Hostess liquidation decision expected Friday
Hostess has not made any official announcement beyond the CEO's statement. Any update on liquidation would come on Friday.
Eyewitness News has learned insurance, health and welfare benefits for striking workers have been cancelled.
Workers are protesting a contract imposed by a bankruptcy court. The contract calls for an 8 percent pay cut in addition to health care and pension changes. The bakers union has called the contract "outrageous."
A liquidation would result in some 18,000 workers losing their jobs and an uncertain future for American icons Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread.
Over the weekend, workers in the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, or BCTGM, went on strike at Hostess-owned plants in several states. The strike includes workers at the Dolly Madison plant in Emporia, Kansas.
Hostess filed for bankruptcy in January, the second time it has done so since 2004.
Union employees in Emporia say in August of last year the company stopped giving them their pension earning. They say it now wants to cut wages by eight percent.
"You put in the time, you put in the years, I mean, we all have dedicated our lives to the company and they just don't appreciate it," said one striking worker.
Steven Blakey says he he was looking forward to retiring from the company. He says what's going on now hurts not just him, but his family as well.
"I spent 30 years of my life, missed a lot of time with my family, now it's time for me to enjoy that time and I have to keep working, I'm missing out on a lot." said Blakey.
The Dolly Madison plant in Emporia is one of the city's largest employers.
On Tuesday, Hostess said it will permanently close bakeries in Seattle, St. Louis and Cincinnati. Those three plants employ 627 people combined. The strike is impacting 24 of Hostess' 33 plants.
If a resolution is not reached, Hostess said it will file the motion to liquidate Friday followed by a hearing on Monday. If the bankruptcy court approve the liquidation, Hostess could begin closing operations on Tuesday.
Hostess has been around since 1930. In addition to labor issues, the company also faces ever-growing competition and an American public who are becoming more health conscious.
Click for More on History of Hostess
Hostess brands include Wonder, Nature's Pride, Dolly Madison, Drake's, Butternut, Home Pride and Merita.
Hostess liquidation decision expected Friday
Hostess has not made any official announcement beyond the CEO's statement. Any update on liquidation would come on Friday.
Eyewitness News has learned insurance, health and welfare benefits for striking workers have been cancelled.
Workers are protesting a contract imposed by a bankruptcy court. The contract calls for an 8 percent pay cut in addition to health care and pension changes. The bakers union has called the contract "outrageous."
A liquidation would result in some 18,000 workers losing their jobs and an uncertain future for American icons Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread.
Over the weekend, workers in the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, or BCTGM, went on strike at Hostess-owned plants in several states. The strike includes workers at the Dolly Madison plant in Emporia, Kansas.
Hostess filed for bankruptcy in January, the second time it has done so since 2004.
Union employees in Emporia say in August of last year the company stopped giving them their pension earning. They say it now wants to cut wages by eight percent.
"You put in the time, you put in the years, I mean, we all have dedicated our lives to the company and they just don't appreciate it," said one striking worker.
Steven Blakey says he he was looking forward to retiring from the company. He says what's going on now hurts not just him, but his family as well.
"I spent 30 years of my life, missed a lot of time with my family, now it's time for me to enjoy that time and I have to keep working, I'm missing out on a lot." said Blakey.
The Dolly Madison plant in Emporia is one of the city's largest employers.
On Tuesday, Hostess said it will permanently close bakeries in Seattle, St. Louis and Cincinnati. Those three plants employ 627 people combined. The strike is impacting 24 of Hostess' 33 plants.
If a resolution is not reached, Hostess said it will file the motion to liquidate Friday followed by a hearing on Monday. If the bankruptcy court approve the liquidation, Hostess could begin closing operations on Tuesday.
Hostess has been around since 1930. In addition to labor issues, the company also faces ever-growing competition and an American public who are becoming more health conscious.
Click for More on History of Hostess
Hostess brands include Wonder, Nature's Pride, Dolly Madison, Drake's, Butternut, Home Pride and Merita.
Clever Union, 8% paycut NO! we well cut our wonderbread noses off to spite our faces.
18,000 workers will be glorious martyrs to our indomitable spirit!
If the pay cut was court ordered, why the feth did they strike in the first place? And who fething strikes for thier benefits knowning the outcome is LOSING THIER BENEFITS.
Jar Jar no undastand.
AustonT wrote: If the pay cut was court ordered, why the feth did they strike in the first place? And who fething strikes for thier benefits knowning the outcome is LOSING THIER BENEFITS.
Jar Jar no undastand.
It's almost like an automatic response. Workers benefits affected STRIKE! (Workers benefits, i.e: employment, affected).
There's probably more to it that that but I'm happy not knowing all the facts. Damn unions are costing me a transatlantic sugar treat.
I suppose it was about time that wonder bread stopped being so...wonderous to consumers.
AustonT wrote: If the pay cut was court ordered, why the feth did they strike in the first place? And who fething strikes for thier benefits knowning the outcome is LOSING THIER BENEFITS.
Jar Jar no undastand.
It's almost like an automatic response. Workers benefits affected STRIKE! (Workers benefits, i.e: employment, affected).
There's probably more to it that that but I'm happy not knowing all the facts. Damn unions are costing me a transatlantic sugar treat.
I suppose it was about time that wonder bread stopped being so...wonderous to consumers.
No, I get strikes when there's something to negotiate with your employer. But if this line of the story is true
Workers are protesting a contract imposed by a bankruptcy court.
Then that's moronic, they aren't going to negotiate with the bankruptcy court.
AustonT wrote: If the pay cut was court ordered, why the feth did they strike in the first place? And who fething strikes for thier benefits knowning the outcome is LOSING THIER BENEFITS.
Jar Jar no undastand.
It's almost like an automatic response. Workers benefits affected STRIKE! (Workers benefits, i.e: employment, affected).
There's probably more to it that that but I'm happy not knowing all the facts. Damn unions are costing me a transatlantic sugar treat.
I suppose it was about time that wonder bread stopped being so...wonderous to consumers.
No, I get strikes when there's something to negotiate with your employer. But if this line of the story is true
Workers are protesting a contract imposed by a bankruptcy court.
Then that's moronic, they aren't going to negotiate with the bankruptcy court.
Indeed, that only works if you're the UAW and Obama intervenes in contravention of US law.
AustonT wrote: If the pay cut was court ordered, why the feth did they strike in the first place? And who fething strikes for thier benefits knowning the outcome is LOSING THIER BENEFITS.
Jar Jar no undastand.
It's almost like an automatic response. Workers benefits affected STRIKE! (Workers benefits, i.e: employment, affected).
There's probably more to it that that but I'm happy not knowing all the facts. Damn unions are costing me a transatlantic sugar treat.
I suppose it was about time that wonder bread stopped being so...wonderous to consumers.
No, I get strikes when there's something to negotiate with your employer. But if this line of the story is true
Workers are protesting a contract imposed by a bankruptcy court.
Then that's moronic, they aren't going to negotiate with the bankruptcy court.
Ah of course, like fighting the tide kind of thing? Seems pretty stupid., to put yourself on the line for something that has to be done?
Hostess, the makers of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread, is going out of business after striking workers failed to heed a Thursday deadline to return to work, the company said.
“We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike,” Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn said in announcing that the firm had filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to shutter its business. “Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders.”
Hostess Brands Inc. had earlier warned employees that it would file to unwind its business and sell off assets if plant operations didn’t return to normal levels by 5 p.m. Thursday. In announcing its decision, Hostess said its wind down would mean the closure of 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers, approximately 5,500 delivery routes and 570 bakery outlet stores in the United States.
Hostess suspended bakery operations at all its factories and said its stores will remain open for several days to sell already-baked products.
Bimbo Bakeries, maker of the Arnold and Stroehmann brands, is the No. 1 bread baker.
Whats the problem? Bimbo is a big bakery with roots in Latin America (its owner is a Mexican company), hence the name. Good bread and some nice snacks too!
Nobody eats white bread any more, and less people eat junk food. It's just the inevitable tide of history, like a glacier. Perhaps they should switch to making those dodgy dietary supplements that everybody is hooked on.
warpcrafter wrote: Nobody eats white bread any more, and less people eat junk food. It's just the inevitable tide of history, like a glacier. Perhaps they should switch to making those dodgy dietary supplements that everybody is hooked on.
Strange. People say the US population eats less junk food, yet obesity rates continue to climb...
warpcrafter wrote: Nobody eats white bread any more, and less people eat junk food. It's just the inevitable tide of history, like a glacier. Perhaps they should switch to making those dodgy dietary supplements that everybody is hooked on.
Strange. People say the US population eats less junk food, yet obesity rates continue to climb...
Those who can AFFORD to are eating better. The working poor are stuck with what they can afford... and have time to prepare, given that they need to work THREE part-time jobs to make ends meet anymore - two to live on and one to pay off the health insurance racketeers.
warpcrafter wrote: Nobody eats white bread any more, and less people eat junk food. It's just the inevitable tide of history, like a glacier. Perhaps they should switch to making those dodgy dietary supplements that everybody is hooked on.
Strange. People say the US population eats less junk food, yet obesity rates continue to climb...
If you eat more calories than you expand, you'll gain weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from mars bars, coca cola, pasta or wheatbran.
Also it's the soda, which is full of high fructose corn syrup, which screws up the metabolism. I am trying to rid it from my diet, but it's hard. I've switched to one of those "Throwback" sodas, which are made with regular sugar. It seems to be working, since it's not as good as the high-fructose corn syrup variety and so I drink less. If it weren't for my back problems I could work out and lose more weight, but that's the way it goes.
warpcrafter wrote: Also it's the soda, which is full of high fructose corn syrup, which screws up the metabolism. I am trying to rid it from my diet, but it's hard. I've switched to one of those "Throwback" sodas, which are made with regular sugar. It seems to be working, since it's not as good as the high-fructose corn syrup variety and so I drink less. If it weren't for my back problems I could work out and lose more weight, but that's the way it goes.
Working out doesn't make you drop the weight, cardio does. Working out burns naff all calories.
It also doesn't matter if you literally just lie in bed all day. If you burn more calories than you consume, you'll lose weight. You shouldn't really be having sugary drinks *at all*. If you're eating calories make sure it at least fills you up.
Vulcan wrote:Those who can AFFORD to are eating better. The working poor are stuck with what they can afford... and have time to prepare, given that they need to work THREE part-time jobs to make ends meet anymore - two to live on and one to pay off the health insurance racketeers.
warpcrafter wrote: Also it's the soda, which is full of high fructose corn syrup, which screws up the metabolism. I am trying to rid it from my diet, but it's hard. I've switched to one of those "Throwback" sodas, which are made with regular sugar. It seems to be working, since it's not as good as the high-fructose corn syrup variety and so I drink less. If it weren't for my back problems I could work out and lose more weight, but that's the way it goes.
Working out doesn't make you drop the weight, cardio does. Working out burns naff all calories.
It also doesn't matter if you literally just lie in bed all day. If you burn more calories than you consume, you'll lose weight. You shouldn't really be having sugary drinks *at all*. If you're eating calories make sure it at least fills you up.
