This is the end of the twinkie defense.

tshuck

Joined Oct 18, 2012
3,534
That's my point, a long time ago unions made sense, now, they don't.

I have not heard of one union in the last 30 years push for anything safety related, not once, it's always been about less time worked, more holidays, more pay, more benefits, etc.

Unions have also had people re-hired, simply because they had union "protection", while every worker around them knew those people should not be working there, and agreed with the dismissal. The time for private sector unions has long past. I know of many people IN unions that would rather not be, they do so, only because they are forced to, either by job requirements, or pressure from other co-workers that are also in the a union.
You think a company would continue these practices if every union simply ceased to exist!? You'd have fair wages and a reasonable benefits package?

In that case, if you send me a signed, blank check, I'll give you the last box of Twinkies ever baked...:D
 

Six_Shooter

Joined Nov 10, 2012
34
Yes, I do believe that would happen, why? Because people would no longer rely on the union to do their work for them, meaning they would move onto companies that would pay them a fair wage, if the current company they were working for wasn't already doing so.

FWIW, I don't feel current wages in MOST unionized industries are "fair", I believe they are over paid for what they do (in most cases). Skilled trades being an occasional exception, but most unions seem to be for non skilled factory work.
 

tshuck

Joined Oct 18, 2012
3,534
Yes, I do believe that would happen, why? Because people would no longer rely on the union to do their work for them, meaning they would move onto companies that would pay them a fair wage, if the current company they were working for wasn't already doing so.

FWIW, I don't feel current wages in MOST unionized industries are "fair", I believe they are over paid for what they do (in most cases). Skilled trades being an occasional exception, but most unions seem to be for non skilled factory work.
I agree that people are overly dependent on their unions, so much so that it becomes a hindrance, however, completely eliminating them puts power into the hands of the corporations.

What happens to these people that are oppressed when the recession kicks in? What happens when the number of jobs dwindles away? Can they move from company to company when every company out there is paying minimum wage?

Not everyone has a year's worth of salary up in the bank to afford a job transition. You assume too much for the people that have little...
 

Six_Shooter

Joined Nov 10, 2012
34
I agree that people are overly dependent on their unions, so much so that it becomes a hindrance, however, completely eliminating them puts power into the hands of the corporations.

What happens to these people that are oppressed when the recession kicks in? What happens when the number of jobs dwindles away? Can they move from company to company when every company out there is paying minimum wage?

Not everyone has a year's worth of salary up in the bank to afford a job transition. You assume too much for the people that have little...
People oppressed by resession would have to deal with reality, that money and jobs aren't just created out of thin air or that their employer has unlimited amounts of money to support their families. I'm not even sure where that comment comes from other than some unions have clauses about lay offs and reduced work time, which is completely rediculous in my opinion, marketplace is what drives demand, which in turns creates or reduces jobs on the supply side.

If minimum wage is all that would be paid for that job, regardless of company, perhaps that's all that job is worth. If someone doesn't want to work for low pay, then they will find a job that doesn't pay low wages, it's a supply and demand problem again, only this time the commodity is labour. If there is low enough supply of people wanting that job, an employer will offer more money to attract workers for that position. What some non skilled union workers gets paid is rediculous. $25/ hr to put a bolt in a hole? Come on, that's minimum wage job at best. There's enough people out that that don't have jobs that would gladly do that for half the money, but because of unions those people can't even get in a position the even be considered because some other unionized employee has "rights" to that job, even though he/she may have no desire to actually do it, complains about that job, then demands more compensation for '"mental anguish, due to repetative and mundane work". :rolleyes:

I don't have a years wages saved up, so I'm not sure where you're going with that comment, but sounds like you're talking about people who live beyond their means, then look for someone else to "pick up the tab", meaning demand more money from their employer, so that debts can be paid off. Here's a thought, don't live beyond what you can afford and you won't need to worry about money, as much. ;) It's kind of a chicken and egg problem, people are driven by material possesions, to enjoy, but mostly try to impress other people, so they buy things on credit, which accumulates and accumulates and eventually get so far in debt that there is no actual way to ever pay off the debt, sk they demand more money, the only to actually get that sometimes is to convince their union that thy are being underpaid, so the union demands higher pay from the employer, which in turn the employer then has to raise prices on thier product or service, which then causes other industries to follow suit, because their employees want to buy said product, which means living beyond their means. Coming back to the first employee they want the product that the second industry supplies and again, throws it on credit, or "needs" more money to aquire said product, starting the spiral out of control, only it's much worse than this.

