Is no job better than a poor job?
November 16, 2012 5:50 AM Subscribe
Help me understand the reasoning behind continuing the Hostess strike when it has resulted in the company going out of business.
I understand the purpose and need for organized labor and collective bargaining. I understand the reasoning behind the strike, which would have significantly cut workers' pay and benefits. But what's the reasoning for continuing the strike, knowing the company would go out of business and kill 18,000 jobs - especially in this economy? Is it that no job is better than settling for Hostess' treatment of their employees?
It just seems counter-intuitive to me that a union would rather drive a company into the ground than find some way to keep its workers employed. Help me see the light!