But by 2004, Apple had largely turned to foreign manufacturing. Guiding that decision was Apple’s operations expert, Timothy D. Cook, who replaced Mr. Jobs as chief executive last August, six weeks before Mr. Jobs’s death. Most other American electronics companies had already gone abroad, and Apple, which at the time was struggling, felt it had to grasp every advantage.
In part, Asia was attractive because the semiskilled workers there were cheaper. But that wasn’t driving Apple. For technology companies, the cost of labor is minimal compared with the expense of buying parts and managing supply chains that bring together components and services from hundreds of companies.
For Mr. Cook, the focus on Asia “came down to two things,” said one former high-ranking Apple executive. Factories in Asia “can scale up and down faster” and “Asian supply chains have surpassed what’s in the U.S.” The result is that “we can’t compete at this point,” the executive said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
But by 2004, Apple had largely turned to foreign manufacturing. Guiding that decision was Apple’s operations expert, Timothy D. Cook, who replaced Mr. Jobs as chief executive last August, six weeks before Mr. Jobs’s death. Most other American electronics companies had already gone abroad, and Apple, which at the time was struggling, felt it had to grasp every advantage.
In part, Asia was attractive because the semiskilled workers there were cheaper. But that wasn’t driving Apple. For technology companies, the cost of labor is minimal compared with the expense of buying parts and managing supply chains that bring together components and services from hundreds of companies.
For Mr. Cook, the focus on Asia “came down to two things,” said one former high-ranking Apple executive. Factories in Asia “can scale up and down faster” and “Asian supply chains have surpassed what’s in the U.S.” The result is that “we can’t compete at this point,” the executive said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Wall, Road Warrior just doesn't get it. He wants slave labor, if that's not cheap enough, he'll want child labor because they will work for even less.
secondly, you don't know if Hostess will be using a union. It will be voted in if needed.. I mean WHEN needed.
The free market works, but not without regulation. The job market works, but not without regulation.... from the greedy.
Wall, Road Warrior just doesn't get it. He wants slave labor, if that's not cheap enough, he'll want child labor because they will work for even less.
secondly, you don't know if Hostess will be using a union. It will be voted in if needed.. I mean WHEN needed.
The free market works, but not without regulation. The job market works, but not without regulation.... from the greedy.
This is correct.
I dont understand what you are trying to say Wall. You think its bad for a business owner to want to make a lot of money? Isnt that the american dream. All the union did was get 19,000 people laid off. If the owner isnt making money the business wont survive. Its simple economics and I'm not sure what you are failing to grasp.
The union back in the day was to protect the employee from mutiple things (working conditions etc). Then, it turned into we want raises every year or we strike. That only works for so long. You dont get a raise every year in most places in this economy. It all trickles down. Twinkies sell less than they did a year ago, but you want a raise or you're not gonna work? Someones bluff got called.
So 19,000 people and the "union" wouldnt buck up (hell, take a pay cut if need be) to save their own jobs. Good call.
THATS whats wrong with america. Stupidity and thinking you deserve more than you have.
This is correct.
I dont understand what you are trying to say Wall. You think its bad for a business owner to want to make a lot of money? Isnt that the american dream. All the union did was get 19,000 people laid off. If the owner isnt making money the business wont survive. Its simple economics and I'm not sure what you are failing to grasp.
The union back in the day was to protect the employee from mutiple things (working conditions etc). Then, it turned into we want raises every year or we strike. That only works for so long. You dont get a raise every year in most places in this economy. It all trickles down. Twinkies sell less than they did a year ago, but you want a raise or you're not gonna work? Someones bluff got called.
So 19,000 people and the "union" wouldnt buck up (hell, take a pay cut if need be) to save their own jobs. Good call.
THATS whats wrong with america. Stupidity and thinking you deserve more than you have.
Actually, the place would have never closed down if if was realized sooner that its assinine for an assembly line worker/fork lift driver to be making 60k per year. Thats how you get your companies doors closed.
Actually, the place would have never closed down if if was realized sooner that its assinine for an assembly line worker/fork lift driver to be making 60k per year. Thats how you get your companies doors closed.
Its simple. Greed/jealousy. Boss man makin big bucks. Hell, everyone should get a raise and make lots of money. If we dont get it we are gonna strike so you cant make big bucks either, that will teach ya!