If unions were not given the power they have today, we would not have the economic issues we do, products and services would cost less, granted wages would likely be less, but the difference in wages and cost of living would be much less than it is now. Unions are not solely to blame for this, but they are a HUGE part of what has caused these economic issues we have today. There are laws and organizations, both public and private sector in place to do everything that the unions tried to do and accomplished in the early parts of the 20th century. I do realize that is unions were never created, that employment situations could likely be very different than they are today, but their time has long past, and are no longer needed. Your ideas of employees being burdened by recession, and wages proves my point, unions are no longer about achieving and then maintaining a safe work environment, but about monitary compensation for the union members.
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
Having worked in both union and non-union shops over the years, I'll take a union job every time if given a choice.

Do you honestly think that if unions went away that wages would stay the same in non-union jobs?

So your saying that executives of a company, that put none of their own money into the building of the company are worth their compensation but the guy that "puts a bolt in a hole", THAT allows the executive to get his compensation is not worth a fair wage?

"Fair" is what a union is there for! Are there good and bad unions and union workers? Yes. Just like good an bad companies and executives. Human nature is human nature, many want as much they can get, and enough is never enough. Something (unions) has to be a reality check, or we would go back to slavery or feudal life.

You don't need to like or belong to a union, but with out them the world would be even more of a place of the haves against the have-nots. If you still don't believe this, divide the yearly wage that any top executive of a company makes by 2080
(40 hours x 52 weeks =2080) and see what they make per hour. Then convince yourself things are fair.
 

tshuck

Joined Oct 18, 2012
3,534
I don't have a years wages saved up, so I'm not sure where you're going with that comment, but sounds like you're talking about people who live beyond their means, then look for someone else to "pick up the tab", meaning demand more money from their employer, so that debts can be paid off. Here's a thought, don't live beyond what you can afford and you won't need to worry about money, as much. ;) It's kind of a chicken and egg problem, people are driven by material possesions, to enjoy, but mostly try to impress other people, so they buy things on credit, which accumulates and accumulates and eventually get so far in debt that there is no actual way to ever pay off the debt, sk they demand more money, the only to actually get that sometimes is to convince their union that thy are being underpaid, so the union demands higher pay from the employer, which in turn the employer then has to raise prices on thier product or service, which then causes other industries to follow suit, because their employees want to buy said product, which means living beyond their means. Coming back to the first employee they want the product that the second industry supplies and again, throws it on credit, or "needs" more money to aquire said product, starting the spiral out of control, only it's much worse than this.
It is not quite as simple as people living above their means. It is naiive to assume that that is what plagues people. That they choose this themselves. My point is that some people live at their means, not above, not below. They live on each paycheck. A small gap in that time could be the difference between homlessness and feeding their family. Some people cannot afford to leave their job. Some people cannot afford the time it takes to look for a job. You are naiive to think that some people actually have and option to live below their means. What happens to the newlyweds that end up having a baby when they barely have enough to support themselves as it is? What happens when there's a medical emergency that requires someone to pay and you can't afford medical insurance? Oh, you'll probably argue, "That's their fault, they should have have medical insurance!", but I say that would be faulty. There are people than can barely afford to live, let alone afford insurance.

If minimum wage is all that would be paid for that job, regardless of company, perhaps that's all that job is worth. If someone doesn't want to work for low pay, then they will find a job that doesn't pay low wages, it's a supply and demand problem again, only this time the commodity is labour.
Yes, because every person has the means to simply walk away from their job. Every unskilled worker can simply demand more money when the previous guy got minimum wage. As you said, plenty of people are willing to take a job, so how can a person attempting to barely get enough to feed their family demand more money for the same job someone else will do for less?

This is not so easy as a supply and demand problem.

What some non skilled union workers gets paid is rediculous. $25/ hr to put a bolt in a hole? Come on, that's minimum wage job at best
Would you want to do it? Could you stand the monotonous drivel of work? Oh, by the way, the company needs you to work overtime today. Oh, and say goodbye to Sunday. Also, your Monday shift starts 6 hours after the end of your Sunday shift.
A union helps to protect against this situation.

