If there were any doubt about the tendencies of the Trib's editorials (“Sure, we lean to the right,” Trib commercials say), consider the editorial “Another union shakedown: Rewarding thugs” (March 5 and TribLIVE.com), which cites Heritage Foundation information concerning government assistance to the now unemployed Hostess bakery workers. The editorial's headline just about says it all, and the diatribe ends with a charge of union “extortionist thuggery,” no less.
The Heritage Foundation has no comment at all, of course, on the $436 million payoff to top execs of H.J. Heinz Co. who are soon to join the ranks of the Hostess workers — which is to say, those without a job.
I am not going to comment on the culpability of the bakery workers in the Hostess demise, whether their unemployment is self-inflicted or not, whether they are much to blame or partially to blame.
I will say only that it seems to me they had conceded wages and benefits twice before, and that in cases of this kind — where the survivability of a company falls to worker give-backs — you can pretty much figure that as the last stop on the avenue of poor management.
In the Heinz matter, hearty congratulations for a job well done. And I certainly do not think $436 million is an obscene amount when you factor in day care and the price of gasoline.
Robert J. Bush
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- No new stadium for Kiski
- Better immigration recipe
- Revisionism now
- Enforce immigration laws
- Quarantine quandary
- Election in review I
- On right track
- Election in review II
- Climate, guilt & the left
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Cal U’s football problems