Russ DeKuyper: You know how much I got to make to keep $300 cash in our tax bracket? I got to make $800– maybe a thousand dollars that’s why I want that check. Now, you give me that thousand dollars!
All in the Family Edith gets a Mink 1972
O’Reilly: your fathers are much braver because they carry responsibility, for you, your brothers, your sisters, and your mothers. And this responsibility is like a big rock that weighs a ton. It bends and it twists them until finally it buries them under the ground. And there’s nobody says they have to do this. They do it because they love you, and because they want to. I have never had this kind of courage.
The Magnificent Seven 1960
We’re not going to take it Anymore
Twisted Sister 1984
I’ve been pretty hard on the Bakers Union concerning the Hostess strike but I’ve noticed one consistency in people who have worked either as drivers for Hostess or other places.
All seem to agree that the Bakers had a point, I spoke to a driver from a rival company that has all the work he can get with Hostess gone, and he said if it was him, he wouldn’t have taken the deal, not with big bonuses going to execs. He said with the cuts they would basically be working for nothing.
I disagreed with the premise under the 92% of something is worth more than 100% of nothing but it occurred to me: Could these bakers have decided they were “Going Galt”?
After all is one perceives they are not getting the reward for had and increased labor it makes no difference if it is government or management that is taking the surplus, the net effect is the same.
Of course in theory if it is management one can find another employer but to the baker with a more specialized profession they might not see it that way.
So in that sense the bakers are no different that any other professional who has decided they just aren’t working anymore for less.
That is as it may be, but if it is true I believe there are three factors that I believe they are forgetting.
1. There are 18,000 people not in the union that might have disagreed that are now unemployed a month before Christmas. In fairness to the union they are not their responsibility, in the words of a man named Vanderbilt: “The public be damned I work for my shareholders.”
2. If the bakers made the deal there is nothing to stop any of them from looking/applying for a different job while still working. Anyone can tell you it’s a lot easier to find a job if you have one then if you don’t.
3. I suspect that unlike the higher end folks choosing “Going Galt” over government the bakers are unlikely to find quicker employment or have the kind of money to be able to “Go Galt” comfortably.
One might argue that the principle is not the same, I would argue if you still have a mortgage to pay and a family to support the fact the principle is the same is irrelevant to the bottom line of paying your bills.
You could say: “That’s not fair.” This is true but irrelevant, life isn’t fair and if people choose not to take the necessary steps to pay their mortgages or rent the judge in the eviction/foreclosure court is not going to find: “life’s not fair” a winning argument.
Now maybe these guys will manage to find other work, maybe they will go into business for themselves, maybe when Hostess is sold off, some will be rehired (likely with less pay and extras.) but I’m betting a lot of them are going to be a lot worse off and their wives and families will pay for it…
…along with 18,000+ others.