I was specifically referring to (among others) the second result using your search terms. This is exactly why I stated that you need to cite your own research. You're hung up on my reaching a different conclusion than you did - because you didn't cite your sources...even after I had asked for them. This is exactly why I said what I did - please go back and read it, and then please cite your sources next time.
With regard to the (summary of the) single scientific article that I read - the Cornell article, the authors specifically stated that the data was not sound and that it was a commentary on policy rather than actual science.
I have no idea what you're basing your opinion on. I prefer science - it's all I have. I still have no clue where you're coming from, and I don't have any definitive answers - I'm not trying to bullshit you, my friend. However, you've only offered presumption and Google search terms. I would be happy to discuss this with you when we're on even ground. Unfortunately, we're still not speaking the same language.
I would prefer that you back up your own claims. To rely on my doing so will invariably lead to me doing independent research that is likely different than yours; likely leading to a different opinion. A quick Google search using your terms points to a number of articles - some say that natural gas could release an increased amount of methane. There are many articles on politically charged sites that I tend to discount on principle. One more promising one summarizes a Cornell study linking natural gas to increased methane, and the authors state "We do not intend for you to accept what we reported on today as the definitive scientific study with regard to this question. It is clearly not. We have pointed out as many times as we could that we are basing this study on in some cases questionable data". The study was more a commentary on policy than actual science.
Anyway, I can only assume that this is the science that you're referring to. If this is the case, your claims sound (at best) presumptive.
While I appreciate your honest opinion, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that very little of this can be categorized into "black" or "white"; at least not yet. I not only respectfully disagree with the absolute premise that you offer, I also disagree with the absolute premise taken up by most of those who have replied to you. There are many questions that need to be answered before these kind of conclusions can be drawn.
It is clear that Snowden did violate his confidentiality agreement - there is no arguing this. He broke the law, and I'm not going to dispute it. The legality of the program at-large, however, has not been established. You are correct that the program was authorized by Congress. Suggesting that the program was deemed legal by the court system is dubious, at best. The existence of FISA courts, where federal judges review and grant surveillance warrants does not qualify as judicial review and does very little to validate that the program meets constitutional standards. If it is established that the program violated the constitution (the highest law of the land), it will be the government who violated the law, and covered it under a veil of secrecy. If this is the case, it is a serious violation of the trust of the American people; and whether or not it prevent terrorist attacks is irrelevant, as the ends don't justify the means (IMO). The government can't have it both ways - holding citizens accountable for following the law when it doesn't adhere to its own laws.
I'm also curious about you meant by Snowden doing this for his own gain. What did he have to gain? Notoriety? It seems to me that he had more to lose than he had to gain...but then again, I do not understand the desire for notoriety, and would prefer to avoid the public eye. Either way, until the program is understood and scrutinized, I don't think that it's fair to categorize Snowden is a whistle-blowing patriot or a traitor (yet).
I hope that we do the right thing here and analyze the program; asking the necessary questions to determine what is constitutionally acceptable. Further, I hope that my fellow Americans think long and hard about the implications of programs like this. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the government warehousing massive amounts of data about its citizens, even if mining it takes a warrant from a secret court. I understand the argument that companies are already doing this (to an extent)...but what differentiates them from our government is that they don't have the power to incarcerate or kill people. Now, I'm afraid that our government will sweep this under the rug, preventing any honest dialog in the name of national security. I honestly believe that even if this program is legitimate and legal, the ability to secretly monitor Americans will eventually be abused; if not by this government/administration, it will be by another one.
I suspect that this is the same resistance to a third party pushing content that nearly every IP owner has shown over the years. It has nothing to do with being compensated. It is likely easy to grab viewer metrics from Aereo and renegotiate the value of those viewer impressions with advertisers. I'm guessing that Fox just wants that control - they want to roll their own service, the same way that all of the music publishers wanted to roll their own streaming/subscription service, the same way that the cable companies want to roll their own VoD service, and the same way that the film studios want to roll their own VoD service.
It's no secret that these groups have all failed. The music industry tried and failed over and over again, with Apple dominating that marketspace now (and the IP owners are still managing to be compensated for this). The cable companies and film studios have also failed to run their own VoD services that are competitive with Netflix, yet they are all compensated for their IP streaming. This is just the same repeat behavior.
