another HBO Doc in the Box

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100909/REAL_ESTATE/100909881

Once again HBO Documentary Films has created another suspect tear-jerker, 'No Contract No Cookies', which, if you have HBO is in the 'on demand' section. I encourage everyone to watch it.

The film chronicles the year long strike and culmination of the Stella D'oro Cookie Company. Here is How HBO describes the 'synopsis':



http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/no-contract-no-cookies-the-stella-doro-strike/index.html#/documentaries/no-contract-no-cookies-the-stella-doro-strike/synopsis.html


And here is the accompanying whine bar retort from our Tin Foil Friends at Huffpo:

"The new HBO documentary, No Contract No Cookies: The Stella D'Oro Strike, premiering on HBO2 tonight at 8pm, tells the story of a beloved Bronx bakery, founded by Italian immigrants in 1932, that now lies shuttered, like so many factories all over America. The saga of how the company went from a thriving family-owned enterprise to a gutted equity fund acquisition is a success story only if you're rooting for our modern day robber barons. For the dwindling middle class and the unwashed masses, it's an American tragedy that's being repeated all over the country.

No Contract No Cookies puts a poignant face -- or 138 faces, to be precise -- on the massacre of manufacturing jobs that CEOs routinely commit in the name of prosperity. At the Stella D'Oro factory, folks from 22 different countries worked convivially alongside New York natives and gained a foothold in the American middle class, only to be kicked off the ladder when Brynwood Partners, a private equity fund, bought the company. In 2008, when the workers' contract expired, Brynwood demanded a 30% pay cut."

Ahh, yes. The storyline defines itself: picture the nameless, faceless, evil corporate overlord raider known as Brynwood Partners, or as I will refer to them BP.

The bakery was founded in 1932 and the immigrant family that owned the factory sold it to Kraft Foods in 2002( CHA CHING!) . After 4 years, Kraft food sells it to BP. BP operates it from 2006-until fall 2008 ( when the econimy went in the sh*tter ) and goes and tells the Union bosses in the Bronx "hey, we need to cut costs. Were taking it in the pants. Help us out here. Were paying 18$-22$ an hour for unskilled labor with 9 weeks paid leave! Lets back that down for 5 years until we get out of this slump. Is that reasonable?'

The Union Bosses say 'Say What? Your talking going from 18$ and hour to 13-14$? And less paid leave?! Hells to the No. Why dont you show me your books so we can see how much a 'jam' you are in ,and then we will talk'.

Show me your books, please. Where have I heard that one before?

So at this point, the strike in on. Now your the Union Boss: your job is to look out for the laborers. I get it.

And I also see BP's dilemna. They were already not showing 'good enough profits' and with the strike they werent making any more. The scabs could not produce what the Union Laborers could do. So now the brand and the bottom line is starting to feel it. And c'mon. 9 weeks paid vacation and 23-24$ an hour? Its UNSKILLED LABOR that can be performed by those without a significant grasp of the English language, as per it's founder. I know, it's the Bronx, but that is an incredibly sweet deal!! Right? What to do?

Well, the way HBO and the director Jon Alpert look at it: BP is out to 'screw' the laborers. And they do this with heartfelt imagery, of the immgrant founder to the 130 odd non native born workers. The Greek mechanic that dines with the Vietnamese machinist ponders his life here and curses the picket crossers.

And the music swells, the juxtapositioning of stills and people tearfully leaving thier job for good should be a harbinger for industry in the Northeast. After a long, long strike the laborers agree to the 'deal'. BUt in that time, the company's worth and projected profit had taken a nose dive. So, BP sells out to King Cracker: Lance Corporation from good ol' North Cackalacky.

Lance then decides to repay the striking workers by shuttering the damn thing, sending up trucks to get thier equipment out of there, loading up and moving to Ashland Ohio, where there is no Union.