Building muscle is the most efficient way to burn calories as muscle eats up a lot of your daily caloric intake. I know a lot of people in great shape that don't touch traditional "cardio", and have lost plenty of fat in the process. Proper weight training can be one hell of a cardio workout in itself. Stress, genes, hormones, sleep, leptin and other things also play roles, but let's not get too far out of hand here.
warpcrafter wrote: Also it's the soda, which is full of high fructose corn syrup, which screws up the metabolism. I am trying to rid it from my diet, but it's hard. I've switched to one of those "Throwback" sodas, which are made with regular sugar. It seems to be working, since it's not as good as the high-fructose corn syrup variety and so I drink less. If it weren't for my back problems I could work out and lose more weight, but that's the way it goes.
Working out doesn't make you drop the weight, cardio does. Working out burns naff all calories.
It also doesn't matter if you literally just lie in bed all day. If you burn more calories than you consume, you'll lose weight. You shouldn't really be having sugary drinks *at all*. If you're eating calories make sure it at least fills you up.
Building muscle is the most efficient way to burn calories as muscle eats up a lot of your daily caloric intake.
Over time, yes. If you want to lose weight (or specifically, fat), you still need to do excersise though.
As a general rule anyone who mentions "metabolism" when they're talking about losing weight isn't doing enough exercise. Here's a tip - eat 2,000 calories a day and walk for an hour. You *will* lose weight, healthily and fast.
warpcrafter wrote: Also it's the soda, which is full of high fructose corn syrup, which screws up the metabolism. I am trying to rid it from my diet, but it's hard. I've switched to one of those "Throwback" sodas, which are made with regular sugar. It seems to be working, since it's not as good as the high-fructose corn syrup variety and so I drink less. If it weren't for my back problems I could work out and lose more weight, but that's the way it goes.
Working out doesn't make you drop the weight, cardio does. Working out burns naff all calories.
It also doesn't matter if you literally just lie in bed all day. If you burn more calories than you consume, you'll lose weight. You shouldn't really be having sugary drinks *at all*. If you're eating calories make sure it at least fills you up.
Building muscle is the most efficient way to burn calories as muscle eats up a lot of your daily caloric intake.
Over time, yes. If you want to lose weight (or specifically, fat), you still need to do excersise though.
Couldn't someone just buy up the rights to the Twinkies brand & recipe? It's iconic enough it probably still has some value and it's not like manufacturing them requires any special equipment other folks in the snack-cake business don't already have. At worst they reformulate some if their almost identical products, and cash in on the Twinkies brand.
Chongara wrote: Couldn't someone just buy up the rights to the Twinkies brand & recipe? It's iconic enough it probably still has some value and it's not like manufacturing them requires any special equipment other folks in the snack-cake business don't already have. At worst they reformulate some if their almost identical products, and cash in on the Twinkies brand.
I'd say possible to the point of probable. Someone posted a link to another article that someone may be in the process of purchasing these rights, but I am too overcome with grief to click on the link...
Chongara wrote: Couldn't someone just buy up the rights to the Twinkies brand & recipe? It's iconic enough it probably still has some value and it's not like manufacturing them requires any special equipment other folks in the snack-cake business don't already have. At worst they reformulate some if their almost identical products, and cash in on the Twinkies brand.
I'd say possible to the point of probable. Someone posted a link to another article that someone may be in the process of purchasing these rights, but I am too overcome with grief to click on the link...
Well you could always bake your own. I mean they're just little filled cakes after all, not really complicated stuff.
There is certainly value in some of the Hostess brands and some of them and their operations will be bought by investors or competitors and there is a chance that some of the affected workers will be hired by the new owners, though I am guessing at inferior compensation than what they had with Hostess.
That said, this is a failure of both Management and the Union leadership. Management has failed to lead and develop the innovation required to compete in in a increasingly competitive marketplace and also failed to communicate effectively with the Union that would have encouraged the Union to respond positively. At the same time the Union leadership failed miserably to lookout for the interests of it's members in making a disastrous miscalculation regarding management's resolve and the company's short term prospects, much less the long term prospects, given that the general consensus of anyone outside of this dispute was that Hostess was in a chronic situation where any chances for short term and long term viability rested in part on a rationalization of it's cost structure that would bring it in line with the current market condition.
Oh and for the record I hated Twinkies, would gag trying to eat one, but loved their cupcakes, ding dongs, and zingers (all of which are also made by other companies under different names).
Bimbo Bakeries, maker of the Arnold and Stroehmann brands, is the No. 1 bread baker.
Whats the problem? Bimbo is a big bakery with roots in Latin America (its owner is a Mexican company), hence the name. Good bread and some nice snacks too!
Dakka has failed me. I thought the jokes would write themselves.
Let me try:
Hostess falls to knees before Bimbo
Bimbo outsells the Ho-Ho's
Bimbo beats Ding-Dongs.
Mission accomplished Union! Think the workers will get their wasted dues back?
Best part is the guy with the "Corporate Greed" sign, it's deliciously ironic.
So if you were in a position where you were helpless against your fate, you'd lay down and take it? You'd not struggle?
Sounds pretty weak to me. You should always try to fight for what you want in life, even if it's pointless.
I didn't say anything about weight training, where the feth did that come from eh?
So you should struggle against reality in such a manner THAT IT DESTROYS THE VERY THING YOU ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE. That is what happened here. Hostess did everything it could to keep it's doors open and was obeying A COURT ORDER, these fethheads to their OWN DETRIMENT protested a court order and drove their employer out of business. This wasn't inevitable, this could have been prevented, by those very people with picket signs outside their former place of employment. All they had to do was go to work and save the company and their jobs.
I'm all for fighting the good fight and standing up to the man (I'm anti-union because unions haven't been anything but another boss to pay for a couple decades now) but this is pure stupidity on the part of the workers themselves losing them their jobs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the plus side none of this matters because Swiss Cake rolls are still in production.
Common sense went right out the window when the word "Strike" got fired up. I can't help but chuckle and wondering what the union is telling themselves now
In a statement released this morning, the company explained:
Hostess Brands is unprofitable under its current cost structure, much of which is determined by union wages and pension costs. The offer to the BCTGM included wage, benefit and work rule concessions but also gave Hostess Brands’ 12 unions a 25 percent ownership stake in the company, representation on its Board of Directors and $100 million in reorganized Hostess Brands’ debt.
Not sure what the Unions were holding out for there.
Bimbo Bakeries, maker of the Arnold and Stroehmann brands, is the No. 1 bread baker.
Whats the problem? Bimbo is a big bakery with roots in Latin America (its owner is a Mexican company), hence the name. Good bread and some nice snacks too!
Dakka has failed me. I thought the jokes would write themselves.
Let me try:
Hostess falls to knees before Bimbo
Bimbo outsells the Ho-Ho's
Bimbo beats Ding-Dongs.
Really people, do I have to do everythign myself?
It's pronounced "Beam-Bo" and it means Baby you sick feth.
Bimbo Bakeries, maker of the Arnold and Stroehmann brands, is the No. 1 bread baker.
Whats the problem? Bimbo is a big bakery with roots in Latin America (its owner is a Mexican company), hence the name. Good bread and some nice snacks too!
Dakka has failed me. I thought the jokes would write themselves.
Let me try:
Hostess falls to knees before Bimbo
Bimbo outsells the Ho-Ho's
Bimbo beats Ding-Dongs.
Really people, do I have to do everythign myself?
It's pronounced "Beam-Bo" and it means Baby you sick feth.
Wow, They are destroying the compony because the wworkers refused to work?
WWhy not hire new workers? Or give in to the demands. Surely Less(but still significant) money is better then none at all??
The company had already filed for bankruptcy. One of several reasons why is because they had to pay the union wages and benefits, which can always get bigger and better because the union has a collective bargaining, and if you piss off the union, you lose chunk of your workers due to strikes, and then you get bad press when you hire scabs to fill the empty positions.
So the union workers go on strike because the bankruptcy court says the union must lose 8% of their pay as well as some benefits... So they went on strike to solve this issue... It failed...
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wow, They are destroying the compony because the wworkers refused to work?
WWhy not hire new workers? Or give in to the demands. Surely Less(but still significant) money is better then none at all??
They aren't destroying anything. The blame for this falls squarely on the laps of the Union bosses. Demanding more and more from a bankrupt company with nothing to give is a terrible plan.
In 2009, Hostess came out of bankruptcy thanks in part to private equity firm Ripplewood Holdings, which made a $130 million investment...
So the company was already in bankruptcy, an investment group brought it out of bankruptcy due to a $130 million investment, in which the investors, get this, hoped to one day see a profit on.
The union workers disagreed, and told the investors that they should not only never expect a profit, but that they would continue escalating demands so that additional bankruptcies and additional bailouts of millions of dollars would follow.
So, the investors said: See ya. No use throwing good money after bad.
But remember, it's the people who spent $130 million to bring the company out of bankruptcy who are the villains here.
Just what did the Union expect? An open check book?
I can't believe the land of the free has such bonehead unions. I mean, it's a good thing the union is free to make a choice NOT to support an ailing company and the 18,000 workers.
Funny thing is the union leaders will sit pretty while their members won't be able to afford the very bread they bake.
Mr. Burning wrote: I can't believe the land of the free has such bonehead unions. I mean, it's a good thing the union is free to make a choice NOT to support an ailing company and the 18,000 workers.
Funny thing is the union leaders will sit pretty while their members won't be able to afford the very bread they bake.
That's why I'm of the belief that unions are out of date.
Mr. Burning wrote: I can't believe the land of the free has such bonehead unions. I mean, it's a good thing the union is free to make a choice NOT to support an ailing company and the 18,000 workers.
Funny thing is the union leaders will sit pretty while their members won't be able to afford the very bread they bake.
That's why I'm of the belief that unions are out of date.
They always make me chuckle, especially in supposed non socialist countries.
Good ideas in principle but fail due to the wrong people being in charge, and the associated fear by employers.
Still, you are loosing a sugary snack, we lost a car industry.
AustonT wrote: If the pay cut was court ordered, why the feth did they strike in the first place? And who fething strikes for thier benefits knowning the outcome is LOSING THIER BENEFITS.
Jar Jar no undastand.
Something similar happened at a big local company a few years back. The owners were hurting, and they told their union that they couldn't afford a pay raise, there would be no benefit cuts, but if they union voted for a pay raise the company would close it's doors and everyone would lose their jobs.
Lol did you read the questions and answers at the bottom? Awesome.
Those are hilarious
Q: Hi there, I'm a reporter for the Huffington Post in New York working on a story on demand for Twinkies skyrocketing after the Hostess bankruptcy. I saw your listing and was hoping you might be able to help me out. What price do you think your box of Twinkies will ultimately fetch? Are you yourself stocking up on the pastries? Would love to chat sometime this afternoon -- feel free to call or email. Thanks! Alice Hines alice.hines at huffingtonpost.com 212 402 4702 Nov-16-12 A: Sorry, but I'm saving myself for 'Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld'. Greg is dreamy, TV's Andy Levy is smug and smart, and Bill Schulz sucks. Thanks anyway!
Q: Can I soar through the air on these twinkies, as depicted on the box? Nov-16-12 A: Yes, but only if you sit on said Twinkie whilst flying on an airplane. If you sit on it while on terra firma, you'll probably just end up with a creamy crotch, which as I understand has a following at www.cakesitters.com.
Q: I dare you to post this! The Hostess company is going out of business but selling the rights to make their snacks to another company. So your claim that your Twinkies are going to be discontinued is a lie!!!! Nov-16-12 A: Dare accepted, broheim. There will be a disruption the flow of sweet, creamy Twinkies until such a transfer is made and the new owner (probably China) gets set up for production. If I'm a betting man, I'd say that the goddamned Chinese will buy the brand, make them in the cities of Chiang Kai-Shek, Yao Ming or Kung Pow and export them back to us. Twinkies will never taste the same. They'll probably taste like radishes, cats, rocks, or whatever they eat over there. This is why it is imperative that you get off your dead ass and BID ON THEM NOW!