I'm no expert, but it would seem to me that content producers might want to stick to their core competencies, and excellence in broadcasting (or lack thereof) is showing to be unequal to excellence in developing a digital distribution model. They've failed over and over, while the third parties have succeeded almost exclusively...and in spite of lack of cooperation from "legacy" media. I know that the legacy IP owners want to maximize their profits and control by running their own digital distribution networks, but this seems akin to having their cake and eating it too - and it has proven to be historically risky.
I can't speak to the rest of your post, but the rules for what items can be carried onto a plane change fairly frequently. Your data may have been superseded. I fly every week for business, and can attest to this. However don't take my word for it - a lighter can be lawfully carried onto a plane. With regard to video game consoles, there are rules for those, too. Even the rules for small knives and some sporting goods are changing. This is not to say that I think that I'm a fan of the TSA. I'm just providing more up-to-date information than what you have experienced that may help you to rephrase your premise. Also, from my experience, although the rules are published and are fairly consistent; how they are enforced is not. A good example of this is how rules are enforced in small regional airports. Generally, the TSA officers in the tiny regional airports have a lot of time on their hands to do things like re-run carry-ons through an x-ray machine, excluding my eyeglass cleaning fluid (etc).
I'm with you, and am glad that someone else posted this first. I can't stand Ticketbastard, and they have exclusivity agreements with most of the venues in my country. This means that they will receive a fee for ever live performance that I want to attend, regardless of whether or not I want to use them. Fees on top of fees on top of fees that are already included in the ticket price. They haven't done much to curb the secondary market; there is no incentive for them to do so.
They add absolutely no value, and have done little to bring ticket sales into the digital age. Thanks for nothing, Ticketmaster. You guys suck more than any other company in the country.
But there were batteries and electrical tape. Anything with batteries and duct tape must be a terrorist plot...especially when Mooninites are involved.
To answer my own question, my assertion was correct. With physical access to the device, brute forcing the PIN protecting the disk encryption is trivial. The million dollar question is: how to sufficiently protect a key in a manner that can be quickly and conveniently unlocked by an average user?
Admittedly, I have never used Android device encryption and do not know the specifics of how it works. However, reading the article, what is the big deal about brute forcing a 4-digit PIN on a device that one has local access to? Could the encrypted FS be dumped and brute forced in software? What am I missing?
I see what you mean...not that N. Korea isn't a humanitarian disaster right now - I personally find (what I know of) the conditions in N. Korea absolutely deplorable. I understand that China is not stuck with it entirely (at the moment), but they're certainly kicking the can down the road by providing the political and financial support to N. Korea that they are...not to mention providing tacit approval of N. Korea's activity by their actions. Do you think that China sees regime collapse as an eventuality? What kind of bad behavior would N. Korea have to exhibit to provoke China to abandon support?
Further, could S. Korea still be considered a "puppet" of the US if there were no longer a threat from the North, under declaration of war? If unification happened, how long would the US military bases in (future-former) S. Korea remain? I do not think that it's in America's best interests (or within the scope of the mission) to maintain those bases after we are assured peace.
Yes. I'm surprised that nobody else has read into this. All Netflix is doing is localizing their content in a small, 4U appliance inside of the ISP's.
From what I can tell is that this has potential to be a win for everyone. As you say, this is a win for ISP's, as it cuts down on internet traffic at their peering points - where things tend to be the most expensive - it keeps traffic inside of their network. This is also a win for the consumer, as it can deliver higher quality video. This is also a win for Netflix, because they can lower their internet bandwidth costs by moving their content to these localized (or regionalized, as the case may be) appliances once and serve streaming content to all customers on an ISP's network.
...or perhaps I'm missing something. Feel free to educate me if I am.
Judging from the combat in the video they have abandoned Newtonian physics, and in doing so probably thrown the baby out with the bathwater. If I wanted "fighter jets in space" I can play X3.
The original didn't have Newtonian physics, it was fighter jets in space. The later game Frontier did have Newtonian physics, and was mostly unplayable because Newtonian physics just don't work in a way that people are used to, and consequently didn't sell nearly as well as the original. I think Braben has made the right decision in abandoning them.