Now, since the doc has come out the Union won a decision against BP that it had 'negotiated in bad faith' and will probably get a couple million dollar settlement. Thats going to mean alot of Union Atnny fee's and Union recompense so in the end the workers that went on strike will get paid what they would have made had they not gone on strike for a year or so. But the 'job' is long gone. The factory that had been an integral part of the Bronx is now empty, and a nice new facility in Ohio is employing slightly less. And still putting out those Swiss Fudge cookies that the Orthodox Jews up there die for, they arent made with butter or milk.

The interesting thing to me is how the documentary filmmaker declines to show the ugly side of the Union that helped bring on the factories demise. It really is glaringly obvious to the naked eye. No follow up on the 'new non union' employees in Ashland Ohio, only focusing on the mostly immigrant class that ends up losing thier 'bread and butter', so to say. To be sure BP is not guilt free here, but they are made to look quite Darth Vader-ish.


Watch the doc and read the signs:

'Boro Jobs Before Profits'?! For real?

'My Job is my Right'? Your WHAT?!

'Taxpayers and Workers OWN Stella D'oro'. Okay stop right there.

How would you deal with these idiots? I would do exactly what they did. Close up and move to where the employees arent that 'special'.

How how did it all work out?

So what has happened to the people in the documentary?

Some found other work, and some are on the dole. In an interview the director said about 35% of the workers were still employed. The rest retired, or went on assistance.

Lance is now making the cookies, just not in the Bronx anymore. As long as they turn a profit, they will be around for years to come.

The Union bosses still got paid thier high salary, and the lawyers made thie hours, the original owner made $$ and sold it, BP broke even and sold it, and Lance Crackers now runs it.

The only losers here were obvious to see.

this parade of fools

Pawlenty: Puh-lenty of crap. Out of the race.

Herman Cain: his answer to the Iran problem proved he is only capable as a cabinet
level position. If he honestly thinks we can defeat the shieks and militants by energy independance, he is mistaken. Time is against us. We do not have the infrastructure nor the political will to pull it off. Sorry, Cain your not Able.

Huntsman: who-man? Do we really need another holy underwear crusader in the mix? Good grief. We need to run screaming from the religious crazies like they were on fire.

Bachmann: which brings us to her. Her husband's 'wide stance' and her Palin-esque non mastery of simple history and facts will bury her. If this is the best the Tea Party (tm) can come up with, give it back to the British!

Newt Gingrinch : Newt? Not. A Prayer. Need I go on?

Rick Santorum: You know, he's not that bad fiscally, but he is another bible thumper. His views on same sex marriage dont jive with me. I'm just not that concerned about the 'state of marriage', and even if I was, I doubt I would want this guy as it's Representative. So, that leaves......


Rick Perry: Honestly, I dont know much about him. My first impression is he is Bush-like, even though there is no love lost between them.If I have to choose a Texan then I guess I go for...

Ron Paul. Well, I'be been one of those 'Paul-tards' a 'Ron-Bot' and I admit I have bias. He EASILY wontthe debate and came in 2nd in the straw poll. Best of the litter.

Dishonorable mention: Trump and Palin. Enough already!

Honorable Mention: Gary Johnson. He is getting 'Ron Paul Screwed' this time. He should be heard, but it is his time in the barrel.

That's my 2 cents.

Could the London Riots happen here?

It is very unlikely that anything similar would happen here. I credit Hollywood, community colleges, and improvements in policing. Guns, the death of "mom and pop" retailing, poorly developed public transportation, and a strong black-market for drugs should probably get honorable mentions.

Hollywood sells the dream, quite effectively, that you too can be Jennifer Lopez or Snoop Dogg, Snooki. If this is the prevailing notion, its more difficult to collect enough hopeless youth to make a riot. Moreover, fantasies are not the only dreams being sold. Community colleges take everyone, are affordable, and help lift folks, including those who once dropped out of school, and create a sense of success in a population that might not feel it otherwise. Finally, our police departments more and more do reflect the populations that they police. Look at the London pictures. If their police department is substantially integrated its not coming across in pictures.