Q: $50 per twinkie, wow thats a little much dont you think? id go $40 but not $50 lol Nov-16-12 A: You'll think $50 is a bargain when then Twinkie Wars of 2013 come into realized prophecy, at which time you won't be able to buy a Twinkie crumb for $50, mister. Buying a Twinkie now is a hedge against the leviathan inflation that looms.
Q: Can you please tell me if this is the light twinkie? Nov-16-12 A: Are you a communist or something? This is a box of the the full-strength magillas, pal. These original Twinkies were engineered to hold the maximum amount of sugar anything that size could hold. Any more, and sugar crystals would pepper your face like buckshot.
Q: Would you take $800 for two? Nov-16-12 A: I certainly would entertain that.
The union has basically put 180,000 people out of work instead of a few thousand getting a small paycut.
And these arn't guys making minimum wage taking a cut. They're making 40-50 grand.
And the people out of work won't have an easy time finding a job. Hostess's competitors will simply ramp up production without hiring any new workers, easily done with automation and not currently running at full capacity.
The reasons Unions were formed were valid, however today the issues are so petty. The Unions would rather their clients lose their Jobs and say they never caved to demands then to have to compromise.
Its not that the Corporations are deliberatly withholding money. They literally don't have the money to pay their employees.
Its the same story with Teacher's Unions. There is no money to pay them, suck it up and take the pay cut. Its better then having no pay at all.
Grey Templar wrote: Its the same story with Teacher's Unions. There is no money to pay them, suck it up and take the pay cut. Its better then having no pay at all.
My mom hasn't gotten a pay raise in 5 years. But the school board (in the one of the richest counties in the United States of America) can spend $5,000,000 getting new sod for all the foot ball fields and give themselves a pay increase of 5k each.
Vulcan wrote:Those who can AFFORD to are eating better. The working poor are stuck with what they can afford... and have time to prepare, given that they need to work THREE part-time jobs to make ends meet anymore - two to live on and one to pay off the health insurance racketeers.
This has nothing to do with this thread.
Fair enough. My bad.
For an on-topic post: Yeah, the union sure seems to have screwed the pooch on this one. Before making demands, it behooves the union to do a little research and see if their demands will wreck the company first. Striking while the company is undergoing bankrupcy is... foolish, at best.
Lol did you read the questions and answers at the bottom? Awesome.
Yeah those are gut busting! Not looking forward to the Twinkie Wars of 2013 .
On a more serious note, most of the people i know that are part of a union feel that they are obsolete and actually hurt the cause. In Hostess' case I would of hired scabs due to the pay cut being court ordered. Im wondering iif the union bosses deliberately left that part out amd/or undermined the importance or the mob chose to do strike anyway.
I knew this story when posted here would blame the union. And indeed, their hands aren't really clean in this, no question. But please, lets not pretend that this is all because of the evil unions. This are two sides to the story.
Im sorry im not trying to put blame solely on the Union, I wanted some more insight to the workings as my information comes from others in a union. Most of my working life was in the military and all my civ work has been non union.
Got to love when a bankrupt company increases corporate pay by 80%. Sure when you look at it that money wouldn't make a dent with what the Union wanted and how much in debt they were, but it does really show bad faith. I wouldn't want to be in the Unions shoes at that point "So we have to tell our people to take a pay cut when you get a 80% raise....or we all lose our jobs. Isn't there a third option"
There is a lot of anti union sentiment on this thread, and I've had my own issues with unions in the past, but lets remember that corporate greed has gotten way out of control this last decade, the unions may not be the perfect answer and in their own right are just as bad, but at least they are an opposing force. It makes me shiver when I see that since the fall of wallstreet corporate pay has gone up faster than before the fall, yet everyone elses wages and benefits are taking a dive.
I worked at ATT and they wanted us to take a pay cut while the CEO got a significant raise to his already staggering pay. If the company was facing a hard time I believe we might have negotiated a deal, but don't tell me you can't afford my benefits, while the millionaire that runs the company gets a giant raise. It was completely insulting and our Union went on strike and AAT caved after 2 days.
The average Union IS corporate greed personified. It's a second corporation to work for. A bunch of corrupt fat cats who will happily sell the workers out in a minute if it keeps the dues rolling in and some nice kickbacks from the companies their workers are employed by.
Bust the unions. ALL OF THEM, then try it again with some very strict limits on what unions can do with dues and limits on what union leadership can make financially. The list of reforms needed is long, but till then unions are just another corrupt enemy of any schmuck trying to make an honest living.
Clever Union, 8% paycut NO! we well cut our wonderbread noses off to spite our faces.
18,000 workers will be glorious martyrs to our indomitable spirit!
Actually it more like.
We want to you to work harder for less and receive a gak pension so you spend your retirement in poverty while we mismanage the company.
Alternately Twinkies just don't sell anymore.
Yeah, I just read about the mismanagement, fair enough. Having a whopping pay rise for one of the directors isn't a good move in this situation, but then, that seems like a loop hole in American laws.
So managment and the unions/workers are to blame, with with company failing to adapt and change.
Ther are a lot of workers who work hard despite mis-management and being gakked upon, but there is certainly a case here, that workers in different industries like to preserve the staus quo a little too much.
AustonT wrote: If the pay cut was court ordered, why the feth did they strike in the first place? And who fething strikes for thier benefits knowning the outcome is LOSING THIER BENEFITS.
Jar Jar no undastand.
Recently on the Facebook. a teacher shared a 'poster' displaying the timeline of Hostess downfalls.
According to the poster
- Since 2002. Hostess changed 6 CEOs, all of which failed to lift the company status
- 2003: Hostess began closing manufacturing units
- 2004: Hostess went bankrupt for the first time. BCTGM (a form of labour union) and Hostess met the first agreement, BCTGM aggreed to concess wages and benefits, the company recovered $110 M. workers hoped that the concessions was for a common good. between them and Hostess, they even hoped that the lump sum of $110M will be reinvested in the business. all the sacrifies gone in vain because the $110M didn't go to reinvestments, I believe that it went to either Managers pocket or Stock Exchange. (Top managers went to the stockmarket with that large sum of money and exploits their skills to squeeze many more from it. even so they don't bring that fortune back to rebuild their actual businesses mew!)
- 2009: Hostess emerged from bankruptcy. it was not because of the recalmations of the pruned-out production units. but it was because it was owned by equity firms and The Hedge Funds. so they chose not to reinvest but to use their crafts to make another fortunes in the stock exchanges. this mismanagements caused the sales to drop. and the debts to piled up
- 2012: Hostess went bankrupt once again. and THIS TIME IT IS A FINALE. BCTGM was asked to do the same concessions. this time it had been refused. without the concession. the debtors simply liquidated the company assets and cross the HOSTESS name out for good.
This should be HALF OF THE FACTS behind the downfall. it was sent to me by a teacher who became 'Anti-Corporates, Pro localizations' supporters. i NEED another HALF, which came from the Manager's side (and validify their blame on Union yells). The facts, however, seemed to be on the sides of the 'leftists' since the over-emphasis on stock exchanges affairs can actually ruin a money-making industries/businesses. In contrast, hard-working business bosses who emphasizes his / her operations in what his/her business/industry actually earns from. i.e. Products (including services) and stay away from any Stock Market tend to be more successful.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The average Union IS corporate greed personified. It's a second corporation to work for. A bunch of corrupt fat cats who will happily sell the workers out in a minute if it keeps the dues rolling in and some nice kickbacks from the companies their workers are employed by.
Wait isn't that what they would have been doing by accepting the deal? The didn't sell out the workers and they will no longer be getting dues. They stood up against the rampant carpetbagging that is taking over corporate America.
Bust the unions. ALL OF THEM, then try it again with some very strict limits on what unions can do with dues and limits on what union leadership can make financially. The list of reforms needed is long, but till then unions are just another corrupt enemy of any schmuck trying to make an honest living.
This is ridiculous, yes, not all unions are perfect and some go too far, but this wave of anti union sentiment that I see is for the most part uncalled for. What exactly did the Union do wrong here? I see too many people buying into this evil Union rhetoric that corporate America is really trying to sell the American people. If it was not for Unions there would be nobody to oppose corporations from treating their employees however they please. You want Union reform, thats fine, I want Corporate reform first!
In the last ten years we have witnessed the evisceration of the middle class in this country. It's not because of Unions, I'll tell you that. It was because of uncontrolled corporate greed. The Unions appear to be one of the few forces defending middle class jobs, from CEOs that make millions of dollars but cry for the shareholders. So many corporations and even the government have tried to deflect much of the blame onto the Unions, don't drink the cool aid. Unions are for right now a necessary evil and are being attacked by some pretty powerful and rich lobbies for that reason.
Ouze wrote: I knew this story when posted here would blame the union. And indeed, their hands aren't really clean in this, no question. But please, lets not pretend that this is all because of the evil unions. This are two sides to the story.
No one is questioning that Hostess was mismanaged, hense why they're in bankruptcy twice in a decade., you also note dispute the title of your link "Fox Ignores Hostess' Array Of Troubles To Scapegoat Union For Liquidation" there's not a single link to a Fox page ITT. The reason why we're blaming the union, is BECAUSE IT'S THE UNIONS FAULT. Even the OTHER union says so.
Teamsters wrote:Hostess' problems go back almost a decade. The company has clearly been mismanaged for quite some time. However, the workers should not suffer because of poor management and therefore, the Teamsters Union tried everything in its power during the company's most recent financial difficulties to shape an outcome that would put Hostess on strong footing to be viable and preserve jobs. Unfortunately, the company's operating and financial problems were so severe that it required steep concessions from a variety of stakeholders but not all stakeholders were willing to be constructive. Teamster Hostess members, based on the facts and advice from respected restructuring advisors, understood what was at stake and voted to protect all jobs at Hostess.
some fething guy wrote:Yesterday the Teamsters called for the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), which represents about 6,000 Hostess employees, to hold a secret ballot, instead of the voice vote that had resulted in the UFCW rejection of the same concessions that the Teamsters had accepted earlier this year. While not naming the BCTGM directly, it's pretty obvious they're saying the loss of 18,000 jobs at Hostess are the fault of the BCTGM.
But let's not concentrate on the bakery's unions obvious role in losing the other 12,000 Hostess employees including the 9,000 Teamsters thier jobs. Let's talk about the 620 some odd jobs the bakers union fething crowed about on thier own website.
Yeah there's two side to this story.
Theres the side of unemployed workers that voted to keep thier jobs in exchange for a 25% stake in the company, 2 spots on the board of directors, an 8% pay cut followed by a subsequent 4% raise over what was it 4 years? Sure let's go with that.
And on the other side you have the unemployed workers who didn't just cause thier own unemployment they put 2 times thier own number out of work. So yeah for some reason I blame the union.
Hostess could possably have survived if the Union in question had accepted the cuts. Granted, Hostess may not have survived in the long run, but the immediate cause of Hostess's failure is this Union.
Which puts the blame for the loss of Jobs squarely on the Baker's Union. Both their own members and the members of the other Union.
The ones most affected by this will be the chemical companies who, for decades, have been supplying the bulk of the ingredients for Hostess products...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The average Union IS corporate greed personified. It's a second corporation to work for. A bunch of corrupt fat cats who will happily sell the workers out in a minute if it keeps the dues rolling in and some nice kickbacks from the companies their workers are employed by.
