Twinkie maker Hostess to wind down ops, lay off 18,500 workers, put brands up for sale

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, November 24, 2012 18:01
VIEWED: 12327
PAGE 8 of 9

You faux anger and derogatory comments are both amusing and unnecessary.


you may be required to pay union fees.



Note the term - FORCED unionism State.

Quote:

---

A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be

---

Even in Right to Work states, employees are beholden to the will of unions, with some industries.



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
you may be required to pay union fees.

---

Okay, I never disagreed with you on that point. It is however not the same as being forced the join a union.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
you may be required to pay union fees.

---

Okay, I never disagreed with you on that point. It is however not the same as being forced the join a union.

---

Which is why I bothered to make a distinction between the two. You see, being FORCED to do something, whether it's a little, like merely paying dues to a union you don't belong to, or a lot, like JOINING a union you'd rather not join, is all the same to me. It's coercion, it's intimidation. It's tyranny. And I do not hold to that. Not by the govt, not by anyone.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

KW's other post provided evidence that a person can't be forced to join a Union, just pay the dues. Now I don't understand why anyone would not join and get a say if they have to pay for it and get represented by one. Techniclly you and I were wrong and he was right. Deal with it.

Now I agree with you on the issue of secret ballots.

---

Saying you're not FORCED to join, unless it's part of the labor agreement, still ends up as being exactly as I said, where anyone wishing to want to go work ends up having to join the union OR merely paying a portion of their pay check to the union.

---

Not quite EXACTLY as you said. What you said was "It's not who makes up the unions, it's who makes up the union leadership that's so destructive. Forcing employees to join, and then forcing them to fork over their earned $ to the union, and then forcing open votes... it's sheer intimidation and threats that he unions control the employees."

"FORCING employees to join..." Your words.

A portion of my paycheck goes to taxes, some of which go to the military. Is that exactly the same as saying that I'm being forced to join the military?

Quote:

---

I fail to see any tangible distinction, though you ( and more so Kwickie ) want to play semantics on this point. At the end of the day, anyone who goes to work for company X, is getting $ taken from them, forcibly, and or having to join the union, outright.

---

And you still haven't shown where Hostess = "company X". You've yet to show where any Hostess employees were forced to join any union, where they were forced to pay union dues if they didn't join, or where they were forced into open votes, all of which you allege are "sheer intimidation and threats that [the] unions control the employees" with.

You can call it "semantics", but I'm going off of your exact words. If they aren't what you meant to say, then you're being ineffectual as a communicator.

Quote:

---

And I'm sorry, but merely having folks ask for citations, at a drop of a hat, isn't a valid excuse for me to bother going to the trouble of finding suitable sources for the approval of a message board. Some times it's warranted, but not always. Kwickie loves to merely toss out the 'cites' challenge, simply because he has nothing of substance to offer, ( he seldom does ) and is just being an a-hole , out of pure spite.

It's not a serious request, and he knows it.

---

Couple things:

1) So now you know exactly what I mean when I ask for cites for your claims? You're the final arbiter of whether or not I'm serious?

2) Will you now pretend that you've never done anything of the kind? Have you NEVER "played semantic games" and picked apart someone's words and assigned them meaning?





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Which is why I bothered to make a distinction between the two. You see, being FORCED to do something, whether it's a little, like merely paying dues to a union you don't belong to, or a lot, like JOINING a union you'd rather not join, is all the same to me. It's coercion, it's intimidation. It's tyranny. And I do not hold to that. Not by the govt, not by anyone.

---

It's not coercion, or intimidation and certainly not tyranny. It can be part of legal agreements between a Union and an Employer. So while I agree with you that people should not have to pay dues as part of employment I do not share your hyperbole.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
you may be required to pay union fees.

---

Okay, I never disagreed with you on that point. It is however not the same as being forced the join a union.

---

Which is why I bothered to make a distinction between the two. You see, being FORCED to do something, whether it's a little, like merely paying dues to a union you don't belong to, or a lot, like JOINING a union you'd rather not join, is all the same to me. It's coercion, it's intimidation. It's tyranny. And I do not hold to that. Not by the govt, not by anyone.

---

Riiiiiiight. For you, it's FORCE, coercion, and intimidation for someone to pay union dues, but it's none of those things when your government holds someone's head under water and drowns them in order to make them answer questions. That's just a harmless frat prank, right?

You have odd notions of what "force, coercion, and intimidation" are, boy.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you have any cites to back your claim that unions are "forcing employees to join"?

---

Any cites to say they weren't?

---

So you've got nothing, eh? Figures.

---

Im betting the chump tried to find proof after he made the claim (which he did because he was Just. SO. Sure.) and quickly discovered it is in fact illegal in all 50 states to force workers to join a union.

But rather than admit that, he went on the offensive, and attacked you for daring to ask him to back up a claim he at this point knew wasn't true - but didn't have the courage or integrity to back down from.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Do let's not forget what Rap said some time ago:

Quote:

---

. I do speak off the cuff, mostly, as I view these forums as more as free flowing conversations, and not term papers, to be accompanied by voluminous pages of cut and paste, or twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.

---

Ergo, he doesn't feel the need to back up whatever he posts, he's just having a "free-flowing conversation". He just chooses to state it as fact.

Someone might mention that, the times he DOES provide "cites", they are generally from sources that are so very right wing that nobody takes them seriously...like, I mean, Breitbart???

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME