If the executives actually gave a damn about the company they wouldn't have given themselves raises in time of fiscal distress.
The executives didn't care. They decided to take the company for what they could, before abandoning ship. While the strike is what put the last nail in the coffin, the company is using the Unions as a scapegoat so people will ignore the fact that it was management that built the coffin, and put more then half of the nails in.
Well, I think the media is using the union as a scapegoat more than the management is. Management has actually said that they are at fault as well, could have done more and been more proactive, and misread the situation overall (re: knockoffs and healthier snacks).
As much as the Republicans might have been esposing throughout the election the notion of "job creators", that's really not why you have a business. It is to make money for youself, not to provide jobs for others.
With that said though, I agree with you. And, personally, I would cut my own pay before (and/or in additon to) that of my staff. But, they're under no obligation to do so. So, I don't think I can really fault them. Perhaps simply for optics. But in the long-run I don't think it would have changed anything.
Whatever the events leading up to it, the company said they can't afford a strike. The union (one of them. Heck, if Teamsters settled, why on earth couldn't the other one?) tried to call their bluff. That was stupid. Whatever morale argument they were trying to put forward (the union, more than the employees. Employees wanted to work and were trying to cross picket lines to save their jobs), just cost them their livelihoods. And in this economy? Way to go. Would not be surprised if those workers never want to have a union job again.