People oppressed by resession would have to deal with reality, that money and jobs aren't just created out of thin air or that their employer has unlimited amounts of money to support their families.
because no one deals with this whilst we have unions...

What happens when a 55 year old woman is laid off of her job? Is she going to be able to pay for herself after? Who is going to pay a 55-year-old woman anything when a younger, more able person can do the same job for minimum wage? I don't see how you can justify saying a union has no benefit when the union can help ensure that this exact case doesn't happen.

If unions were not given the power they have today, we would not have the economic issues we do, products and services would cost less, granted wages would likely be less, but the difference in wages and cost of living would be much less than it is now. Unions are not solely to blame for this, but they are a HUGE part of what has caused these economic issues we have today. There are laws and organizations, both public and private sector in place to do everything that the unions tried to do and accomplished in the early parts of the 20th century. I do realize that is unions were never created, that employment situations could likely be very different than they are today, but their time has long past, and are no longer needed. Your ideas of employees being burdened by recession, and wages proves my point, unions are no longer about achieving and then maintaining a safe work environment, but about monitary compensation for the union members.
So the unions cause the creditors to make this credit crisis? The unions are responsible for the housing bubble? The union is to blame for my stock dropping 25% in less than a week?

While I do not argue that the unions have some responsibility, it is minuscule compared to other major factors.

The point of a union is not simply accomplished as you would seem to believe. It is a constant upholding of worker's rights, a battle to ensure proper treatment of employees. The unions keep the corporation in check, if that goes away, what is there to protect workers?
 

Six_Shooter

Joined Nov 10, 2012
34
Having worked in both union and non-union shops over the years, I'll take a union job every time if given a choice.

Do you honestly think that if unions went away that wages would stay the same in non-union jobs?

So your saying that executives of a company, that put none of their own money into the building of the company are worth their compensation but the guy that "puts a bolt in a hole", THAT allows the executive to get his compensation is not worth a fair wage?

"Fair" is what a union is there for! Are there good and bad unions and union workers? Yes. Just like good an bad companies and executives. Human nature is human nature, many want as much they can get, and enough is never enough. Something (unions) has to be a reality check, or we would go back to slavery or feudal life.

You don't need to like or belong to a union, but with out them the world would be even more of a place of the haves against the have-nots. If you still don't believe this, divide the yearly wage that any top executive of a company makes by 2080
(40 hours x 52 weeks =2080) and see what they make per hour. Then convince yourself things are fair.
While I agree that many executives do get paid quite a lot, many do have some huge responsibilities and they get paid what they get paid, without an "executives union" because they put in the effort to learn how to do their skilled job. If the company/CEO/council/whatever didn't feel they were worth the wage, they wouldn't get that wage. Sounds like an entitlement issue there, comparing the employees to an executive and thinking that an executive, by sheer virtue of being an executive gets paid too much. Personally I couldn't care less what an executive gets paid, as long as it doesn't make my pay cheque bounce. If you want to get paid the same as an executive, become an executive. ;)

The problem here is that while most will not admit it, they want society to be a socialist society, where everything is shared equally. The problem is that these same people still want to own more, have better, and live wealthier than the next person, well it can't be both ways. Either you work hard and get paid more, for either working more, or having an unique skill set, or you just plug along at the same level you're at.

I think many that are, or have been union members are getting blinded by the fact that there are unions, and they have not thought about how the job market would be, without them, thinking that the union can only do good, when over the last few decades, has proven time and time again, to be the opposite.

Case in point, Toyota, that has two plants local to me, one in Woodstock Ontario, and one in Cambridge Ontario both are NON-union, and people fall over themselves to get hired by Toyota, wages are high, people love working there, and many stay for many years. The CAW (Canadian Auto Worker Union) has tried on several occasions to convert the plant(s) to a union, and the employees of these plants have voted repeatedly against going unionized. Many of those employees have also worked in unionized factories, and prefer non-union.

Going back to the guy that puts a bolt in a hole, yes, I believe he is worth a fair wage, I do not consider $25/hr to be a fair wage for that, that is way more than that job is worth, and many like it, included. Many people only do a job like that because the wage is what it is, solely because a union somewhere decided that it was worth more than it really is.

