So you see no point when a business becomes unprofitable and should be shut down? Are you advocating welfare for corporations but arguing against unemployment benefits for individuals? Why do companies and their senior management get to remain unscathed by bad decisions but individuals have to "take accountability"?
I don't expect to win word games against a lawyer but let's say servitude instead of slavery then. If you take away those unemployment benefits you give corporations another tool to push pay downward. Should people accept substandard wages to allow senior management to raise their own pay and maximize profits, or should they let their families go hungry while they teach corporations a lesson? Not having to face such a **** choice is the reason governments can sometimes be useful. Unemployment gives them a chance to go look elsewhere. It doesn't last forever and it won't make them rich. Not everyone is a leach, some just fall on hard times (you know, like when bad decisions by senior management bankrupt a company).
rumraider wrote:
My being a lawyer has nothing to do with any of this. You can read, write and express your opinions. Stop building "cover" into your positions and arguments.
We are discussing economics here (not law) and the use of bankruptcy liquidation or reorganization to minimize catastrophic loss and either put assets to their best use, with the hope hope of the business resuming profitability and self-sufficiency. It is a valid business tool that serves the best interest of society. It's not "welfare" for corporations because it doesn't involve payment of government benefits to companies.
I fully support unemployment benefits for those who lose their jobs and need to get back on their feet at no real fault of their own. Those who strike and walk away from their jobs because it will no longer pay as well as it used to are voluntarily unemployed. Screw them.
IMO, Hostess' strikers should accept substandard wages when that amount is the best they can earn. It is better than nothing, that's for sure. It will keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. That's the opposite of being a leach. It is in fact commendable, IMO, for one to work through a difficult situation by still working until they figure their situation out. Hell, I I'd like to see people who are doing that receive some government benefits for the greater good of society!
This really isn't about unions at all and I have nothing against them at all (unlike many others here). This is about a failing business still trying to save itself. Nothing wrong with that. But, there is something wrong (stupid) about walking out on a job when one doesn't have a better one lined up. And, don't feed the sob-story that one cannot work and find new employment at the same time.
Those on strike are arguing that Hostess has no chance of returning to profitability, so it is better to let it die faster. That's prerogative, but it is economically irrational for both the striking worker and society. And, if you are bothered by executive pay being out of whack with the pay for labor, that's easy to solve- work your ass off, learn a new skill set and make yourself part of management either work your way up or start your own business.
Labor costs ahve fallen in the U.S. Get used to that fact and figure out how to adapt.