FWIW, I *loved* the Newtonian physics in Frontier. Sure, it was tricky, and less arcade-like than other games, but this was one of the things that set Frontier apart for me. It was difficult, it was dark, it was cold, and it made me feel like I was flying a ship in space. There are plenty of space combat games with jets-in-space combat...further, there is room for both, since there is potential gameplay in atmo. Perhaps some ships can have aerodynamic lifting bodies. Of course, this is just my $0.02.
I never suggested that hypocrisy didn't exist in America...and while I agree that your Tommy Chong example is a valid example of misdirected justice, I'm not really sure how this is relevant to a discussion about political corruption.
However, I suggest that you go to a country where, in order to get a drivers license or building permit, a bribe must be paid. Go to a country where you have to carry a little extra cash, just in case you are stopped by the police. Then tell me how bad America's corruption is - and that it's just as bad as the corruption in the rest of the world (corruption is corruption, as you say). I, for one, have never had to bribe an American official in my life. Have you?
Yeah...no. It's not the same. As an analogy, that's like saying crime is crime, no matter how major or minor it is when comparing murder to jaywalking.
America has its fair share of problems, and I sure hope that the US gets better, but I completely disagree with your statement.
I really don't see a difference between the strike and individual decisions - most workers decided on their own that they want to strike, but those that didn't could and did go to work. Yes, many didn't - but that is because the company wanted to cut each person's pay. And as you said, you have a choice of preparing your resume in that case - they felt that their jobs weren't worth saving at that level of pay. Should they have stayed there with miserable pay until the company went bankrupt again?
There is a huge decision between an individual and the collective. If you don't understand, there is no point in supporting the union (e.g. individual bargaining vs collective bargaining). The individuals didn't have a choice - and this is something that I do have a problem with. Employees aren't allowed to choose whether or not to join most unions - when the union decided, everyone had to follow. Certainly you can see a difference.
And Miserable pay? To save their jobs, 8% for the first year, and steady raises for 3 years to get to where it was (plus stock grants)=miserable? Come on. It's a sacrifice for sure, but it is a far cry from what you're mentioning. You've thrown out things like "miserable" and "minimum wage"...not really backing that up with actual numbers (you also suggested that the company should have given the workers a piece of the company, which was offered). I'll continue to provide correct information as these come up...and I'm not even an vested party - I just read the news.
Why didn't the management give the company a personal, interest free loan. The CEO had a salary of about $2.5M, surely he could put that at the disposal of the company, giving it a few more weeks to find a different solution to the crisis, or at least time to convince the union. Or how about the other executives give the company their bonuses (they just asked to court to pay them more then $6M - leading a charge into bankruptcy is worthy of a bonus after all).
The CEO agreed to a $1 salary until Dec 31 or until the company recovered from bankruptcy. However, the executive salary was just a drop in the bucket. Check the numbers on other posts in this story - there were a few people who ran the numbers on executive salary vs the workers at large...this was a drop in the bucket and largely a symbolic gesture. It would not have helped keep the company in business for more than a few weeks if the executives worked for free. Hostess Brand's debt was huge, and it was a huge operation. A few $million would not have been sufficient to keep the company running.
So the union's refusal to cooperate was only the last blow, because that's what the management decided. Prolonging the fight might have cut down on the bonus money the company still had.
And there is another reason why the employees might have wanted the company to just die - they are among the creditors. If the company is liquidated now, they might still get some money before it all goes to lawyers and executives. If they give them a few more years that might not happen - the company had more debt at the end of the first bankruptcy then at the beginning.
They kicked the company while it was down. It was the final nail in the coffin. End of story. There were no other options at that point. I understand that you inherently mistrust this management team - and have thrown out a dozen things that "could have been done". I covered that most of these were either done, or were impossible - backing them up with facts. Please, read just one or two relevant news stories before posting another reply - I'm sure that I can keep citing sources for you, but you would be doing both of us a huge favor by reading up on this stuff. To be clear, I always have held that management team (and the market) are responsible for their part in the situation. However, it was the
And what exactly is the difference between 'preparing your resume' and striking? The company could have fired them and found new workers, if that's what they wanted - but the new workers would probably have wanted more then the company was willing to pay.
I'm amazed that you're even asking this. You're asking the difference between an individual decision and an organized and orchestrated act against a company, ultimately taking the whole thing down? It sounds like we're looking at this from vastly different angles.