Wait isn't that what they would have been doing by accepting the deal? The didn't sell out the workers and they will no longer be getting dues. They stood up against the rampant carpetbagging that is taking over corporate America.[quote/]
Not at all, if they'd accepted the deal they would have kept their workers EMPLOYED. The Unions struck out of their own greed against a COURT ORDER and lost over 18,000 people their jobs. Was the Management in the wrong here? Yes absolutely but the Unions struck the death blow.
Bust the unions. ALL OF THEM, then try it again with some very strict limits on what unions can do with dues and limits on what union leadership can make financially. The list of reforms needed is long, but till then unions are just another corrupt enemy of any schmuck trying to make an honest living.
This is ridiculous, yes, not all unions are perfect and some go too far, but this wave of anti union sentiment that I see is for the most part uncalled for. What exactly did the Union do wrong here? I see too many people buying into this evil Union rhetoric that corporate America is really trying to sell the American people. If it was not for Unions there would be nobody to oppose corporations from treating their employees however they please. You want Union reform, thats fine, I want Corporate reform first!
In the last ten years we have witnessed the evisceration of the middle class in this country. It's not because of Unions, I'll tell you that. It was because of uncontrolled corporate greed. The Unions appear to be one of the few forces defending middle class jobs, from CEOs that make millions of dollars but cry for the shareholders. So many corporations and even the government have tried to deflect much of the blame onto the Unions, don't drink the cool aid. Unions are for right now a necessary evil and are being attacked by some pretty powerful and rich lobbies for that reason.
The Unions are NO DIFFERENT then the bloody CEOs. They're exploiting the working and middle classes just as badly as the company themselves! Look at the salaries of the Union bosses and the way they live. They don't fight fat cats, they are fat cats exploiting you and your labor. You wanna rail against the 1%? Check the headquarters of the Unions, it's just another place for the rich and power to shack up. Call me a scab all you want but I'm damn proud of negotiating for myself and not paying dues into a corrupt system. Sure the boss at the top is still corrupt and fething me over, but at least I only have one boss ripping me off instead of two.
Not at all, if they'd accepted the deal they would have kept their workers EMPLOYED. The Unions struck out of their own greed against a COURT ORDER and lost over 18,000 people their jobs. Was the Management in the wrong here? Yes absolutely but the Unions struck the death blow.
Wouldn't accepting the cuts been selling out their workers to make a buck, just as you said? The union gets nothing from shutting down hostess. But forcing members to take a pay cut while management gets giant raises, just so they could keep those Union dues rolling is it exactly as you put "Selling out the workers". Choose an argument and stick to it please.
A responsible corporate manager wouldn't take from the employees while rewarding themselves with a big giant raise. It's insulting and I can see why they didn't take the cuts. The question is why didn't the bankruptcy judgment put a cap on or even freeze corporate salaries. Why were the employees, who make no management decisions being the only ones punished for.......and wait for it.......MISMANAGEMENT! The whole thing stinks of corporate rats leaving a sinking ship. Management knew the corporation would not likely survive, so they made sure to get as much money out as they could, screw the employees.
I'm not calling you a scab. I'm self employed and have no particular love for Unions, but I would never agree to a deal that is so obviously unfair. Anytime someone has the gall to take a giant pay raise with one hand and tells workers they have to cut their pay and benefits, people should be outraged. Either we are all in this together or we are not. Clearly management was not interested in saving the company, so why should the Union.
What sucks is again the middle class worker gets screwed either way. Take a pay cut or lose your jobs, doesn't matter to management, they have already got their giant salaries and I'm sure some pretty nice Golden parachutes. If management was willing to take the same kind of cuts, then maybe the union would have seen fit to negotiate....but that didn't happen. How could a union rep ever advice their people to take this deal, when it was obviously so lopsided.
Yeah there's two side to this story.
Theres the side of unemployed workers that voted to keep thier jobs in exchange for a 25% stake in the company, 2 spots on the board of directors, an 8% pay cut followed by a subsequent 4% raise over what was it 4 years? Sure let's go with that.
And on the other side you have the unemployed workers who didn't just cause thier own unemployment they put 2 times thier own number out of work. So yeah for some reason I blame the union.
Because there was one side that was not only not interested in concessions, they voted themselves giant raises on the backs of ALL the employees. This shows no real interest in fixing the problem which was mismanagement.
They made the employees lose their Jobs instead of taking a small paycut and keeping their job and benifits.
Again how could you possibly tell your employees that the best thing to do is take a pay cut when the compensation committee of Hostess's board approved an increase in then-chief executive Brian Driscoll's salary to $2.55 million from around $750,000. So this guy who is flushing the company down the toilet gets a raise of almost $2 Million dollars a year, but the workers have to take a pay cut? Who's best interests are they serving....sounds like Driscoll's. That kind of raise should be illegal.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Bust the unions. ALL OF THEM, then try it again with some very strict limits on what unions can do with dues and limits on what union leadership can make financially. The list of reforms needed is long, but till then unions are just another corrupt enemy of any schmuck trying to make an honest living.
The answer is not to pull all the teeth out of the unions but place controls on the way that corporate bosses manage companies. It's clear that those at the top were only interested in lining their own pockets quickly while the company went tits up. And they, like many of those leaping in to bash the union, basically expect the masses of workers to cover the bosses doing this by just bending over and accepting a big pay cut. And it's the unions and workers who are apparently in the wrong here, because they didn't just lie down and agree to being shafted so the company could limp a long a bit longer to give those running it a bit more time to get money out of it.
It doesn't matter if a few managers end up out of a job, it does matter when many thousands of workers end up out of work, it matter to the economy, the load on the social support system and upon the local/wider economy. So why are so many against the workers and the union's demands and thing the solution to prevent this happening in future is to see the unions gutted and stripped of powers instead of doing something about the gak heads running these companies into the ground expecting the workers to feel all the pain just so they can get out with a massive payout?
Apparently resisting being treated like a doormat and being asked to prop up a sinking company while the bosses raid the accounts means the workers are in the wrong. The government should regulate business more, but I knew that this thread would be full of people lining up to kick the unions. Because that's the US way, you'll never regulate businesses in the way that they need to protect the workers because it goes against the enthusiasm for capitalism and the 'land of opportunity' ideal, which appears to mean that people who are rich and clever can tread on everyone else. Anything else would be socialism. It doesn't help anyone when big companies go down costing thousands of jobs, so why is the law made in a way that allows executives to loot a company for their own well being instead of having controls in place to protect the company and workers first? As long as businesses can be run this way, they always will be. All 'reforming' the unions to heavily restrict what they can do will play into the hands of people wanting to exploit companies with little regard for the future welfare of the company or it's staff.
Its still NOT in the best interest of the Employees to lose their Job.
Irregardless of irresponsable executive salaries(the increase of which really would only pay for a handful of employee salaries) its better the take a small pay cut then to lose your job completely.
Grey Templar wrote: Its still NOT in the best interest of the Employees to lose their Job.
Irregardless of irresponsable executive salaries(the increase of which really would only pay for a handful of employee salaries) its better the take a small pay cut then to lose your job completely.
So your of the opinion that people should just shut up and be taken advantage of. Good to know.
Grey Templar wrote:Its still NOT in the best interest of the Employees to lose their Job.
Irregardless of irresponsable executive salaries(the increase of which really would only pay for a handful of employee salaries) its better the take a small pay cut then to lose your job completely.
"Irregardless" is not even the dumbest thing you said in that post. Think about that.
Your statement effectively translates to "it's better to be abused by your boss than to not work at all". But I suspect that will be lost on you, so I'll put it another way for you:
Would you ever sell your house for less than half its market value? No, of course not. So then why would you sell your time and energy like that?
My point is, it was in their best interest to take the paycut and keep their jobs. They can fight for an increase to their pay once the company can afford it.
The Executives getting a pay raise was wrong, but it is the priviledge of the Executive position.
You can't win every fight, and sometimes you need to consider if its better to just take the insult and be better off for it. Or stand up for whats right. In this case, it was clearly better to take the pay cut and resolve the other issues at a later date.
Grey Templar wrote:My point is, it was in their best interest to take the paycut and keep their jobs. They can fight for an increase to their pay once the company can afford it.
The Executives getting a pay raise was wrong, but it is the priviledge of the Executive position.
You can't win every fight, and sometimes you need to consider if its better to just take the insult and be better off for it. Or stand up for whats right. In this case, it was clearly better to take the pay cut and resolve the other issues at a later date.
So how much of a pay cut would you draw the line at?
Take a 25% pay cut or lose your job? Take a 50% pay cut or lose your job? Take a 75% pay cut or lose your job? Take a 90% pay cut or lose your job? Why don't you work for Mexican-strawberry-picker wages? Your alternative is to not work at all!
Where do you draw the line, Grey Templar? I honestly am curious to know. And do remember that an appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
EDIT: "[getting a pay raise] is the priviledge of the executive position" really needs some form of citation. I'm unclear on exactly how that was determined.
Grey Templar wrote:My point is, it was in their best interest to take the paycut and keep their jobs. They can fight for an increase to their pay once the company can afford it.
The Executives getting a pay raise was wrong, but it is the priviledge of the Executive position.
You can't win every fight, and sometimes you need to consider if its better to just take the insult and be better off for it. Or stand up for whats right. In this case, it was clearly better to take the pay cut and resolve the other issues at a later date.
So how much of a pay cut would you draw the line at?
Take a 25% pay cut or lose your job?
Take a 50% pay cut or lose your job?
Take a 75% pay cut or lose your job?
Take a 90% pay cut or lose your job?
Why don't you work for Mexican-strawberry-picker wages? Your alternative is to not work at all!
Where do you draw the line, Grey Templar? I honestly am curious to know.
Depends on the job and my ability to find a replacement. Plus the cost of living.
If the pay cut means I lose income I NEED to survive. Then no I won't take the cut. Although the more likely scenerio is I keep the job while looking for another one. Some income is better then none at all.
If its just cramping my disposable income, then I'll take it.
Given the circumstances of this situation and the Economy, I'd say an 8% cut is more then reasonable.
Take a 90% pay cut or lose your job?
Why don't you work for Mexican-strawberry-picker wages? Your alternative is to not work at all!
Where do you draw the line, Grey Templar? I honestly am curious to know.
Having a job.
If that is truly the case, then please understand, Whembley, my heartfelt desire to hear that you become forced to pick lettuce for 3 cents a head just to avoid starvation.
The Executives getting a pay raise was wrong, but it is the priviledge of the Executive position.
Therein lies the problem. It's accepted 'privilege' of the executives to be able to line their own pockets at the expense of the workers and the company's future.
Grey Templar wrote:Given the circumstances of this situation and the Economy, I'd say an 8% cut is more then reasonable.
I'm calling shenanigans on this for two reasons:
1. Workers taking an 8% pay cut in order to pay for the CEO's bonus because the CEO has done such a poor job that the company cannot afford his bonus is not reasonable.
2. I am sick of hearing about the economy being used as an excuse. I'm pretty sure the consumer-facing Twinkie industry is immune to a bear market.
Grey Templar wrote: Hostess could possably have survived if the Union in question had accepted the cuts. Granted, Hostess may not have survived in the long run, but the immediate cause of Hostess's failure is this Union.