It comes down to the people that don't have enough drive, or knowledge to gain those unique skill sets that truly are worth higher wages wanting to get paid as much as people that do apply themselves or have unque abilities.
 

Sparky49

Joined Jul 16, 2011
833
What about the most extreme case of union control?

Russia, the USSR and the Soviets.

The control of the country(s) through unions lead to one of the poorest, most divided countries (Russia) on earth becomming a feared enemy of the US, in about 40 years.

Sure, total control by unions did not last, but see what it achieved?

Not all unions are bad.

But then again, in America you have two parties. One conservative, and one very conservative!:D
 

Six_Shooter

Joined Nov 10, 2012
34
It is not quite as simple as people living above their means. It is naiive to assume that that is what plagues people. That they choose this themselves. My point is that some people live at their means, not above, not below. They live on each paycheck. A small gap in that time could be the difference between homlessness and feeding their family. Some people cannot afford to leave their job. Some people cannot afford the time it takes to look for a job. You are naiive to think that some people actually have and option to live below their means. What happens to the newlyweds that end up having a baby when they barely have enough to support themselves as it is? What happens when there's a medical emergency that requires someone to pay and you can't afford medical insurance? Oh, you'll probably argue, "That's their fault, they should have have medical insurance!", but I say that would be faulty. There are people than can barely afford to live, let alone afford insurance.
Yes, it is THEIR fault, why are people so quick to look at other's to take care of a situation THEY created?

There's a thing called contraception, much cheaper than a baby, especially when you can't afford to have a kid. If the 99.9% effectivness isn't a sure enough gurantee, then don't have sex, simple as that. I don't see why a union, employer, or someone else should have to deal with your (figurative "your) mess.

It's extremely easy to live below your means, I've done it for YEARS, without having an exceptionally high paying job, sure always have been paid higher than minimum wage, but not by much. It's really easy to have affordable housing, affordable vehicle(s), affordable entertainment, etc, it's really VERY easy. The problem is that people get envious of what other people have, either people they directly know, or what they see in the media, and decide that they also "have" to have that, so that's when they start to live beyond there means. It doesn't help when loans and credit cards are so easy to get (most of the time). PEOPLE PUT THEM SELVES IN THIS POSITION AND HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES. Period, end of story.

The only point you brought up that has any validity, is a medical emergency, but that IS what insurance is for, or better yet, the "free" health care I enjoy, being here in Canada, it's much better a system than the American media would have you believe. If I want, I can also have private health care, for additional coverage, which I do, through my Girlfriend's work at this time, but the payment is taken out of her salary, it's an additional cost, but worth it

Yes, because every person has the means to simply walk away from their job. Every unskilled worker can simply demand more money when the previous guy got minimum wage. As you said, plenty of people are willing to take a job, so how can a person attempting to barely get enough to feed their family demand more money for the same job someone else will do for less?

This is not so easy as a supply and demand problem.
It is really, you just choose to not see it that way, I'm not saying that if all private sector unions were abolished today, that there wouldn't be an adjustment curve that would have to be dealt with. Some companies would try to cut wages, and take advantage of their employees, but those would likely also be the ones that fail in the long term, the companies that didn't take advantage of a non-unionized set-up would be the ones that would flourish, and eventually expand, creating more jobs.


Would you want to do it? Could you stand the monotonous drivel of work? Oh, by the way, the company needs you to work overtime today. Oh, and say goodbye to Sunday. Also, your Monday shift starts 6 hours after the end of your Sunday shift.
A union helps to protect against this situation.

because no one deals with this whilst we have unions...
No, I don't want to put a bolt in a hole for 8 hours a day, hense, why I don't work at a job like that, I have chosen to gain more skilled abilities, but if I did choose a job that require a low skill set I would not be expected to be paid anything close to what is being paid for those jobs. This whole idea of "monotonous and mental anguish is just absurd. No one is FORCING these people to do these jobs, they can get a different job, people just say they can't and defeat themselves of actually being able to do something they might be able to enjoy, or get paid the amount they want to get paid.

