OT: Hostess Brands Liquidating

[BlackSpinner]

-The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.

-Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.

-A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.

-For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.

Cost to whom? That same money was spent by the unionized workers in some form locally instead of being taken out of the country. That money spent locally probably hired several of those none union people locally instead of some people overseas.

The rest of the developed and unionized world was doing quite well until greedy American financiers trashed the world economy to squeeze a few more dollars out of people and then turned around and blamed the lower classes and expected them to pay for the clean up. Non unionized employment means working poor on food stamps, but hey, then the rich can spend more money on some Caribbean island.

[gomer]

I have never belonged to a union, however that does not mean I never benefited from the existence of unions. Working conditions, benefits including health care are a few things that would be much much worse without unions.

Even with unions we have one of, if not the highest disparity earnings gap in the world between the line level worker and CEO/CFO etc corp execs.

If the average worker does not do his job properly he/she gets FIRED! On the other hand corp execs can mess up to no end, even nearly destroy a business and bail out via GOLDEN PARACHUTE or the business has to PAY him/her outrageous sums of money just to get rid the of the upper corp garbage when they fail/refuse to DO THEIR JOB.

Our capitalistic economy has become far afield from an equitable playground.

[NateS]

http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/letter ... mpany.html

Hostess executives sank company

Some may have thought Jack Higgin’s Nov. 21 editorial cartoon picturing two “union thugs murdering” the Hostess company as being an accurate opinion of what has transpired to the iconic company that produces not only Twinkies, but Wonder Bread, Hostess Cupcakes, Ding-Dongs and many other sweet delights.

But in reality, Higgins’ opinion is far from reality. Hostess Brands Inc., in its various forms, has gone through two bankruptcies in recent years and its owners have piled on millions upon millions in debt, with no plan for paying the debt off. In addition, as the company suffered through the bankruptcies, the managers were “awarded” huge pay increases.

The workers didn’t cause Hostess’ problems. Earlier the workers even gave up some of their pay and benefits to keep the company viable. But I guess it wasn’t enough for management and the owners. In a time long ago, someone was thought to say, “let them eat cake.” Unfortunately, today, the Hostess workers may no longer have the money to buy cake to eat.

[NateS]

-The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.

-Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.

-A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.

-For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.

Thank you for providing your source for these claims.


http://sciencecorruption.com/ATN186/00003.html

Research into the corporate corruption of science and the political and social consquences.

Richard K Vedder [Prof ] — A cash-for-comments academic economist from Ohio University who worked part-time — and in secret — for the tobacco industry —

The career of Richard Vedder illustrates how a right-wing libertarian economist from the backblocks could flourish in the Republican-aligned, corporate-funded pseudo-academic environment of mainstream USA in the 1980s and 1990s. His obsessions were clearly ideologically-based, and so the sources of his academic prestige, professional promotion, and subsidiary income were obviously from many industries and corporations ... not just tobacco.

However the only real evidence we have come from the tobacco archives — which have 382 documens which carry his name. [This is just a sample]

The 1985 Tobacco Institute document, "Federal Markets", which was sent to the Tobacco Institute's Regional and State Directors, provided a long list of the likely allies the industry had among academic economists in opposing the earmarking of cigarette excises for healthcare and for other purposes. The industry was particularly interested in attacking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which it always feared would attempt to regulate cigarettes as a drug.

The Tobacco Institute's contractors kept a registry of those academics available to write articles or letters on demand, provide witness services at legislative or local ordinance hearings, etc. or give lectures to various influential bodies — or have one-to-one meetings with legislators. They were never required to divulge the industry connections, and they were never required to make any outright statement in support of smoking ... in fact, the complete opposite. Those who could maintain proudly that they were non-smokers were seen to be more sensible, and to have more credibility with the gullible readers who thought that political influence involved brass-bands and flag waving zealots.