Which puts the blame for the loss of Jobs squarely on the Baker's Union. Both their own members and the members of the other Union.
Wow..I completely disagree with this. Did you see the story where the Union already made huge concessions years before in an effort to help the company, yet the managers continued in their mismanagement? Not to mention the nice raise the management team gave themselves.
I have never been in a union, but I have worked with and around unions and even have managed union personnel. I will tell you that there are certainly bad apples in unions but I will tell you that unions are absolutely a necessary evil in many cases. Without union representation you would have plant managers taking advantage of their workers left and right. When I managed union workers, I was asked to do things( that I refused to do) by my upper management that were unethical, but many other managers and supervisors were willing to do in an effort to curry favor for their ambitions to move up the corporate ladder.
I have experienced the negative side of unions as well, where they file grievances to try and get free money, file grievances to protect job classifications...Electricians cant turn a screw because "that's the carpenters job"..so projects get delayed for days, file grievances because a salaried person moved a small part 10 feet. That's the bad side.
Grey Templar wrote: Hostess could possably have survived if the Union in question had accepted the cuts. Granted, Hostess may not have survived in the long run, but the immediate cause of Hostess's failure is this Union.
Which puts the blame for the loss of Jobs squarely on the Baker's Union. Both their own members and the members of the other Union.
Wow..I completely disagree with this. Did you see the story where the Union already made huge concessions years before in an effort to help the company, yet the managers continued in their mismanagement? Not to mention the nice raise the management team gave themselves.
I have never been in a union, but I have worked with and around unions and even have managed union personnel. I will tell you that there are certainly bad apples in unions but I will tell you that unions are absolutely a necessary evil in many cases. Without union representation you would have plant managers taking advantage of their workers left and right. When I managed union workers, I was asked to do things( that I refused to do) by my upper management that were unethical, but many other managers and supervisors were willing to do in an effort to curry favor for their ambitions to move up the corporate ladder.
I have experienced the negative side of unions as well, where they file grievances to try and get free money, file grievances to protect job classifications...Electricians cant turn a screw because "that's the carpenters job"..so projects get delayed for days, file grievances because a salaried person moved a small part 10 feet. That's the bad side.
GG
I agree with just about every word of this.
Damn you, Grey Templar! You've made me agree with GeneralGrog about something!
Take a 90% pay cut or lose your job?
Why don't you work for Mexican-strawberry-picker wages? Your alternative is to not work at all!
Where do you draw the line, Grey Templar? I honestly am curious to know.
Having a job.
If that is truly the case, then please understand, Whembley, my heartfelt desire to hear that you become forced to pick lettuce for 3 cents a head just to avoid starvation.
Thanks buddy
There was a time in my life that I had to work 4 jobs at the same time... I have an idea what its like to be in that position.
In this case... the Teamster approved the dealio... the Baker's Union did not. That should tell you something.
Blaming it on the CEO's pay itself is disingenuous... bad management overall played a part of this problem as it's their 2nd bankruptcy.
Grey Templar wrote: My point is, it was in their best interest to take the paycut and keep their jobs. They can fight for an increase to their pay once the company can afford it.
The Executives getting a pay raise was wrong, but it is the priviledge of the Executive position.
You can't win every fight, and sometimes you need to consider if its better to just take the insult and be better off for it. Or stand up for whats right. In this case, it was clearly better to take the pay cut and resolve the other issues at a later date.
This is the same argument I hear from all the Rush Limbaugh addicts. The rich and powerful are never at fault. Blame the Unions. Its crap, Executive privilege is pure crap. The fact that somehow the right wing has been able to turn the middle class against itself and actually stand up for these bastards makes me sick.
Grey Templar wrote: Hostess could possably have survived if the Union in question had accepted the cuts. Granted, Hostess may not have survived in the long run, but the immediate cause of Hostess's failure is this Union.
Which puts the blame for the loss of Jobs squarely on the Baker's Union. Both their own members and the members of the other Union.
Wow..I completely disagree with this. Did you see the story where the Union already made huge concessions years before in an effort to help the company, yet the managers continued in their mismanagement? Not to mention the nice raise the management team gave themselves.
I have never been in a union, but I have worked with and around unions and even have managed union personnel. I will tell you that there are certainly bad apples in unions but I will tell you that unions are absolutely a necessary evil in many cases. Without union representation you would have plant managers taking advantage of their workers left and right. When I managed union workers, I was asked to do things( that I refused to do) by my upper management that were unethical, but many other managers and supervisors were willing to do in an effort to curry favor for their ambitions to move up the corporate ladder.
I have experienced the negative side of unions as well, where they file grievances to try and get free money, file grievances to protect job classifications...Electricians cant turn a screw because "that's the carpenters job"..so projects get delayed for days, file grievances because a salaried person moved a small part 10 feet. That's the bad side.
GG
Well... the biggest benefit of Union shop are the safety measures.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Start making your own!
Ouze wrote: I knew this story when posted here would blame the union. And indeed, their hands aren't really clean in this, no question. But please, lets not pretend that this is all because of the evil unions. This are two sides to the story.
No one is questioning that Hostess was mismanaged, hense why they're in bankruptcy twice in a decade., you also note dispute the title of your link "Fox Ignores Hostess' Array Of Troubles To Scapegoat Union For Liquidation" there's not a single link to a Fox page ITT. The reason why we're blaming the union, is BECAUSE IT'S THE UNIONS FAULT. Even the OTHER union says so.
I wasn't trying to make this about Fox News, so please ignore that element of the page. The reason I used that page is because it had the best timeline of stories that showed the considerable, even equal; role that corporate mismanagement played in them going under. FFS, did you read that link about them going into bankruptcy with $650 million in debt and coming out with $800; and about all the concessions the unions had made in the previous decades?
I mean, you can decide that we live in a complex world where there are cascades of failures over the course of years of missteps in several avenues and another bankruptcy was likely inevitable within the next year or two regardless of the result of the labor dispute. Or, if you prefer, we can live in a simplistic world where the union struck for higher wages even though they knew it would cost them their jobs because they are stupid and short sighted, even though even a casual application of common sense would show that the situation couldn't possibly have been that simple. I guess it's your call.
Well... the biggest benefit of Union shop are the safety measures.
That is certainly part of it...but there is also elimination of sweatshop conditions. For example..lets say you have worked 14, 12 hour days in a row and you are looking forward to a day off when your supervisor at the end of your 14th day, tells you you need to work yet another 7, 12 hour days in a row, so the plant can get 1 day ahead of schedule.(looks good on MGT reports, but otherwise meaningless).
Unions can help prevent worker abuse like this. There are many managers who think of workers as nothing more than beasts of burden that they can use up churn out to help their numbers look better.
Undocumented labor has it the worst. because if they complain, all of a sudden the INS shows up at their trailer. And there are 3 more waiting in line to take that complainers place.
People who use this as another reason to bash Unions have no understanding of the issue. We can repeatedly see the unions making deals to keep the jobs in the past. Had the offer been acceptable I believe they would have taken it. While it may be "executive privilege" to give themselves raises, the Union has the privilege of turning down offers that are clearly disingenuous.
By Templars logic the Union should have taken any offer that was provided just to keep them working. That is not what Unions are for, you don't even need Unions at that point.
What I think you will see is that the corporation and funds that owned hostess were not really interested in saving the company. More money will be made by selling the IP and liquidating assets then they saw ever returning from actually running the business. This happens all the time.
The question I have is how were they running so poorly. I mean hostess is a big respected brand. It probably was the most respected and recognized in its industry. Little Debbie by comparison seams almost generic does the same thing and charges about half and makes a profit. Something really messed up here.
Take a 90% pay cut or lose your job?
Why don't you work for Mexican-strawberry-picker wages? Your alternative is to not work at all!
Where do you draw the line, Grey Templar? I honestly am curious to know.
Having a job.
If that is truly the case, then please understand, Whembley, my heartfelt desire to hear that you become forced to pick lettuce for 3 cents a head just to avoid starvation.
Thanks buddy
There was a time in my life that I had to work 4 jobs at the same time... I have an idea what its like to be in that position.
So then why voice a comment so contradictory to understanding "what it is like to be in that position"? Is it pure spite? or is that strange laissez-faire-capitalist zeitgeist of "I've got mine so feth you"?
Honestly, I would like to know: I just cannot figure it out.
Take a 90% pay cut or lose your job?
Why don't you work for Mexican-strawberry-picker wages? Your alternative is to not work at all!
Where do you draw the line, Grey Templar? I honestly am curious to know.
Having a job.
If that is truly the case, then please understand, Whembley, my heartfelt desire to hear that you become forced to pick lettuce for 3 cents a head just to avoid starvation.
Thanks buddy
There was a time in my life that I had to work 4 jobs at the same time... I have an idea what its like to be in that position.
So then why voice a comment so contradictory to understanding "what it is like to be in that position"? Is it pure spite? or is that strange laissez-faire-capitalist zeitgeist of "I've got mine so feth you"?
Honestly, I would like to know: I just cannot figure it out.
Because, it's never as simple as Unions vs Management.
Testify wrote: God I wish I had access to work like that at that age.
You just gotta be willing to do just about anything and look for them. That's the hardest part, going out to find any job (not the one you're looking for).
gak... I'd go to local golf place, and they paid me to rebuild a couple sand bunkers... man, that was back breaking labor (we had equipment too!). I think I got $50 that day.
Things like that. I was young... I could do that.
EDIT: I don't mean to be snarky... I have no idea if it's like that now... but, I was young and wanted to do anything (did some stupid things too).
In my local area, one of the hospitals, the Nurses formed a union. I wonder how that works? It isn't likely that they'll ever strike.
I don't know how that works exactly, but I work in Workers' Compensation and we insure a union hospital. The staff nurses make over $80 an hour and they are currently on strike for a "fair contract". Seems like the patients and health insurance should be on strike against the hospital.
In my local area, one of the hospitals, the Nurses formed a union. I wonder how that works? It isn't likely that they'll ever strike.
I don't know how that works exactly, but I work in Workers' Compensation and we insure a union hospital. The staff nurses make over $80 an hour and they are currently on strike for a "fair contract". Seems like the patients and health insurance should be on strike against the hospital.
Hmmmm...
Then those non-Union PRN nurses must be really raking it in now.
Not at all, if they'd accepted the deal they would have kept their workers EMPLOYED. The Unions struck out of their own greed against a COURT ORDER and lost over 18,000 people their jobs. Was the Management in the wrong here? Yes absolutely but the Unions struck the death blow.
Wouldn't accepting the cuts been selling out their workers to make a buck, just as you said? The union gets nothing from shutting down hostess. But forcing members to take a pay cut while management gets giant raises, just so they could keep those Union dues rolling is it exactly as you put "Selling out the workers". Choose an argument and stick to it please.
A responsible corporate manager wouldn't take from the employees while rewarding themselves with a big giant raise. It's insulting and I can see why they didn't take the cuts. The question is why didn't the bankruptcy judgment put a cap on or even freeze corporate salaries. Why were the employees, who make no management decisions being the only ones punished for.......and wait for it.......MISMANAGEMENT! The whole thing stinks of corporate rats leaving a sinking ship. Management knew the corporation would not likely survive, so they made sure to get as much money out as they could, screw the employees.
Clearly management was not interested in saving the company, so why should the Union.
What sucks is again the middle class worker gets screwed either way. Take a pay cut or lose your jobs, doesn't matter to management, they have already got their giant salaries and I'm sure some pretty nice Golden parachutes. If management was willing to take the same kind of cuts, then maybe the union would have seen fit to negotiate....but that didn't happen. How could a union rep ever advice their people to take this deal, when it was obviously so lopsided.
