of ‘price gouging’ because their products cost more. It’s a catch 22.
batter on November 18, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Yeah…I’m always relieved when the boat I’m on sinks.
Geez…are these people serious with this “victory” claim they are making? Or is this just the union’s spin they’re sticking with?
lynncgb on November 18, 2012 at 1:15 PM
They have a point, as I posted yesterday at Breitbart. In this economy it sucks to lose a job but if you’re pretty sure it’s going to happen sooner or later then sooner is better. Several years ago I worked for a company in a bankruptcy situation for over a year and it wasn’t pleasant. Everything was on hold, no raises, no new projects, no careers moving forward. The bankruptcy didn’t involve unions but rather was due to mismanagement on high corporate levels. We all knew layoffs were coming and for those of us who hadn’t yet bailed, when it finally happened we were relieved and happy to leave that place. We also had a well-financed chunk of time to find other jobs. It was a WARN notice layoff so we collected paychecks for two months for no work, severance and unemployment compensation. That may not be true for these people, but still, if you’ve never been in that situation you have no idea what it feels like.
stukinIL4now on November 18, 2012 at 1:16 PM
I’ve been there too. Rather than wait, I looked for a new job and moved on but everyone handles change differently. However, the above situation isn’t like yours either. The union was effectively in control and decided to break the business. If anything, the union created the stress in the situation.
batter on November 18, 2012 at 1:24 PM
Seems the union leaders aren’t doing too bad.
darwin on November 18, 2012 at 1:25 PM
Trumka needs to go hang out with Hoffa.
BallisticBob on November 18, 2012 at 1:30 PM
Can you not see that this is an imbalance that needs correcting? How is it that wages must fall because prices must fall, but those prices are only falling because wages are falling? If this is a vicious cycle, labor will eventually throw a wrench in the whole thing.
ernesto on November 18, 2012 at 1:32 PM
Where does this happen? If anything, the only opinion I’ve heard of domestic products being more expensive is that it’s worth it to pay more for local products.
ernesto on November 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Now that the unions have destroyed the company, looks like Mexicans are ready to move in and take it at a discount. They don’t need those factories. Just the brands, the recipes, the equipment
They already have lots of Mexicans willing to work
Does this imply the Twinkies would have to be made in Mexico to utilize the no tariff sugar. Hmmmm
entagor on November 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM
They better hope any potential employer doesn’t search the Internet for their name.
Moron.
29Victor on November 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM
The “imbalance” was created by unions and democrat policies.
darwin on November 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM
That’s not true if the market is competitive. If a company tries to paas the costs on by raising prices, a competitor will just undercut them.Simple econ 101.
red_herring on November 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM
A very dishonest headline by Brietbart. And I strongly doubt the story is representative of most ex-employees.
paul1149 on November 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Resignation to tragedy is a psychological self preservation mechanism.
Just like resigning my self to the fall of this nation via Obamanomics brought on by changing demographics..
The populace of today is not what it was when we built this great nation so, soon we will be 2nd and then 3rd world.
esnap on November 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM
How? If wages increased through the 70′s, 80′s, and 90′s, which democrat policy, which union negotiation, stopped wage growth?
ernesto on November 18, 2012 at 2:13 PM
You clearly have no experience running a business or even helping to manage one.
You imply that Hostess wanted to have its twinkie and eat it – that they told the workers to suck up a temporary pay cut as a ruse to what? Pull one over on the workers?
From Hostess’s position that idea is the equivalent of milking a grenade. There are PLENTY of non-union shops in Omerica where people have taken temporary wage cuts and benefit cuts to avoid mass layoffs or total liquidation.
One union shafted these people and they are going to understand that eventually. Or maybe they won’t and they will join the selling ranks of rent seekers on benefits they don’t particularly need but feel entitled to.
This only ends one way.
CorporatePiggy on November 18, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Swelling ranks.
CorporatePiggy on November 18, 2012 at 2:26 PM
EPA, anti-oil, anti-coal, pro-illegal, pro-ethanol, and endless quantatative easings.
All union negotiations. Unions are archaic. Their entire purpose is to enrich their leadership. Maybe unions should start paying taxes.
darwin on November 18, 2012 at 2:29 PM
You know when is a good time to find a new job? While you have one and can prove to prospective employers that you have valuable skills that another employer vouches for by keeping you employed! MORON
astonerii on November 18, 2012 at 3:10 PM
That was the imbalance, you dope! The labour force started to be paid way more than they were worth.
OldEnglish on November 18, 2012 at 3:39 PM
If a competitor is exempted from the negative regulation, then the first company’s market share shrinks until it goes under. If the competitor also suffers from the same regulations, it is built into their prices as well.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2012 at 4:09 PM