Your bit about the objectionable sign seemed just another part of the following stuff. If I am mistaken, I apologize for using the term "scream" in a way that implied you were included.
But folks, if you need an indication that the Democrats will never compromise on anything, look at this. Hostess is going out of business because of unions. Now, that's 18,500 jobs. You would think in this economy that somebody might want to show the ability to compromise if only to fool people. They won't even compromise on this...
===
So there are thousands and thousands of layoffs — except for the union bosses, who I’m guessing all still have jobs this morning and will now move on to “help” the next batch of union workers elsewhere. Some food nannies will probably be thrilled with this as well...
===
A small union's stubbornness in contract talks with Hostess is being blamed for the shutdown of one of America's snack food icons...
Current Events » in reply to "Shrieks?"
Oh lordy. What I was talking about...
The whole thread (48 posts)
- Hostess collapse a union "win."
- Isn't that the sort of thing Romney's company did?
- For God's sake, get a grip!. Compare this to Enron, WorldCom, Madoff, etc.
- In case anyone's left who cares about the actual details...
- Anyone notice this is a microcosm for the Federal government. n/t
- Starting to look like it was just a bargaining tactic.
- Vulture Capitalism Ate Your Twinkies
- We finally killed that stooopid goose that leaves those gold eggs everywhere n/t
- The rest of the story
- Teamsters thought their jobs were more important
- How do you feel about the destruction of a union?
- Let me ask you, TB.