Yeah there's two side to this story.
Theres the side of unemployed workers that voted to keep thier jobs in exchange for a 25% stake in the company, 2 spots on the board of directors, an 8% pay cut followed by a subsequent 4% raise over what was it 4 years? Sure let's go with that.
And on the other side you have the unemployed workers who didn't just cause thier own unemployment they put 2 times thier own number out of work. So yeah for some reason I blame the union.
Because there was one side that was not only not interested in concessions, they voted themselves giant raises on the backs of ALL the employees. This shows no real interest in fixing the problem which was mismanagement.
1. HOSTESS had been bankrupt before. In 2004 the top managers and the labour union of the company made a negotiations regarding to wage and benefits cuts on the worker side. as we've known. the union boss agreed to 'sacrifice'. if one says that a few goons in the union had been lobbied (and they agreed) then looked at what happened in the years leading to it? if top managers offered some union goons 25% stock holdings in the company, two seats in the boards of directors, and so on, in exchanges of 8% wage and benefits cuts imposed on every employees there? then the top managers did convince the remaining employees that "the wage cuts can save an estimated $110 Millions. and will eventually bring us back from bankruptcy. The company promise that we will reinvest this sum in our manufacturing units, if you disagree, you will lose your job for good! do it or die". if the top managers didn't convince the rest of the employees that way then the union held a meeting that the union boss will convince every members that the wage cuts will go to the reinvestments of the company and it was the only way to save them.
even with or without such conspiracy. by 2004 the agreement was actually bourne from 'the common good'. employees hope that it will lead to the reinvestment , and therefore their career stability.
2. Few days ago. the company went bankrupt once again. The top managers walked to the union and asked them to do the same they did 8 years ago. this time the union refused. why? the promises reinvestments in business operations didn't come to reality. and look at what followed up? the company had been crossed out for good! its debtors liquidated all its assets. so what? what happened to the large sum of $110M ? it was either went to the top manager's pocket, or the Stock Exchange, or being allocated to both. and from now on all those ex-HOSTESS workers will curse the name of the managers. the protest is just a beginning, and I believe they've brought the managers/shareholders misconduct to the court. and beyond!
Is this contradicts to the conspiracy hypothesis of the HOSTESS managers and the union boss?
3. Sometimes. union and its bosses (such as those of the State Railway of Thailand) may be so corrupt and union members may be leeches. but generally. unions have moral standards to draw the line. to set the equillibrium between them and their employers. to which extend they should whine, which direction of their movements are also dangerous to them as much as the business/industry they're working in? too much demand and the they will lose their jobs in a number of ways mostly by the two conditions
3.1 a company they're working with decided to move elsewhere where labour costs are deemed profitable for them. i.e. where they can either snuff the employees will to create a union. there are some countries that 'discourage' unionizations in various of ways. some may ban it outright, others simply set a series complex and easily corruptible bureaucracy that the unions can be controlled by the 'ruling castes'. without the 'problematic union' the company can prosper, this is the logic why many american corporates go to China, this is why G.M. and Ford left Detroit and goes to Chonburi. Thailand. and shut down manufacturing units in the USA entirely.
3.2 a company shuts down entirely due to being overburdened by union demans. in some industries (such as Railroad) this phenomenon might happens but it is usually compounded with other factors. externally, and internally.
so does the Union boss kills HOSTESS? no.
Hes does have a point. The Hostess Twinkie is an icon known around the world. When was the last time something that well known disappeared. It's not like Zerox, Kodak or Pontiac. This is an cheap everyday product with a strong brand reputation, loyalty and wide spread use from the basic snack cake to twinkie wedding cakes and gourmet deep fried twinkies that are all the rage. Certainly Andy Warhol would have used it in a print if he was still alive. Its hard to understand exactly how such a strong brand dies. Its not like the car industry where the Japanese came in with a cheaper better product. Hostess and the twinkie were THE snack cake. How do you mess that up? Its not like people are not buying junk food and I can't really name another snack cake company that shared the same brand image. There were competitors sure, but when I think of the brands they seam to pale in comparison, almost knock offs to Hostess, Twinkies, Ho-Hos and pies.
Bye guys
So long Captain Cupcake.
Good Bye Twinkie The Kid
Adios Fruit Pie The Magician
Auf Wiedersehen Happy The Ranger
Andrew1975 wrote: Hes does have a point. The Hostess Twinkie is an icon known around the world. When was the last time something that well known disappeared. It's not like Zerox, Kodak or Pontiac. This is an cheap everyday product with a strong brand reputation, loyalty and wide spread use from the basic snack cake to twinkie wedding cakes and gourmet deep fried twinkies that are all the rage. Certainly Andy Warhol would have used it in a print if he was still alive. Its hard to understand exactly how such a strong brand dies. Its not like the car industry where the Japanese came in with a cheaper better product. Hostess and the twinkie were THE snack cake. How do you mess that up?
you don't watch your money.
It happened in the past as well.
Andrew1975 wrote: Hes does have a point. The Hostess Twinkie is an icon known around the world. When was the last time something that well known disappeared. It's not like Zerox, Kodak or Pontiac. This is an cheap everyday product with a strong brand reputation, loyalty and wide spread use from the basic snack cake to twinkie wedding cakes and gourmet deep fried twinkies that are all the rage. Certainly Andy Warhol would have used it in a print if he was still alive. Its hard to understand exactly how such a strong brand dies. Its not like the car industry where the Japanese came in with a cheaper better product. Hostess and the twinkie were THE snack cake. How do you mess that up?
you don't watch your money.
It happened in the past as well.
Yeah, but when you are the market leader.......I mean that is some gross mismanagement.
Now this is where I can see the Union as a bad guy. How much were these bakers making a year? Were they as overly compensated as some of the Auto Workers? There is no reason they deserve to make $100K a year. This is always my problem with some Unions, there is really no reason in my mind that unskilled uneducated highschool dropouts need to make $100K a year working on assembly lines. Not saying that is the case here....I don't know. I do know that I felt many of the Auto Workers were really overpaid. I knew a guy that worked the line for Ford and was raking in over $100k a year.
So yes Unions can go overboard. But this one seams to rest with management.
MrScience wrote: It wasn't the union protest that broke the company.
It was nearly a decade of fiscal mismanagement that killed the company.
1. so when did HOSTESS being bought by Hedge funds?
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/16/hostess-twinkies-closes-striking-workers In a news site there are a hot debates regarding to the reasons that ends HOSTESS for good. classic Workers VS Robber Barons. one of the comments said that 'media' is being so bias, saying the workers union being leeches (and sadly it seems the ex-HOSTESS workers have no access to the similar media to express another half of the whole story). if the media keeps bashing them and slam shut its doos when the ex- Hostess worker requested them to air their 'truth' . expect an angry mob at the lightest resolves.
Individual product names, however, are likely to be auctioned by the bankruptcy court and live on under new owners. A "Save The Twinkie" campaign has already been launched by talk show hostess Wendy Williams.
Only if the judge approved the auctions. the question is. "Who? will it be a group of robber barons from Wall Street? or the prosperious competitors. like Hershey and Gulico will alter Twinkies even further once they bought the brand"?
Andrew1975 wrote: Hes does have a point. The Hostess Twinkie is an icon known around the world. When was the last time something that well known disappeared. It's not like Zerox, Kodak or Pontiac. This is an cheap everyday product with a strong brand reputation, loyalty and wide spread use from the basic snack cake to twinkie wedding cakes and gourmet deep fried twinkies that are all the rage. Certainly Andy Warhol would have used it in a print if he was still alive. Its hard to understand exactly how such a strong brand dies. Its not like the car industry where the Japanese came in with a cheaper better product. Hostess and the twinkie were THE snack cake. How do you mess that up?
you don't watch your money.
It happened in the past as well.
Yeah, but when you are the market leader.......I mean that is some gross mismanagement.
Now this is where I can see the Union as a bad guy. How much were these bakers making a year? Were they as overly compensated as some of the Auto Workers? There is no reason they deserve to make $100K a year. This is always my problem with some Unions, there is really no reason in my mind that unskilled uneducated highschool dropouts need to make $100K a year working on assembly lines. Not saying that is the case here....I don't know. I do know that I felt many of the Auto Workers were really overpaid. I knew a guy that worked the line for Ford and was raking in over $100k a year.
So yes Unions can go overboard. But this one seams to rest with management.
2. Like I said. good unions must define its borders and tresholds along the "Capitalist VS Workers" continuum, spoiling too much and they could lose their jobs in a number of ways, yielding to the pleas of greedy top managers who had no skills in the same industry and wishing them to reinvest can bring the worst. it is the matter of situations that are guidelines to union bosses.
3. Got it! G.E. Capital owned HOSTESS during its final decade. so no wonder why the union boss said "none of the six CEOs have any skills in bakery market" . G.E. sent experts in the field of industrial market to rule a company that targets totally different markets" a perfect candicate to ruin HOSTESS further and squeeze money out of its carcass. so don't be so nervous if ex-HOSTESS workers stage a protest in front of G.E. Headquarters or one of its factories.
The more I read about this, it just seams so intentional. The fund owners wanted hostess shut down, no one is really that bad at their jobs.....are they?
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: The ones most affected by this will be the chemical companies who, for decades, have been supplying the bulk of the ingredients for Hostess products...
Yea, all that H2O, Na Cl+, C12H22O11, NaHCO3...Also known as Water, Salt, sugar, Baking soda...
Just researching this on the net. Its amazing how all the right wing articles completely skip over so many of the facts to make this look like fanatic Obama Liberals happily destroying a company. This is exactly why Romney lost. The republican party and the right have completely sold out the middle class. It's really disgusting. I'm actually watching the looting of America by the rich.... and they have duped so many in the middle class to support them, by preying on their fears.
in 2010. Philadelphia Yvonne Hiller, a disgruntled Kraft Foods employee (who, at the time.. was suspended). entered a factory with a fully loaded .357 Magnum pistol and with her anger, killed 2 and wounded 1 fellas there. reasons for either suspension or killing spree remains unknown. I don't know how far did the case go? probaly this will not end well for Yvonne. life prisonment or being henked.
several years earlier. Kraft did suffer the similar fate as Hostess. initially they closed several factores and laid off several thousands of crews. yet. every cashes Kraft recovered went to R&D division. once things return to Kraft favor. new, and healthier products hit the shelves and Kraft got back to its feet. this is made possible because the then-owner of Kraft was venture investors. not hedgefunds nor Wallstreet goons. venture investors never bet solely on Wallstreets nor making wealths by price speculations. they believe in the wealths generated by the business operations. any gains from Stock Exchange is considered extra.
Hath someone with a right mind, throughout and dilligent and yet. wealthy bought Hostess from hedgefunds much earlier. Hostess will survive and anti-union propaganda / provocations will not be replayed by now.
so now Hedgefunds have top lawyer goons to make sure that not even a lil one cent will be paid to those yelling ex-Hostess workers. ones that will ensure that all Hostess assets will be sold in bidding prices and will snuff every union yells. and Unions had a limited resources to fight in the same rule of the sport. disgruntled ex-Hostess workers may one day put up arms (possibly smuggled along Texas-Mexican border) and stage a similar shootout. now targeting robber barons instead. you can say it may not happen but. what if it did? how will public responses to this scenario?