Writing economic and political op-ed pieces and letters to the editor were the easiest way for these academics to earn some quick cash without sticking their neck out enough to be noticed. In their articles they attacked the principle of cigarette taxes, not the taxes themselves. They attacked the idea of the FDA extending its mandate, rather than the question of whether nicotine was a drug.
Payments were laundered through a couple of channels linked to the George Mason University's Center for the Study of Public Choice and its director Robert Tollison, and also through a labor/economics lobbyist named James Savarese.

The purpose of the network was to provide propaganda and lobbying services to the tobacco industry in all 50 US States, utilizing trusted and prominent academics at the local universities, and the scam ran very successfully for a couple of decades. It was considered influential enough for the Tobacco Institute to continue its funding when other projects suffered budget cuts. As a result, hundreds of op-ed articles appeared in many dozens of influential newspapers across America.

You might also consider reading "Deadly Spin" by Wendell Potter
http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Spin-Insur ... eadly+spin

Regards,

Nate

[NateS]

See also:

http://sciencecorruption.com/ATN171/00889.html

Lowell E Gallaway

(misspelled Galloway often)

— A short-term cash-for-comment economist from Ohio University who worked closely with a core network member, Professor Richard Vedder. —

Gallaway was only ever a minor operator in the cash-for-comment academic economists network, but that was mainly because his associate, Richard Vedder, was already a core member of the team and so occupied the position for the State of Ohio.
Gallaway's CV is fascinating. Virtually all of the Research Grants listed come from Scaife- or Coors-supported right-wing think-tanks and policy institutes: Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Alexis de Tocqueville, Institute for Policy Innovtion, American Legislative Exchange Council, Pacific Research Institute, National Center for Policy Analysis, Olin Institute, Independent Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, National Chamber Foundation, etc. etc including BOBCAT (a Philip Morris front).

Tobacco lobbyist James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University collaborated in the 1980s to provide the tobacco industry, through the Tobacco Institute, with a number of networks of academics who would be willing to write propaganda material ... always provided their names were not linked to the industry or to any of the cigarette companies.

The idea was simply that the academic 'sleepers' would be available on a cash-for-services basis when needed to counter attempts to increase excise taxes, or to ban public smoking, or just to appear as independent experts at Congressional hearings and promote the industry causes.

Economist were by far the most useful academics to the tobacco industry because the distinction between economics and politics was never clear: so support of the cigarette companies could always be claimed as support for free-market economics ... the rights of individuals to make public choices ... small government ... or even the first Amendment to the Constitution.

The economist always claimed to be 'independent' 'professionals' and ' academics' from some credible university, and never revealed the source of their funding in their op-eds or letters-to-the-editor.

If ever put under cross-examination, they must be able to claim with weasel-word precision, that they had never received a penny from the tobacco industry. Therefore all payments were laundered, either through tobacco industry lawyers (usually Covington & Burling), the principle organisers, James Savarese & Associates, or through Bob Tollison's Center for the Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.

The aim was to have, in each State, at least one academic economist, one academic lawyer, and one academic from a business management, business law, marketing or advertising discipline willing to jump into action and write op-ed articles for their local newspaper, or to appear at local ordinance or legislative hearings. Copies were always sent to a local Congressman, who sat on some important (to the tobacco industry) committee.

Nate

[Kiralynx]

<shrug> Haven't eaten anything with grains, hydrogenated vegetable oil, or sugar in 11 years.

I don't really care....

[ChicagoGranny]

<shrug> Haven't eaten anything with grains, hydrogenated vegetable oil, or sugar in 11 years.

I don't really care....

[Boyce]

The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.

All of this was obviously intended to create more jobs for the unions' members. But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy, which can cost 18,500 jobs. The union is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Since this is Thanksgiving, let me say I am very thankful to be living in a state that 1) guarantees workers the right to be employed without joining a union (right-to-work) and 2) makes it illegal for government employees to form unions.

The right to live includes the right to work. The exercise of the right to work must be protected and maintained free from undue restraints and coercion. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the State that the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organization or association.