Secondly, we are not tremendously mobile. The U.S. is a big place and if you don't have a car you cannot get to Walmart very easily to loot or riot, and even if you do, how will you get home? And if you do have a car, you probably worked hard enough to get it that you don't want to risk it by rioting. Certainly there are smaller shops in large cities. Many such shops were targeted during the L.A. riots--including many operated by unarmed Koreans and other Asians. Think they're still unarmed? That is one big difference in this country: thieves have as much or more to fear from the gun behind the counter than from the police. Could they bring their own guns? Sure. But it takes a different level of brazenness to rob at gun point than to help yourself to wine while everyone stands aside. At minimum, any rioting here would be a lot more deadly, even if fewer people were involved. That alone, I think, would discourage wider participation.

Finally, have you watched the Wire? Do you know how much work it is be a criminal? This country has a lot of industrious folks who are not represented in our employment and unemployment numbers.

Whatever the numbers say about a growing divide in wealth, Americans do not sense this very strongly. Everyone here is a potential millionaire if not billionaire. Who wants to destroy that?

If there are riots they will only occur in downtown areas and wont be spread out like London.

I could be completely wrong...

Bereaucracy Now!

check out this clip from Judge Judy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuCKkOkQcHY&feature=player_embedded#at=351

NOw, imagine if the situation was reversed. A hot, 22 year old girl who is attending college moves in with a man who is 30, has a job but covets her company. NOw, if she gets 'rent' $$ for going to school, but it's covered because the 30 year old troll likes her, then she would not get crap for using her rent money to go to the gym and buy makeup. But if it's a guy and a 30 year old fat chick: different story, huh?

And this: is just too perfect. Having dealt with neighbors and city codes, this is right up may alley. H/T American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/balusters_and_bureaucrats.html



By David Workman
Having purchased an old house, a friend of mine, John, was informed that the house had a number of code violations. Specifically, the railing on the porch, at only twenty-one inches, fell considerably short of the city's required forty-two. This is a safety issue, he was told. Apparently, in 1901, when the house was built, children were only half the size that they are now -- or perhaps twice as aware of their surroundings. In any case, he was going to have to replace the porch railings.

So he did. He found a carpenter, who lathed out new balusters in the same style, which was expensive. John could have purchased ready-made uprights, but it was important to him to keep the porch looking as it had. It was while the balusters were being installed that the trouble started.

The trouble arrived in the form of Joyce, a representative of the Historic Preservation Society. She had noticed that the old balusters had been removed from the porch and was, she said, surprised that her office hadn't been informed. John didn't see why he should have to inform anybody that he was bringing his home up to code, and he told her so.

John isn't entirely diplomatic. One might characterize his attitude as dismissive, but since he really did want Joyce to go away, such an attitude seemed appropriate. It did not seem so to Joyce, who didn't care to be casually rebuffed in her efforts. She began to make her case.

The house, as I said, was built in 1901. Up until the year 2000, the previous owners could have done anything they wanted to it, including improving the porch to meet code requirements. But in the year 2001, the house turned 100 years old. The Historic Preservation Society took an interest, and voilà: here was Joyce, trying to exert some authority over John's property.

While Joyce recognized that the porch was not up to code, her only solution was to replace the balusters in their original style and height and add an additional railing at the prescribed level. John declined this suggestion. The carpenter, who had stopped in his work and was listening to this exchange, was informed that he should continue, and Joyce was informed that the code enforcement officer would be on site the following week to certify that the dangerous porch railing had been replaced. John invited Joyce to meet with him then, although the nature of the invitation left no room for doubt that her presence was not eagerly anticipated.

When Roger, the code enforcement officer, arrived the following Tuesday, it became clear that Joyce had been lurking nearby, for she arrived hard on his heels. She again stated her case, which John had already heard and rejected and which was of no interest to Roger whatsoever.

After measuring the height of the railing, Roger was ready to sign off on the improvements. Joyce persisted. Roger still did not care and explained that his concern was simply certifying the improvements. John then inquired as to the repercussions of ignoring the building codes. Roger informed him that a fine of $500.00 could be levied each month, and the building could be deemed uninhabitable. John then asked Joyce what the repercussions of ignoring her demands. When he was informed that she could issue only a single fine of $200.00, John wrote a check, handed it to her, and asked her to leave.