The management could have made other proposals - got better loans, found new investors, hell even sold the company (which they refused to do in the past). But they decided that quitting and blaming the union was a 'cleaner' way out
No, they could have not made other proposals, got better loans, found new investors, or sold the company (which is another way of finding new investors). This was their last shot. They were in chapter 11 bankruptcy - it was reviewed and approved by the courts and their debtors. There was no time to make another deal - this was it. The Bakers Union just refused to believe it; they were convinced that management had another card up their sleeve when management simply did not. The Bakers Union was convinced that the management team was bluffing with the threats of closing the doors. They weren't. Have you read the analyses of this? Again, even the Teamsters were behind it. Are you sure that you understand how bankruptcy works? How is closing doors a 'cleaner' way out? Everyone was screwed. There was no money. Nothing. There were no other options. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. However, the belief that there was some sort of nefarious management meeting where it was decided that they could just stick it to the Bakers Union by closing operations, and everybody loses their job is incredibly far fetched.
After all, we all know unions are the source of all evil.
Again, see my comment above - I never stated anything like this here: However, while everyone in the company (including the larger union; the Teamsters - who accepted the deal) were working to save the company, the Bakers Union worked for themselves to ultimately destroy it. Again, this mess wasn't their fault, but they stepped in at a critical juncture and became the last straw. They could have saved the company; admittedly for how long nobody knows...but it was the Bakers Union that put the last nail in the coffin. This is not an indictment of all unions, but this one didn't do any of the 18,000 people in the company a single favor. (Emphasis added). Again, I just don't see the ethics of screwing everyone else over by taking a collective action like that. I also don't understand how you're arguing that this was only a one-sided thing. There was plenty of blame to go around...but the Bakers Union decided to take the ship down with them.
Slashdot Mirror
I was specifically referring to (among others) the second result using your search terms. This is exactly why I stated that you need to cite your own research. You're hung up on my reaching a different conclusion than you did - because you didn't cite your sources...even after I had asked for them. This is exactly why I said what I did - please go back and read it, and then please cite your sources next time.
With regard to the (summary of the) single scientific article that I read - the Cornell article, the authors specifically stated that the data was not sound and that it was a commentary on policy rather than actual science.
I have no idea what you're basing your opinion on. I prefer science - it's all I have. I still have no clue where you're coming from, and I don't have any definitive answers - I'm not trying to bullshit you, my friend. However, you've only offered presumption and Google search terms. I would be happy to discuss this with you when we're on even ground. Unfortunately, we're still not speaking the same language.
I would prefer that you back up your own claims. To rely on my doing so will invariably lead to me doing independent research that is likely different than yours; likely leading to a different opinion. A quick Google search using your terms points to a number of articles - some say that natural gas could release an increased amount of methane. There are many articles on politically charged sites that I tend to discount on principle. One more promising one summarizes a Cornell study linking natural gas to increased methane, and the authors state "We do not intend for you to accept what we reported on today as the definitive scientific study with regard to this question. It is clearly not. We have pointed out as many times as we could that we are basing this study on in some cases questionable data". The study was more a commentary on policy than actual science.
Anyway, I can only assume that this is the science that you're referring to. If this is the case, your claims sound (at best) presumptive.
That sounds pretty speculative to me. [citation needed]
Dude, spoilers! ;)
While I appreciate your honest opinion, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that very little of this can be categorized into "black" or "white"; at least not yet. I not only respectfully disagree with the absolute premise that you offer, I also disagree with the absolute premise taken up by most of those who have replied to you. There are many questions that need to be answered before these kind of conclusions can be drawn.
It is clear that Snowden did violate his confidentiality agreement - there is no arguing this. He broke the law, and I'm not going to dispute it. The legality of the program at-large, however, has not been established. You are correct that the program was authorized by Congress. Suggesting that the program was deemed legal by the court system is dubious, at best. The existence of FISA courts, where federal judges review and grant surveillance warrants does not qualify as judicial review and does very little to validate that the program meets constitutional standards. If it is established that the program violated the constitution (the highest law of the land), it will be the government who violated the law, and covered it under a veil of secrecy. If this is the case, it is a serious violation of the trust of the American people; and whether or not it prevent terrorist attacks is irrelevant, as the ends don't justify the means (IMO). The government can't have it both ways - holding citizens accountable for following the law when it doesn't adhere to its own laws.