Its simple. Greed/jealousy. Boss man makin big bucks. Hell, everyone should get a raise and make lots of money. If we dont get it we are gonna strike so you cant make big bucks either, that will teach ya!
So the guy that built the company up and is responsible for the building/taxes/workforce/advertising/marketing isnt supposed to make waaaay more than the guy that loads the truck or wraps the product?![]()
So the guy that built the company up and is responsible for the building/taxes/workforce/advertising/marketing isnt supposed to make waaaay more than the guy that loads the truck or wraps the product?![]()
So the guy that built the company up and is responsible for the building/taxes/workforce/advertising/marketing isnt supposed to make waaaay more than the guy that loads the truck or wraps the product?![]()
So the guy that built the company up and is responsible for the building/taxes/workforce/advertising/marketing isnt supposed to make waaaay more than the guy that loads the truck or wraps the product?![]()
The real answer is to reduce government to minimal levels, reduce regulations and taxes on business to levels in line with governments around the world, increase our energy production utilizing natural gas and oil, export coal and oil from our abundant resources and regain the “competitive advantages” in as many areas as possible, including a skilled labor force. We also need to limit immigration of cheap labor from Mexico and significantly reduce or eliminate government programs that encourage illegal immigration. The democrats cannot create a utopian society where no one works and everyone has a wonderful life.
America was founded on work and just rewards for those who supplied the economic basics, not on socialism and “collective” good. The “collective” is a communist and socialist standard, not a capitalistic one
The real answer is to reduce government to minimal levels, reduce regulations and taxes on business to levels in line with governments around the world, increase our energy production utilizing natural gas and oil, export coal and oil from our abundant resources and regain the “competitive advantages” in as many areas as possible, including a skilled labor force. We also need to limit immigration of cheap labor from Mexico and significantly reduce or eliminate government programs that encourage illegal immigration. The democrats cannot create a utopian society where no one works and everyone has a wonderful life.
America was founded on work and just rewards for those who supplied the economic basics, not on socialism and “collective” good. The “collective” is a communist and socialist standard, not a capitalistic one
https://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html
Some highlights......
Frank Hurt, president of the bakers' union, called the liquidation "a deep disappointment" but said his members weren't the ones responsible, blaming the various management teams in place at Hostess over the past eight years for failing to turn the firm around.
"Our members decided they were not going to take any more abuse from a company they have given so much to for so many years," Hurt said in a statement late Friday. "They decided that they were not going to agree to another round of outrageous wage and benefit cuts and give up their pension only to see yet another management team fail and Wall Street vulture capitalists and 'restructuring specialists' walk away with untold millions of dollars."
In September, membership of one of its major unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, voted narrowly to accept a new contract with reduced wages and benefits. The Bakers' union rejected the deal, however, prompting Hostess management to secure permission from a bankruptcy court to force a new concession contract on workers.
The Teamsters union, which represents 6,700 Hostess workers, issued a statement blaming mismanagement by Hostess executives for the company's problems. But it also was critical of the decision of Bakers' union, although it did not identify the union by name
The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.
Nope. I vote we strike ourselves right out of a job in a bad economy. ![]()
https://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html
Some highlights......
Frank Hurt, president of the bakers' union, called the liquidation "a deep disappointment" but said his members weren't the ones responsible, blaming the various management teams in place at Hostess over the past eight years for failing to turn the firm around.
"Our members decided they were not going to take any more abuse from a company they have given so much to for so many years," Hurt said in a statement late Friday. "They decided that they were not going to agree to another round of outrageous wage and benefit cuts and give up their pension only to see yet another management team fail and Wall Street vulture capitalists and 'restructuring specialists' walk away with untold millions of dollars."
In September, membership of one of its major unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, voted narrowly to accept a new contract with reduced wages and benefits. The Bakers' union rejected the deal, however, prompting Hostess management to secure permission from a bankruptcy court to force a new concession contract on workers.
The Teamsters union, which represents 6,700 Hostess workers, issued a statement blaming mismanagement by Hostess executives for the company's problems. But it also was critical of the decision of Bakers' union, although it did not identify the union by name
The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.
Nope. I vote we strike ourselves right out of a job in a bad economy. ![]()

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.