Ding-Dong, the Twinkie is Dead Were Labor Unions to Blame for Hostess Downfall

Ding-Dong, the Twinkie is Dead Were Labor Unions to Blame for Hostess' Downfall Photo from Flickr.com by Jenn Durfey And the other, the business.   It is far better to have a job with reduced benefits and wages than to have no job at all, which is something that the striking Hostess workers should have learned by now. By going on strike and demanding more than the company could give, they drove  Hostess out of business, and now more than 18,000 people are out of work. It is more than obvious that pro-union politics are bad for business. As Ted Nugent wrote in an article for the Washington Times about Hostess demise, businesses are not social welfare experiments whose primary responsibility is to provide jobs and meet the demands of ever-shrinking labor unions[but] there is good news. In the private sector, labor unions are quickly becoming extinct. Only about 7 percent of private-sector employees belong to labor unions. This is indeed a good sign, as labor unions often cause large companies to fail. In fact, it is often because of labor unions and their fantastical demands that companies leave the United States, and that union-h eavy states often have weaker economies than ones with less  unionized  workers.  It is abundantly clear that if we want to create â€" and maintain â€" jobs in America, we need to realize that reducing union presence is the first priority.  We dont need the America of the 1950s, with one-third of citizens belonging to labor unions. We need workers who are willing to embrace pro-business ideals, and who will be willing to have their wages and benefits cut if thats what is needed to keep the company afloat. If Hostess union workers had come to this realization and backed down, the company would be in business,  and 18,000 people wouldnt be out of work. But which is right? As Paul Krugman writes in his recent article for the  New York Times, in 1955 roughly a third of American workers were union membersAmerica in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share; it gave workers the power to bargain for decent wages and benefits; yet contrary to right-wing propaganda then and now, it prospered. Clearly, a country where workers are given the right to voice their demands in the form of unions and in which the wealthy are held accountable can not only do merely alright; it can succeed. Although increased income equality and more presence workers voices are obviously not a priority or in the best interest for everyone, both will benefit the majority. Just because the minority has the money and power does not mean they should have the right to continually run companies into the ground while pinning the blame on labor unions, as they only seek to further their own interests. In the end, union members 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. Union members did not accept this behavior from corporate elite, and Americans should not either. Enough is enough. What do you think about the controversy surrounding Hostess bankruptcy? Sound off below!