The war on supervillainy just got a lot harder.
By
blackjak,
Posted on: 2012-11-16 08:43 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Quote:
You think the execs figured that all the unions were probably corrupt, so it was OK for them to screw their workers over? This most certainly does not excuse them for what they did.|
Originally Posted by Wayfarer
People like to ignore the fact that there's money and power in leading a union. Union leadership are just as drive by greed as everyone else. Hell, why do you think organized crime has taken such an interest in unions? Because they're worried about worker's rights?
|
"Yeah they're all run by the mob anyway, so let's do whatever we want anyway!" Yeeeeeah... no.
Just like I predicted. The bakers union spin doctors are denying facts and twisting statements into things that were never said because they can't accept the reality that this particular union carries at least as much guilt as management.
Quote:
You can try to blame those that bought the gun, you can try to blame those that provided the bullets - certainly, some of the responsibility belongs there; but the direct and immediate blame lies on the one that pulled the trigger - in this case, that would be those who were on strike. |
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
But yeah, easier to blame a bunch of bakers than it is to blame the people in charge, or something.
|
Had they taken the pay cut, the company might've gone under a little further down the road anyway and then they wouldn't have been to blame, but since they decided to take the dog out back and shoot it they're directly responsible for shooting the dog. It doesn't matter if they had cause to do so, they're still directly responsible for it.
Goodbye may seem forever
Farewell is like the end
But in my heart's the memory
And there you'll always be
-- The Fox and the Hound
Quote:
You know, in every post I've read by you, I have never been able to understand it fully. You really have no idea how to use metaphors properly.
|
Originally Posted by Tenzhi
You can try to blame those that bought the gun, you can try to blame those that provided the bullets - certainly, some of the responsibility belongs there; but the direct and immediate blame lies on the one that pulled the trigger - in this case, that would be those who were on strike.
Had they taken the pay cut, the company might've gone under a little further down the road anyway and then they wouldn't have been to blame, but since they decided to take the dog out back and shoot it they're directly responsible for shooting the dog. It doesn't matter if they had cause to do so, they're still directly responsible for it. |
Saw an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal. It says the bakers union blames the Teamsters for driving up costs of the delivery network to the point that the business became unprofitable. Consequently the bakers were willing to kill the company because they figure the Hostess brands are so valuable that someone will buy them and whoever does will also want to by the production facilities and will then rehire the bakers. The Teamsters, on the other hand, were willing to make concessions because they figure whoever buys the brand will not want the existing distribution network so they'll be gone.
Of course this could easily backfire on the bakers if whoever buys the brand decides they don't want to work with the people who are seen as having killed the company. New owners could expand their own exisiting production facilities or even open new production facilities in right-to-work states where they wouldn't have to deal with unions at all.
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." -- Dinobot
But yeah, easier to blame a bunch of bakers than it is to blame the people in charge, or something.