I'm also curious about you meant by Snowden doing this for his own gain. What did he have to gain? Notoriety? It seems to me that he had more to lose than he had to gain...but then again, I do not understand the desire for notoriety, and would prefer to avoid the public eye. Either way, until the program is understood and scrutinized, I don't think that it's fair to categorize Snowden is a whistle-blowing patriot or a traitor (yet).
I hope that we do the right thing here and analyze the program; asking the necessary questions to determine what is constitutionally acceptable. Further, I hope that my fellow Americans think long and hard about the implications of programs like this. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the government warehousing massive amounts of data about its citizens, even if mining it takes a warrant from a secret court. I understand the argument that companies are already doing this (to an extent)...but what differentiates them from our government is that they don't have the power to incarcerate or kill people. Now, I'm afraid that our government will sweep this under the rug, preventing any honest dialog in the name of national security. I honestly believe that even if this program is legitimate and legal, the ability to secretly monitor Americans will eventually be abused; if not by this government/administration, it will be by another one.
I suspect that this is the same resistance to a third party pushing content that nearly every IP owner has shown over the years. It has nothing to do with being compensated. It is likely easy to grab viewer metrics from Aereo and renegotiate the value of those viewer impressions with advertisers. I'm guessing that Fox just wants that control - they want to roll their own service, the same way that all of the music publishers wanted to roll their own streaming/subscription service, the same way that the cable companies want to roll their own VoD service, and the same way that the film studios want to roll their own VoD service.
It's no secret that these groups have all failed. The music industry tried and failed over and over again, with Apple dominating that marketspace now (and the IP owners are still managing to be compensated for this). The cable companies and film studios have also failed to run their own VoD services that are competitive with Netflix, yet they are all compensated for their IP streaming. This is just the same repeat behavior.
I'm no expert, but it would seem to me that content producers might want to stick to their core competencies, and excellence in broadcasting (or lack thereof) is showing to be unequal to excellence in developing a digital distribution model. They've failed over and over, while the third parties have succeeded almost exclusively...and in spite of lack of cooperation from "legacy" media. I know that the legacy IP owners want to maximize their profits and control by running their own digital distribution networks, but this seems akin to having their cake and eating it too - and it has proven to be historically risky.
I can't speak to the rest of your post, but the rules for what items can be carried onto a plane change fairly frequently. Your data may have been superseded. I fly every week for business, and can attest to this. However don't take my word for it - a lighter can be lawfully carried onto a plane. With regard to video game consoles, there are rules for those, too. Even the rules for small knives and some sporting goods are changing. This is not to say that I think that I'm a fan of the TSA. I'm just providing more up-to-date information than what you have experienced that may help you to rephrase your premise. Also, from my experience, although the rules are published and are fairly consistent; how they are enforced is not. A good example of this is how rules are enforced in small regional airports. Generally, the TSA officers in the tiny regional airports have a lot of time on their hands to do things like re-run carry-ons through an x-ray machine, excluding my eyeglass cleaning fluid (etc).
I'm voting for Ticketmaster, at least EA makes stuff.
I'm with you, and am glad that someone else posted this first. I can't stand Ticketbastard, and they have exclusivity agreements with most of the venues in my country. This means that they will receive a fee for ever live performance that I want to attend, regardless of whether or not I want to use them. Fees on top of fees on top of fees that are already included in the ticket price. They haven't done much to curb the secondary market; there is no incentive for them to do so.
They add absolutely no value, and have done little to bring ticket sales into the digital age. Thanks for nothing, Ticketmaster. You guys suck more than any other company in the country.
But there were batteries and electrical tape. Anything with batteries and duct tape must be a terrorist plot...especially when Mooninites are involved.
To answer my own question, my assertion was correct. With physical access to the device, brute forcing the PIN protecting the disk encryption is trivial. The million dollar question is: how to sufficiently protect a key in a manner that can be quickly and conveniently unlocked by an average user?
Admittedly, I have never used Android device encryption and do not know the specifics of how it works. However, reading the article, what is the big deal about brute forcing a 4-digit PIN on a device that one has local access to? Could the encrypted FS be dumped and brute forced in software? What am I missing?