In a perfect world, this would be the end of the story. John was happy that his home was inhabitable, consistent with the code, and still exhibiting the style that he had first found attractive. Roger had done his job, which consisted of taking a couple of measurements, but which we can assume will spare untold numbers of incautious children and intoxicated adults from pitching off the porch. The carpenter earned his pay and later got a recommendation when another friend of John's was looking to have some windows fitted. Sweetness and light all about, one would guess.

But this story includes a minor-level bureaucrat who had been spurned. At the next meeting in City Hall, Joyce stood to speak to the councilors. She might have pointed out that the regulations of two city agencies were at odds, and that some clarification was in order. But she didn't. She might have suggested a review board capable of making a ruling when two different mandates conflicted. She didn't do that, either. What she desired of the City Council was the authority to fine homeowners $500.00 per month.

To Joyce, and the other one million, eight hundred thousand civil servants in America, the problem isn't that there are too many regulations, and those too contradictory, that overburden the citizen who attempts to comply. The problem is that one agency enjoys a prerogative some other agency does not -- that agencies are not equal in their ability to coerce. Since the real problem -- the reconciliation of contradictory regulations -- was never addressed, the next move is almost certainly that Roger will seek his own privilege to impose greater fines.

Though our politicians are constantly in the spotlight, it's these little exchanges that truly make all the difference. More than anything, it's these petty bureaucratic arms races that impact our daily lives, punish the citizen, degrade privacy, and erode the value of personal property.

Taxes are low?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip



The first problem with the article is the misplaced importance of Tax Rates, as opposed to Tax Revenue. Regardless of whether tax rates go up or go down, the deficit is a result of Tax Revenue falling short of government spending.

And while Tax Rates may be at a 60 year low, Tax Revenue is up. In fact, Tax Revenue as percentage of GDP is above 20 year, 40 year and 60 year averages. Why didn't the USA Today article point out this fact?
1) Was the journalist not aware of this fact?
2) Is it because the article didn't want to highlight the point that tax rate cuts can actually increase tax revenue?
3) Is it because liberals will use the historically low rates as a means to justifying a tax rate hike?
4) Some combo of the above?

The second problem I have with the article is the loose connection between low tax rates and the Tea Party Movement's concern about high taxes. Granted, the article does state that the Tea Party is worried about excessive gov't. spending, but those on the left are jumping to the conclusion that this article is some sort of proof that the Tea Party doesn't know what it's talking about.

The third problem I have with the article is the use of average income and average tax rate. It only tells part of the picture. Why didn't the article include median income and median tax rates? May favorite sentence in this article is as follows:

“That means a $3400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.”

The first thing that ought to jump out at you as a huge red flag (or red herring in this case) is the $102,000 average annual income.

While I have no reason to doubt the average income in the US to be $102,000, the 2009 median income in the US was roughly $50K (I’ve researched median income from several sources and the numbers range from $46.5K to $52K). Median income simply means that 50% the households in the US earn less than $50K and 50% of the households earn more than $50K. In fact, if you look at the distribution of income across the US, less than 20% of the US population makes $102K or more. So, something like 4 out of every 5 American households make less than the published average. The reason economists have always chosen to use median income instead of averaage income is to avoid the discrepancy below.

But what makes America sound wealthier?
1. An average income of $102K?
2. A median income of $50K?

The fourth problem I have with this article is that is does nothing assess government spending. To reiterate, the deficit is a result of Tax Revenue falling short of government spending.

Obama targeted tax increases for the rich, and he defined rich as households earning $250K per year or more. Are we to assume that the multi-trillion dollar deficit will be recovered by taxing the rich. Only 1.3% of the households in America earn $250K or more per year. Wake and smell the math problem. There simply is not enough of a tax base to recoup that level of spending.