There are laws in place that take care of this, unions, while they did a great job 100 years ago, are not needed with current laws and public organizations in place to protect people, unfortunatly, protect people from themselves, which is why we have "warning, HOT" labels on cups of coffee. :facepalm:

much of this also boils down to common sense, if you want to make money, you go to work, you do your job and you get paid for that work. Oh you want to make more money, work harder or gain/use a different skill set, that is worth higher wages.


What happens when a 55 year old woman is laid off of her job? Is she going to be able to pay for herself after? Who is going to pay a 55-year-old woman anything when a younger, more able person can do the same job for minimum wage? I don't see how you can justify saying a union has no benefit when the union can help ensure that this exact case doesn't happen.
While that would be unfortunate, what has kept this 55 year old woman from putting away money in some form, (savings, RRSPs, pension(s), etc) for the previous 35 years of her work life? Again, there are laws against being fired, to only be replaced by a younger worker that will work for less, there has to be just cause for the dismissal, which laws cover.

So the unions cause the creditors to make this credit crisis? The unions are responsible for the housing bubble? The union is to blame for my stock dropping 25% in less than a week?

While I do not argue that the unions have some responsibility, it is minuscule compared to other major factors.
I did not say that unions were completely to blame, but they did and do have a large impact on this, to minimize that idea is just turning a blind eye to how hurtful unions are to the economy. Unions are a major part of what almost drove the big 3 out of business, unions demanding more and more, and the auto manufacturers need to compensate by charging more for the vehicles, or reduce costs in manufacturing (actually a little of both), which meant that cheaper and lower quality parts were being used, AND moving jobs from the North American soil to over seas (and Mexico), because it was cheaper to manufacture the part(s) overseas and have it shipped than to continue toe manufacture them in NA.

Isn't it funny how it's now "foreign" auto manufacturers that employ MORE North Americans, that the domestic manufacturers?

The point of a union is not simply accomplished as you would seem to believe. It is a constant upholding of worker's rights, a battle to ensure proper treatment of employees. The unions keep the corporation in check, if that goes away, what is there to protect workers?
Laws, the laws that are in place are there to protect any and every worker employed within the country that those laws govern. There are also public organizations that do the same job as a union used to do, back when a union WAS a good thing, that helped get these laws and regulations in place.
 

Georacer

Joined Nov 25, 2009
5,182
I 'd like to remind all members to keep in mind that their view of the world and its workings is a very narrow one and confined withing by personal experiences withing their country, if not withing their city or even household.

Don't be so quick to dismiss other people's claims and don't be too judgmental of other people's misshappenings.Life can be complicated sometimes.

Be lenient and above all, be humane.
 

Thread Starter

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,087
Hostess has been in bankruptcy for most of the last ten years. The contract in question that killed the company was imposed in bankruptcy court. The sad truth is the union shot a gutted deer in the head.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11372755/1/twinkie-maker-hostess-files-for-bankruptcy.html

Burdened by debts, pension liabilities and the increased operating efficiency of competitors, Hostess reportedly suspended payments on union pensions in December and was struggling to make interest payments on a $700 million loan. In its bankruptcy listing, Hostess Brands claimed between $500 million and $1 billion in assets and more than $1 billion of liabilities. The company also listed the Bakery & Confectionery Union & Industry International Pension Fund as its biggest unsecured creditor with a $944.2 million claim.
 

maxpower097

Joined Feb 20, 2009
816
Name the last time someone dies in a non union shop in the US due to accident or illness.

You are living in the past.
Cell tower workers coming down with cancer and crazy illnesses, fall off a shelf working with stock in a warehouse and break your back. People get killed and seriously injured everyday in the name of work. Heres a day or two ago around here.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oil-rig-blast-search-continues-survivors/story?id=17747321#.UKgEMofAegY
The reason there aren't tons more is because of the unions.

But you want an example thats fine, I know a local electronics recycler that basically operates like he's in china. Hires immigrant workers to bust open CRT's for copper and recycling. Grinding up HD's and all this with no ventalation. He doesn't care he's gonna be worth 8 figures then just close it down.
 

spinnaker

Joined Oct 29, 2009
7,830
Hostess has been in bankruptcy for most of the last ten years. The contract in question that killed the company was imposed in bankruptcy court. The sad truth is the union shot a gutted deer in the head.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11372755/1/twinkie-maker-hostess-files-for-bankruptcy.html
And it should have never gotten to this point. All four unions did their best to help bring this company to its knees. Yeah the unions weren't the only reason. And yes 3 of the 4 unions finally saw the light but it was really too late. The 4th holdout was simply the last nail in the coffin.