Wait! i've also found out that some labour unions were indeed corrupts and are actually associated with The Mafia. and Teamster was listed amongs the most corrupted unions.
Inside the mafia-infiltrated unions. leadership embezzlements are common, also the union presidency elections are usually done by using 'paper locals'. common memberships inside this union usually not benefited from the organization. in the closing days of HOSTESS. Teamsters boss decisions towards the wage and benefit cuts had been contradicted to the 'majority votes' of other unions and workers. Teamsters says yes to the deal while the rests had enough. this could stem from Teamsters connections with the Mafia itself. Mafia never fights for the common goods of proletariats. they simply try to manipulate various dispuites between the Workers and Employers. the manipulation usually favors the greedy CEOs, but it might not always intended to be. in construction projects. Mafia manipulates the dispuites on the Union side so they can extort (and sometimes. totally eliminate) non-associate contractors.
But did the Mafia actually controls the Stock Exchange too? if so, to whih extend did they actually controls?
I've been in a Teamster Union before and they were the definition of sleezy. Granted, there's Teamster Unions all over the United States so I have no idea they're all like that or if its just some of them.
Tyler Durden: All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I feth like you wanna feth, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
Tyler Durden: It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything
LordofHats wrote: I've been in a Teamster Union before and they were the definition of sleezy. Granted, there's Teamster Unions all over the United States so I have no idea they're all like that or if its just some of them.
Before passing a judgement on this 'classic' dispuites. truths of each sides must be carefully observed.
1. Did you remember the legends "Beck VS Hoffa" in Teamster internal politics? boths have either seek help (or being offered ones) from Mafia gangs, Beck was backed by one mobster, Hoffa by different mafioso
And it seemed to relate with Hoffa eventual 'death without a trace' too!
2. Other organizations identified themselves as unions had denounced them. not only on a ground of rivalry but also moral standards.
2.1 by 50s Teamsters seemed to be 'militarized'. the organizaton (or its leaderships of each given time) openly 'raided' other unions.
2.2 and the Congress did indeed set up an investigation panel to check whether did Teamsters acts for a common good of both employers and employees? this might due to their frequent construction sites became more and more suspicious (similar phenomenon did happen in Sicily too). at one point. Congress behaved quite like a justice system, the process of investigation followed police and FBI patterns. at one point. either Beck or Hoffa repeatedly refuted (and repeadedly made a referrence to The Constitution of the United States so often. the practices had been denounced by other unions (can't remember its name) Either Beck or Hoffar by the time of their leaderships maintained an aggressive stances towards other fellow Unions. without those outlaw support, neither Hoffar nor Beck can become so hostile.
Associations with the Mafia did tarnish Teamster forever. and it seemed that the Mafia still runs Teamster even as of now. if BCTGM will denounce Teamster should any International Union conference thing happens.
Actually many anti-union opinions americans had expressed are stemmed from Teamsters misdeeds.
i'm looking forward if any of you will share both sides of the story.
Can't say I know to be honest. I was only part time so the union didn't care about me and I didn't care about them
One of the people at the store I worked at though wanted to file a harassment suit but the union 'encouraged' them not to because it would hurt negotiations with the employer at that time.
LordofHats wrote: Can't say I know to be honest. I was only part time so the union didn't care about me and I didn't care about them
One of the people at the store I worked at though wanted to file a harassment suit but the union 'encouraged' them not to because it would hurt negotiations with the employer at that time.
I suspected that the union in question is actually Teamster, and either they, or their 'sponsorships' harrassed that employee you've talked about.
Mexican companyEl Grupo Bimbo may have an edge, the Christian Science Monitor reported Saturday. Grupo Bimbo, headed by Mexican billionaire Daniel Servitje Montull, is the largest bread-baking company in the world.
Economists say part of the reason Hostess struggled was due to high sugar tariffs meant to protect local producers, the Monitor reported. Grupo Bimbo could take advantage of lower sugar prices in Mexico.
I think someone called it in previous page... Bimbo may soon be the owner of the Hostess brand!
Mexican companyEl Grupo Bimbo may have an edge, the Christian Science Monitor reported Saturday. Grupo Bimbo, headed by Mexican billionaire Daniel Servitje Montull, is the largest bread-baking company in the world.
Economists say part of the reason Hostess struggled was due to high sugar tariffs meant to protect local producers, the Monitor reported. Grupo Bimbo could take advantage of lower sugar prices in Mexico.
I think someone called it in previous page... Bimbo may soon be the owner of the Hostess brand!
That's great. Hedgefunds buy Hostess, run it into the ground and sell it to a foreign company. That's cool, we don't need Jobs in the US anyway.
Mexican companyEl Grupo Bimbo may have an edge, the Christian Science Monitor reported Saturday. Grupo Bimbo, headed by Mexican billionaire Daniel Servitje Montull, is the largest bread-baking company in the world.
Economists say part of the reason Hostess struggled was due to high sugar tariffs meant to protect local producers, the Monitor reported. Grupo Bimbo could take advantage of lower sugar prices in Mexico.
I think someone called it in previous page... Bimbo may soon be the owner of the Hostess brand!
Bimbo buys the brand and start making Twinkies in Mexico. Obama, to satisfy his union buddies, imposes a huge import tariff. The illegals crossing the border then start carrying in a case or two of Twinkies when they cross the border. Then, we sell the Twinkies black market style
Yes, the Twinkiee cartels might start shooting across the border but we seem to have a lot a Zingers left over to throw at them.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hostess Brands will ask a bankruptcy judge Monday for approval to shut down the company and pay $1.75 million in executive bonuses.
.....
Under the plan, bonuses ranging from $7,400 to $130,500 will be paid to 19 executives. The company argues the bonuses are below market rates for such payments.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hostess Brands will ask a bankruptcy judge Monday for approval to shut down the company and pay $1.75 million in executive bonuses.
.....
Under the plan, bonuses ranging from $7,400 to $130,500 will be paid to 19 executives. The company argues the bonuses are below market rates for such payments.
How do I become an evil union boss/executive like this guys?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hostess Brands will ask a bankruptcy judge Monday for approval to shut down the company and pay $1.75 million in executive bonuses.
.....
Under the plan, bonuses ranging from $7,400 to $130,500 will be paid to 19 executives. The company argues the bonuses are below market rates for such payments.
How do I become an evil union boss/executive like this guys?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hostess Brands will ask a bankruptcy judge Monday for approval to shut down the company and pay $1.75 million in executive bonuses.
.....
Under the plan, bonuses ranging from $7,400 to $130,500 will be paid to 19 executives. The company argues the bonuses are below market rates for such payments.
How do I become an evil union boss/executive like this guys?
I don't really see much changing here to be honest. Corporate is not going to take a pay cut, (in fact they just petitioned for more bonuses to close the shops) so why would the Union make concessions?
Andrew1975 wrote: I don't really see much changing here to be honest. Corporate is not going to take a pay cut, (in fact they just petitioned for more bonuses to close the shops) so why would the Union make concessions?
I honestly think this is the old "union busting" tactic... only that, the company's ownership would change.
One of the ladies I work with is married to a guy who works/ed at Hostess. IIRC she said over the course of the last five years his pay has been cut a total of around ~$160 per week, and he was being asked to take another 8% cut.
For all you Union haters that obviously love the corporate big wigs.
Yeah, lets pretend that pointing out the BCTGM knew it's strike would kill Hostess and that THE Union, capital T capital U has out and out said the baker's union refused to "substantively look for a solution or engage in the process." But yeah, stick with "disagreeing with destructive union practices is loving corporate big wigs" It makes way more sense.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hostess Brands will ask a bankruptcy judge Monday for approval to shut down the company and pay $1.75 million in executive bonuses.
.....
Under the plan, bonuses ranging from $7,400 to $130,500 will be paid to 19 executives. The company argues the bonuses are below market rates for such payments.
Yea that is only 2.5 million, the company is 800 million in debt. Not saying i agree with it, but It would not have helped.
What management did was wrong, but the unions are no better, and are no longer needed in the U.S.
I say this because I worked for a company (Not going to name names I don't want to get black listed at Hop Sing's) and there was a union in place.
All the union ever did was ensure I only worked just barely harder than the worst worker on the crew. He did about 3 hours of actual work in an 8 hour day and the union kept him in a job.
Yeah, lets pretend that pointing out the BCTGM knew it's strike would kill Hostess and that THE Union, capital T capital U has out and out said the baker's union refused to "substantively look for a solution or engage in the process." But yeah, stick with "disagreeing with destructive union practices is loving corporate big wigs" It makes way more sense.
That's silly Auston. Blaming all parties for their own individual stupidity? Surely such a thing just isn't possible. We can't hate one without loving the other!
Yeah, lets pretend that pointing out the BCTGM knew it's strike would kill Hostess and that THE Union, capital T capital U has out and out said the baker's union refused to "substantively look for a solution or engage in the process." But yeah, stick with "disagreeing with destructive union practices is loving corporate big wigs" It makes way more sense.
That's silly Auston. Blaming all parties for their own individual stupidity? Surely such a thing just isn't possible. We can't hate one without loving the other!
Mannahnin wrote: Hey, as long as we're saying mismanagement + dumb union actions were responsible.
A lot of the early reactions seemed to be just the latter, and none of the former.
We were focusing, or at least I was focusing on giving the Union a proper roast up because it was in their case directly their actions that lost 18,000 people their jobs. This is the immediate issue at hand. The entire situation as a whole falls squarely on the fat cats of both faction's shoulders. Then we got into unions in general, which as I've stated I have issues with simply because I despise getting ripped off both ways.
For all you Union haters that obviously love the corporate big wigs.
Yeah, lets pretend that pointing out the BCTGM knew it's strike would kill Hostess and that THE Union, capital T capital U has out and out said the baker's union refused to "substantively look for a solution or engage in the process." But yeah, stick with "disagreeing with destructive union practices is loving corporate big wigs" It makes way more sense.
Ok so what did The Union get for the concessions it made during the last bankruptcy? They took a paycut and cut their pension plan, with specific demands that the money was to be put into R&D and more modern equipment. The corporation did none of those things but it sure felt it's leadership deserved a raise and gave it to them.
So I put it to you. If the corporation screwed you once already what incentive does The Union have to take additional cuts? How many times do you let them make cuts, break promises and then give themselves raises? I'm just asking because I am honestly curious what it would take. I don't see The Union doing anything wrong here.
If you can not see that this is all about corporate greed and screwing the working man....I just don't get it.
I'm not in a Union but I would think after the last decade most of us that are not super rich would be sick of the corporate crap that has really taken a giant toll on the country.
Yea that is only 2.5 million, the company is 800 million in debt. Not saying i agree with it, but It would not have helped.
What management did was wrong, but the unions are no better, and are no longer needed in the U.S.
I say this because I worked for a company (Not going to name names I don't want to get black listed at Hop Sing's) and there was a union in place.
All the union ever did was ensure I only worked just barely harder than the worst worker on the crew. He did about 3 hours of actual work in an 8 hour day and the union kept him in a job.
It makes all the difference in the world. It's one thing to take from me and say we all have to sacrifice. The Union actually did that no problem last time, the whole "We are in this together" idea is something unions actually do pretty well. But to ask me to sacrifice again while you triple your salary is a slap in the face.
