So has Obummer said ANYTHING about the loss of 18,000 jobs at Hostess?

You would think that He would at least make some soert of comment about it since he seems to stick his nose into everything else. Why not a word on this? Oh, thats right...he doesnt want to upset the Unions that killed Hostess. Instead he flies off to Asia to sell of our future. Real nice Giggles. THink of only your ultra rich cronies in the Unions.

 

I hate unions also but that isn't the only reason they went out of business.

The company also failed to anticipate market changes and it hurt them. Their main product, Wonder Bread, didn't stay current and lost out to competiton so their revenue dropped significantly. The fact that the union would not accept a 30% reduction in benefits to keep the company viable was simply the last nail in the coffin. They were basically already dead.

I have no issue with paying CEO's millions of dollars as long as they do their job and keep the company competitive but Hostess leaders utterly failed in their job.

 

No, I think it is inappropriate for a President to comment on every occurence in the economy. He should comment on those that stand to make a meaningful difference in American life. Losing Hostess is meaningless. Losing the jobs is what is happening currently because of the meaningful actions of government. That, unfortunately, is happening all over the place and will continue for as long as we have government overspending and quantitative easing.


What Obama should be addressing is the overspending and quantitative easing.

 

Hostess Starts Firing People...

Hostess Begins Firings After Wind-Down Request Approved
Nov 22, 2012 - About 3K will hold on to jobs for a few months

 

I think he's just letting the "market forces" play out. Your hatred for unions tells the story pretty plainly. You must be the CEO of "something"....perhaps a sweatshop in India.

 

Oh, ****. It doesn't matter what he did, you still would find a way to take a crap in his Wheaties.

Your partisan nonsense fools no one.

 

Thats because O'greedy never does whats in AMERICAS best interest..never has

 

Some unions do good for their members, some are just extortionists. I stand by any Union that wants to protect it's members from getting dumped on by their employer.

Would you say that because of the mismanagement of the company by the leaders, the Workers should shoulder the financial loss of the company? Isn't that the shareholder responsibility? the Union wasn't asking for MORE from the company, they just refused to take LESS. If the company went out of business, that was on the company for not staying competitive.

The UNION, itself, does not have a reason to want Hostess to go out of business. They get paid regular dues by all members working there. Those dues aren't subject to increase or decrease based on benefits for the workers. The Union doesn't lose money if the workers take a cut. They do lose money if they lose members due to the company going out of business.

 

What good is a union that deliberately acts to put their membership on the bricks?

 

You are truly one of those entertaining "internet people"!

 

And never will. His goal is to strengthen the formerly colonized 3rd world countries by bringing America down a few levels. It's the anti-colonialist dreams that he got from his father, who he met one time.

 

I sort of agree with you, but mgmnt giving themselves huge raises while asking employees to take huge cuts doesn't fly well with employees, it's unethical

any business that promises employee pensions, but doesn't invest in said pensions today and instead puts it off indefinitely will eventually need to go bk to shed said promises by management

anyone can start a business and promise the world, and then claim bk when it comes time to pay up

.

 

If he did say something you would whine about that.

 

The evil union did give cuts, the company failed to keep it's head above water.
How much more can the employees give?
At some point you have to let a ship go down and management ran that company headlong into the ice burg, the evil union had nothing at all to do with it.

 

Just because a company shuts down doesn't mean that many jobs are forever lost.. This is a common fallacy and it's what people said about why they needed to bailout car manufacturers.

In order to lose that many jobs the demand for the product actually has to go down... People will just stuff down other brands of pastries instead and those places can pick up the slack and hire more for increased demand.

The freemarket is always evolving with businesses rising and falling all the time. It's how capitalism works.

Why should the president comment? Since when is it his job to comment whenever a company goes out of business? In fact the economy in general isn't even his job. While the president expands his own powers the people expand their own expectations of him. Ask your congressmen what they are doing about the jobs situation.

 

Which they never do.

 

Because I don't want America to be weakened in the hopes that countries like Kenya can become stronger?

 

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/19400

Twinkies', nor other Hostess products likely will never be off the shelves, whether imported from Mexico or from the same bakeries they have been made for years. I'd also suggest management at Hostess, will easily find jobs, where the workers may have long term problems. As a private company, the net loss may not even occur, opposed to public equity, as the brands have more potential value than the Company has had in years.

 

The union didn't do that, the company did that.

 

Brews, one of these days you're going to have to realize that you cannot read the minds of people you don't know.

 

Few of our politicians - from both parties - have done the same thing. What's your point?