I see what you mean...not that N. Korea isn't a humanitarian disaster right now - I personally find (what I know of) the conditions in N. Korea absolutely deplorable. I understand that China is not stuck with it entirely (at the moment), but they're certainly kicking the can down the road by providing the political and financial support to N. Korea that they are...not to mention providing tacit approval of N. Korea's activity by their actions. Do you think that China sees regime collapse as an eventuality? What kind of bad behavior would N. Korea have to exhibit to provoke China to abandon support?
Further, could S. Korea still be considered a "puppet" of the US if there were no longer a threat from the North, under declaration of war? If unification happened, how long would the US military bases in (future-former) S. Korea remain? I do not think that it's in America's best interests (or within the scope of the mission) to maintain those bases after we are assured peace.
IMO, this is on /. because some of the Slashdot discussion has a shot at being more insightful than mainstream coverage does.
Try "password1". It's uncommon, and nobody will ever guess it.
Ha! Bash.org reference FTW!
This is the hardware device. There is more information about CDN deployment (as well as some specs) available on that page as well.
Yes. I'm surprised that nobody else has read into this. All Netflix is doing is localizing their content in a small, 4U appliance inside of the ISP's.
From what I can tell is that this has potential to be a win for everyone. As you say, this is a win for ISP's, as it cuts down on internet traffic at their peering points - where things tend to be the most expensive - it keeps traffic inside of their network. This is also a win for the consumer, as it can deliver higher quality video. This is also a win for Netflix, because they can lower their internet bandwidth costs by moving their content to these localized (or regionalized, as the case may be) appliances once and serve streaming content to all customers on an ISP's network.
Cybercrime: what rational people refer to as crime.
Judging from the combat in the video they have abandoned Newtonian physics, and in doing so probably thrown the baby out with the bathwater. If I wanted "fighter jets in space" I can play X3.
The original didn't have Newtonian physics, it was fighter jets in space. The later game Frontier did have Newtonian physics, and was mostly unplayable because Newtonian physics just don't work in a way that people are used to, and consequently didn't sell nearly as well as the original. I think Braben has made the right decision in abandoning them.
FWIW, I *loved* the Newtonian physics in Frontier. Sure, it was tricky, and less arcade-like than other games, but this was one of the things that set Frontier apart for me. It was difficult, it was dark, it was cold, and it made me feel like I was flying a ship in space. There are plenty of space combat games with jets-in-space combat...further, there is room for both, since there is potential gameplay in atmo. Perhaps some ships can have aerodynamic lifting bodies. Of course, this is just my $0.02.
Sincerely,
A lot of us who are tired of wars on nouns.
I prefer "non-proper nouns".
I never suggested that hypocrisy didn't exist in America...and while I agree that your Tommy Chong example is a valid example of misdirected justice, I'm not really sure how this is relevant to a discussion about political corruption.
However, I suggest that you go to a country where, in order to get a drivers license or building permit, a bribe must be paid. Go to a country where you have to carry a little extra cash, just in case you are stopped by the police. Then tell me how bad America's corruption is - and that it's just as bad as the corruption in the rest of the world (corruption is corruption, as you say). I, for one, have never had to bribe an American official in my life. Have you?
Yeah...no. It's not the same. As an analogy, that's like saying crime is crime, no matter how major or minor it is when comparing murder to jaywalking.
America has its fair share of problems, and I sure hope that the US gets better, but I completely disagree with your statement.
I really don't see a difference between the strike and individual decisions - most workers decided on their own that they want to strike, but those that didn't could and did go to work. Yes, many didn't - but that is because the company wanted to cut each person's pay. And as you said, you have a choice of preparing your resume in that case - they felt that their jobs weren't worth saving at that level of pay. Should they have stayed there with miserable pay until the company went bankrupt again?
There is a huge decision between an individual and the collective. If you don't understand, there is no point in supporting the union (e.g. individual bargaining vs collective bargaining). The individuals didn't have a choice - and this is something that I do have a problem with. Employees aren't allowed to choose whether or not to join most unions - when the union decided, everyone had to follow. Certainly you can see a difference.