Contracts between units of government and labor unions,trade unions or labor organizations concerning public employees declared to be illegal in the State.

I am also very thankful to be living in a country where the inefficiency of unions has been recognized to the point that only 7% of the private labor force is unionized.

The next step is to bust up the government unions.

[Goofproof]

Sorry much more money to be made by playing the war games, they will never be out of business. B.O.A.T, (Break Out Another Trillion)....., on credit of course. War drives ours and most economies, unfortunately we have forgotten that we must pay for them, now we are counting on our grandchildren to pay, as we can't. Jim

[Goofproof]

-The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.

-Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.

-A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.

-For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.

It's getting deep in here, glad I have my air hose. My B.S. Alarm is in overload. Workers in China sweat factories, might like to have a Union or Rights.

Maybe 4 union worker that are properly trained and willing to work can produce more and better product than 5 or 6 nonunion workers, I know where I worked we did, we didn't allow slackers in our union. If you didn't want to produce, the union would either change your thinking or not protect your job. We would stand up for our fellow workers, but we all would do our jobs, as best we could safely. Jim

[Boyce]

Today's "Wal-Mart strike" completely flopped, with many of the "protests" including no (!) Wal-Mart workers. The unions have been humiliated, and this has been Wal-Mart's biggest Black Friday so far.

Hooray!

[NateS]

Today's "Wal-Mart strike" completely flopped, with many of the "protests" including no (!) Wal-Mart workers. The unions have been humiliated, and this has been Wal-Mart's biggest Black Friday so far.

Hooray!

You think WalMart employees belong to unions?

Where did you get that idea?

Nate

[ems]

Today's "Wal-Mart strike" completely flopped, with many of the "protests" including no (!) Wal-Mart workers. The unions have been humiliated, and this has been Wal-Mart's biggest Black Friday so far.

Hooray!

You think WalMart employees belong to unions?

Where did you get that idea?

Nate

Nate... I was going to type, what do you even bother - but, I know why you bother. However, I'm going to say something you already know... this is falling on deaf ears. So, why even bother...

[Boyce]

Today's "Wal-Mart strike" completely flopped, with many of the "protests" including no (!) Wal-Mart workers. The unions have been humiliated, and this has been Wal-Mart's biggest Black Friday so far.

Hooray!

You think WalMart employees belong to unions?

Where did you get that idea?

Nate

Where did I get that idea? I never got that idea. You just invented it and are trying to infer it was my idea.

That is a strange way of carrying on a discussion that is down in writing for anyone to check what was said.

Go back and check it - all the posts are still there. You introduced the idea in form of a question.

Do you realize that OUR Walmart is a labor group, backed by several unions, which called for and coordinated a nationwide strike. They also picketed some sites.

OUR Walmart press releases predicted nationwide strikes by Walmart employees and widespread boycotts by consumers. It did not happen. Nationwide only a very few Walmart employees failed to show for work and even fewer showed up to protest. Most stores had zero employees protesting.

Furthermore, consumers are setting sales records for Walmart.

OUR Walmart and the unions backing them were humiliated! Walmart drives on and their customers don't care about the nonsense the unions are spouting.

The market (supplier, labor, consumer) has spoken. Crawl back under your rock unions.

Nate, why don't you use logic when you post and avoid such nonsense =

You think WalMart employees belong to unions?

No, I don't think they do and I don't think they will ever belong to unions!

[NateS]

Nate, why don't you use logic when you post and avoid such nonsense = "You think WalMart employees belong to unions?"

I simply thought it would be useful to have a civil discussion, one without resort to personal insults.

If you are not concerned about the accurate use of words like "union" and "strike" and don't wish to concern yourself with the provisions and definitions of the NLRB and other labor-related laws of the land with regard to organizing, representation and labor contracts, that is your privilege. But you should then not be surprised to have others point this out to those who care to read your remarks and others in these forums.

Nate