All 4 unions should have been working with Hostess for the past ten years yet they chose to do otherwise.



I have never worked for a union but I have had to work with a number of them. In almost every case it was a major pain in the butt for me to get my work done due to overly oppressive union rules.
 

spinnaker

Joined Oct 29, 2009
7,830
Cell tower workers coming down with cancer and crazy illnesses, fall off a shelf working with stock in a warehouse and break your back. People get killed and seriously injured everyday in the name of work. Heres a day or two ago around here.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oil-rig-blast-search-continues-survivors/story?id=17747321#.UKgEMofAegY
The reason there aren't tons more is because of the unions.

But you want an example thats fine, I know a local electronics recycler that basically operates like he's in china. Hires immigrant workers to bust open CRT's for copper and recycling. Grinding up HD's and all this with no ventalation. He doesn't care he's gonna be worth 8 figures then just close it down.

People get hurt and killed even under the safest conditions. I worked for a very large aluminum manufacturer, in the health and safety department and I can tell you that unions had nothing to do with forcing safe working conditions. To the contrary, workers would fight the company on safety rules simply because it was uncomfortable or inconvenient. In all of my time working there we did have several people killed and or injured and mostly it was someone not following the rules. Once in the while someone doing something stupid. Never was it because rules were not in place to protect the workers.

There are laws against employees subjecting workers to unsafe working conditions. Someone operating under such conditions isn't going to allow a union in their shop anyway.

Instead of just telling some anonymous people on a forum, about these unsafe conditions, why don't you do something about it? How can you just sit there is you care so much for worker safety.
 

tshuck

Joined Oct 18, 2012
3,534
Yes, it is THEIR fault, why are people so quick to look at other's to take care of a situation THEY created?
So when a poor immigrant family, attempting to do what you have so simply stated as changing their worth, has a high school student that has to get a job to help support their family, it is that student's fault? When the student can't afford the time to go to college because he/she is working two jobs to help support the family, it's his/her fault that they are in the situation?
There's a thing called contraception, much cheaper than a baby, especially when you can't afford to have a kid. If the 99.9% effectivness isn't a sure enough gurantee, then don't have sex, simple as that. I don't see why a union, employer, or someone else should have to deal with your (figurative "your) mess.
I would seem obvious that you do not have regular contact with Catholics....

It's extremely easy to live below your means, I've done it for YEARS, without having an exceptionally high paying job, sure always have been paid higher than minimum wage, but not by much. It's really easy to have affordable housing, affordable vehicle(s), affordable entertainment, etc, it's really VERY easy. The problem is that people get envious of what other people have, either people they directly know, or what they see in the media, and decide that they also "have" to have that, so that's when they start to live beyond there means. It doesn't help when loans and credit cards are so easy to get (most of the time). PEOPLE PUT THEM SELVES IN THIS POSITION AND HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES. Period, end of story.
It is not so simple as people getting greedy.

The only point you brought up that has any validity, is a medical emergency, but that IS what insurance is for, or better yet, the "free" health care I enjoy, being here in Canada, it's much better a system than the American media would have you believe. If I want, I can also have private health care, for additional coverage, which I do, through my Girlfriend's work at this time, but the payment is taken out of her salary, it's an additional cost, but worth it



While that would be unfortunate, what has kept this 55 year old woman from putting away money in some form, (savings, RRSPs, pension(s), etc) for the previous 35 years of her work life? Again, there are laws against being fired, to only be replaced by a younger worker that will work for less, there has to be just cause for the dismissal, which laws cover.
Well, what kept her from saving money was the fact that she had two kids to take care of. Where was the husband, you may ask. He died when the youngest was an infant. Sure, there was a little bit from life insurance, but nowhere near enough to keep afloat. The mom went back to work, working whenever and wherever she could in order to support her family. Her ability for a life savings was spent caring for her kids.

Oh, yes, there are laws against it, but how can you prove that you were fired for a younger person? The employer can fire a person, and still be in the right(legally), if an employee simply writes a grocery list on a post-it the company bought. While, that is a rather extreme case, it holds all the same.
 
Top