And Miserable pay? To save their jobs, 8% for the first year, and steady raises for 3 years to get to where it was (plus stock grants)=miserable? Come on. It's a sacrifice for sure, but it is a far cry from what you're mentioning. You've thrown out things like "miserable" and "minimum wage"...not really backing that up with actual numbers (you also suggested that the company should have given the workers a piece of the company, which was offered). I'll continue to provide correct information as these come up...and I'm not even an vested party - I just read the news.
Why didn't the management give the company a personal, interest free loan. The CEO had a salary of about $2.5M, surely he could put that at the disposal of the company, giving it a few more weeks to find a different solution to the crisis, or at least time to convince the union. Or how about the other executives give the company their bonuses (they just asked to court to pay them more then $6M - leading a charge into bankruptcy is worthy of a bonus after all).
The CEO agreed to a $1 salary until Dec 31 or until the company recovered from bankruptcy. However, the executive salary was just a drop in the bucket. Check the numbers on other posts in this story - there were a few people who ran the numbers on executive salary vs the workers at large...this was a drop in the bucket and largely a symbolic gesture. It would not have helped keep the company in business for more than a few weeks if the executives worked for free. Hostess Brand's debt was huge, and it was a huge operation. A few $million would not have been sufficient to keep the company running.
So the union's refusal to cooperate was only the last blow, because that's what the management decided. Prolonging the fight might have cut down on the bonus money the company still had.
And there is another reason why the employees might have wanted the company to just die - they are among the creditors. If the company is liquidated now, they might still get some money before it all goes to lawyers and executives. If they give them a few more years that might not happen - the company had more debt at the end of the first bankruptcy then at the beginning.
They kicked the company while it was down. It was the final nail in the coffin. End of story. There were no other options at that point. I understand that you inherently mistrust this management team - and have thrown out a dozen things that "could have been done". I covered that most of these were either done, or were impossible - backing them up with facts. Please, read just one or two relevant news stories before posting another reply - I'm sure that I can keep citing sources for you, but you would be doing both of us a huge favor by reading up on this stuff. To be clear, I always have held that management team (and the market) are responsible for their part in the situation. However, it was the
Yeah, vigilantism and mob "justice" usually make lots of sense.
And what exactly is the difference between 'preparing your resume' and striking? The company could have fired them and found new workers, if that's what they wanted - but the new workers would probably have wanted more then the company was willing to pay.
I'm amazed that you're even asking this. You're asking the difference between an individual decision and an organized and orchestrated act against a company, ultimately taking the whole thing down? It sounds like we're looking at this from vastly different angles.
The management could have made other proposals - got better loans, found new investors, hell even sold the company (which they refused to do in the past). But they decided that quitting and blaming the union was a 'cleaner' way out
No, they could have not made other proposals, got better loans, found new investors, or sold the company (which is another way of finding new investors). This was their last shot. They were in chapter 11 bankruptcy - it was reviewed and approved by the courts and their debtors. There was no time to make another deal - this was it. The Bakers Union just refused to believe it; they were convinced that management had another card up their sleeve when management simply did not. The Bakers Union was convinced that the management team was bluffing with the threats of closing the doors. They weren't. Have you read the analyses of this? Again, even the Teamsters were behind it. Are you sure that you understand how bankruptcy works? How is closing doors a 'cleaner' way out? Everyone was screwed. There was no money. Nothing. There were no other options. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. However, the belief that there was some sort of nefarious management meeting where it was decided that they could just stick it to the Bakers Union by closing operations, and everybody loses their job is incredibly far fetched.
After all, we all know unions are the source of all evil.
Again, see my comment above - I never stated anything like this here: However, while everyone in the company (including the larger union; the Teamsters - who accepted the deal) were working to save the company, the Bakers Union worked for themselves to ultimately destroy it. Again, this mess wasn't their fault, but they stepped in at a critical juncture and became the last straw. They could have saved the company; admittedly for how long nobody knows...but it was the Bakers Union that put the last nail in the coffin. This is not an indictment of all unions, but this one didn't do any of the 18,000 people in the company a single favor. (Emphasis added). Again, I just don't see the ethics of screwing everyone else over by taking a collective action like that. I also don't understand how you're arguing that this was only a one-sided thing. There was plenty of blame to go around...but the Bakers Union decided to take the ship down with them.