Posted 16 November 2012 - 14:33
Posted 16 November 2012 - 14:35
Apparently the workers did like their pay and hours and that's why they were protesting. What they didn't like was the company's attempt to force a new contract on them that would change their working conditions. Workers have the right to be treated decently and fairly and to strike if they don't feel that they are. If employers can't accept that then they're in the wrong job.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 15:41
Nope, no effect on those products in Canada. They're manufactured by a separate company here.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:16
Striking because they didn't want a pay cut just shows that they don't understand how the economy works. The company didn't try to force a pay cut on them because the big wigs wanted more money in their pocket. They were getting a pay cut because the entire company can't afford to pay them the same wage due to falling revenue. If the company can't afford to pay them at the same rate, what is is supposed to do? Pay them pretend-money?
Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:17
Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:19
Even the teamsters union that had over 8000 employees at Hostess thought the Bakers Union strike was a bad idea. They had attempted to get the Bakers Union to allow their members to cast secret ballots on the contract but they would not. They insisted on in-person voice voting.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:22
The following is from 2 years ago, so that may not be the case:
"The Irving, Texas-based company has more than 19,000 workers and operates in 49 states and Canada..."
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...bankruptcy.html
Posted 16 November 2012 - 17:09
Oh, you know, they could have started cutting from the top to bottom instead of the other way around.
But these 18,000+ people are better off not working is such a disgrace for a company. So long Hostess, no one will miss you.