The last decade proves that there needs to be some kind of organized resistance to corporate greed, yes unions are not the perfect model, but what ever is? Right now there are huge lobbies specifically targeting unions because they are the last real resistance, the politicians have been bought and sold years ago. AND ITS WORKING! It's amazing to me that after all this, people are still drinking the kool aid that these problems have been caused by anything but unbridled corporate greed. Understand, unless you are one of these privileged super rich, these evil corporations have stolen from you.
I'll be honest I didn't like working in the union. Everything based on seniority instead of ability and talent, a million stupid rules about all kinds of stuff. Get caught slacking off and you'd get a joke, get caught working hard and you actually got in trouble. I know ....I get it. I have issues with unions too, but not in this case. If you think without unions most corporations would treat their employees any better than they absolutly had to......well you are kidding yourselves.
Mannahnin wrote:Hey, as long as we're saying mismanagement + dumb union actions were responsible.
A lot of the early reactions seemed to be just the latter, and none of the former.
I mean maybe it's just me, but a company doesn't typically go into bankruptcy twice in less than a decade with good management. I'm sure it happens. We were never talking about some giant of industry with full coffers brought to it's knees in 2 weeks of strikes.
For all you Union haters that obviously love the corporate big wigs.
Yeah, lets pretend that pointing out the BCTGM knew it's strike would kill Hostess and that THE Union, capital T capital U has out and out said the baker's union refused to "substantively look for a solution or engage in the process." But yeah, stick with "disagreeing with destructive union practices is loving corporate big wigs" It makes way more sense.
Ok so what did The Union get for the concessions it made during the last bankruptcy?
I mean maybe it's just me, but a company doesn't typically go into bankruptcy twice in less than a decade with good management. I'm sure it happens. We were never talking about some giant of industry with full coffers brought to it's knees in 2 weeks of strikes.
And yet the management that got them there received 300% raises in some cases, but its the unions that are evil because they don't want to take ANOTHER cut. Maybe if corporation or the hedge funds showed any real intent on fixing the real problems or hiring anyone with any experience in the snack cake market the unions would talk. The fact is that it should be a giant in the industry. Hostess was the segment leader with a very strong brand, product recognition and history. Twinkies are icons of the industry. Do you understand how inept you would have to be to screw that up?
You have not understood that no matter how well those union employees did their jobs over the years, the only people that could steer the company into profitability are the management. They failed utterly.......and were rewarded for it! Do you understand that most of the debt does not come from the union but from poor management?
Employment. Why is that a difficult concept?
They got screwed! Why is that a difficult concept? You obviously have not read the rest of the thread, are just trolling or have been brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh to believe that every labor dispute is because of the commie pinko unions.
Fact is the company repeatedly screwed up, acquired huge debt, over the course of 10 years. So their excuse and your attitude is "Ban the unions, its their fault!" Scapegoat much?
They got screwed! Why is that a difficult concept? You obviously have not read the rest of the thread, are just trolling or have been brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh to believe that every labor dispute is because of the commie pinko unions.
Fact is the company repeatedly screwed up, acquired huge debt, over the course of 10 years. So their excuse and your attitude is "Ban the unions, its their fault!" Scapegoat much?
Culpabit Victima is our slogan and stock in trade around here.
You seem to be very confused about what everyone is saying. The management are fethheads and screwed up. The unions put the final stake in the heart of the company. Was it a gak deal they were offered? Yes. Is it better then not having a bloody job? Also yes.
malfred wrote: Can someone explain the post-bankruptcy bonus for managers to me?
Why might it be a good/legal idea?
It's usually their normal "management" compensation bonus... however, if the company goes through bankruptcy, the judge has to approve those bonuses. There's usually pre-determine formula/statues that the judge uses to approve/deny/adjust these bonuses.
You obviously have not read the rest of the thread, are just trolling or have been brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh to believe that every labor dispute is because of the commie pinko unions.
When you're done making gak up, you can have a seat at the adult table again.
They got screwed! Why is that a difficult concept? You obviously have not read the rest of the thread, are just trolling or have been brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh to believe that every labor dispute is because of the commie pinko unions.
Fact is the company repeatedly screwed up, acquired huge debt, over the course of 10 years. So their excuse and your attitude is "Ban the unions, its their fault!" Scapegoat much?
Culpabit Victima is our slogan and stock in trade around here.
You seem to be very confused about what everyone is saying. The management are fethheads and screwed up. The unions put the final stake in the heart of the company. Was it a gak deal they were offered? Yes. Is it better then not having a bloody job? Also yes.
I do understand what you are saying. Many people are putting the closing of hostess squarely on the heads of the unions, so much so they are using it as a rallying cry to end unions. They are not blaming the victim .....they are confusing it. Many honestly believe that the victim here is the corporation. It's absurd! The blame falls squarely on management and the equity firms that were running hostess for the last decade. The unions should be praised for accepting the deep cuts they took during the last restructuring. Why would you keep going to work for someone that appears committed to driving the company into the dirt.
I guess it is better to have a husband that beats you, than no husband at all?
When you're done making gak up, you can have a seat at the adult table again.
Andrew1975 wrote: I guess it is better to have a husband that beats you, than no husband at all?
Too bad that doesn't really match up with the current situation
Why not? You have an obviously abusive management style for the past ten years. They took money off employees tables while giving themselves raises, all the while driving the company deeper into the ground (I believe on purpose, but it really doesn't matter). When the company proposed do the same thing again this time asking for even deeper cuts, the union walked. Why shouldn't they? Management and the investors had very long track record of mismanagement and showed no signs of changing that trend.
It wasn't just that management was bad. I believe it was intentionally bad. As in on purpose.
I believe the capital investors got exactly what they always wanted. They got rid of the unions and now they can go forward and sell the company and brands for a profit. Plus they get to walk away pointing a finger at the unions, which fits their political agenda perfectly. Much easier than actually running a company the correct way.
Andrew1975 wrote: I guess it is better to have a husband that beats you, than no husband at all?
Too bad that doesn't really match up with the current situation
Why not? You have an obviously abusive management style for the past ten years. They took money off employees tables while giving themselves raises, all the while driving the company deeper into the ground (I believe on purpose, but it really doesn't matter). When the company proposed do the same thing again this time asking for even deeper cuts, the union walked. Why shouldn't they? Management and the investors had very long track record of mismanagement and showed no signs of changing that trend.
It wasn't just that management was bad. I believe it was intentionally bad. As in on purpose.
I believe the capital investors got exactly what they always wanted. They got rid of the unions and now they can go forward and sell the company and brands for a profit. Plus they get to walk away pointing a finger at the unions, which fits their political agenda perfectly. Much easier than actually running a company the correct way.
Utterly shocking! Seriously the only thing that is going to make any difference is some kind of investigation into the operations and intentions of Hostess management. I'm not one for conspiracies, but the gross mismanagement of Hostess by venture capital companies appears completely intentional to me.
I bet a new company will buy the license, and we'll be eating twinkies again within a few years. It's just too iconic of a product.
In my experience, genuine twinkies get kind of oily and squishy, but the dollar store ones stay soft and light over long periods of time. Most people I know would affectionately refer to them as "ghetto-twinkies", but they're just as good!
Mexican companyEl Grupo Bimbo may have an edge, the Christian Science Monitor reported Saturday. Grupo Bimbo, headed by Mexican billionaire Daniel Servitje Montull, is the largest bread-baking company in the world.
Economists say part of the reason Hostess struggled was due to high sugar tariffs meant to protect local producers, the Monitor reported. Grupo Bimbo could take advantage of lower sugar prices in Mexico.
I think someone called it in previous page... Bimbo may soon be the owner of the Hostess brand!
Sweet Espaniard vengeance against Anglophonics 'barons' hehehe But Hershey might have some interest buying some choco-based HOSTESS 'brands'. each of HOSTESS trademarks were registered seperately.
And Ezaki Glico might buy Twinkies if the company wishes to expand eastwards (From Japan). by now Glico itself has manufacturing facilities somehwere in Ayutthaya. Thailand and i've seen its front gate several times in my life. have you ever seen any Glico products there in America?
I don't think this will be over. I think Hostess ex-workers are bringing this to the Supreme Court because they believe the said verdict is questionable.
DeathReaper wrote: What management did was wrong, but the unions are no better, and are no longer needed in the U.S.
Thanks for letting me know not to take you seriously.
Let me tell you a little story about unions.
There was a Com Ed crew from North Carolina, fully trained in high voltage wiring, that the bosses in N Carolina sent to New York to help them restore power to the 100,000 customers that were still without power. This is because their area was fairly quiet and the boss gave them the go ahead for the trip.
These particular customers were without power for a week or so. When the crew arrived and reported to the Com Ed station in New York they were told to go home because they were not union workers...
That is ludicrous. Why would you refuse help when so many customers were still without power, especially at this time of year in New York.
And that is why unions are not needed.
P.S. I worked in Chicago as an Electrician at a convention center. When we were doing set up for a trade show we had to write a report to our foreman if we saw anyone, other than the Electricians that worked at the convention center, plugging in anything.
They had this policy that only the union Electricians could handle the electrical "System" which included plugging in a TV to a standard 110 outlet.
So a vendor, who tripped over the cord of his whole display could not plug it back in himself, he had to send one of his employee's to the trade show info booth, then the info booth had to call our dispatcher, then our dispatcher called us to go fix the issue. The process took anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour just to plug something in.
So yea, you must excuse me if I am not all Gung-ho about unions. They are not efficient, and they promote a lazy working atmosphere.
The sad state of modern US workers unions is that of cowards, bullies, and suicide bombers.
With companies like hostess the union became a suicide bomber, and the bakers are now going to have to apply for a job at Walmart.
Modern labor leaders are bullies and cowards. They are too gutless to take on though opposition from companies like Walmart and Amazon that treat their employees so badly they probably should unionized, but they sure are willing to fight the weak such as non union electricians after Sandy or the California tax payers getting fleeced by the prison guards union.
Unions are as rotten as corporations and the government because they are all controlled by fallible human beings, and all those organizations tend to self destruct without constant adult supervision.
schadenfreude wrote: The sad state of modern US workers unions is that of cowards, bullies, and suicide bombers.
With companies like hostess the union became a suicide bomber, and the bakers are now going to have to apply for a job at Walmart.
Modern labor leaders are bullies and cowards. They are too gutless to take on though opposition from companies like Walmart and Amazon that treat their employees so badly they probably should unionized, but they sure are willing to fight the weak such as non union electricians after Sandy or the California tax payers getting fleeced by the prison guards union.
Unions are as rotten as corporations and the government because they are all controlled by fallible human beings, and all those organizations tend to self destruct without constant adult supervision.
Well, if I made sweeping generalizations on everything as well, I would probably know what you're talking about.
I don't think this will be over. I think Hostess ex-workers are bringing this to the Supreme Court because they believe the said verdict is questionable.
I don't think this will be over. I think Hostess ex-workers are bringing this to the Supreme Court because they believe the said verdict is questionable.
no thatsw not quite how it works.
Its over. They're done.
Sure thing. The supreme court is not going to overturn a bankruptcy liquidation. Besides the company will already be liquidated and without a scrap of anything left by the time the scotus gets around to thinking if they will hear the case. A bankrupt company went bankrupt, it's just that simple.
schadenfreude wrote: The sad state of modern US workers unions is that of cowards, bullies, and suicide bombers.
With companies like hostess the union became a suicide bomber, and the bakers are now going to have to apply for a job at Walmart.
Modern labor leaders are bullies and cowards. They are too gutless to take on though opposition from companies like Walmart and Amazon that treat their employees so badly they probably should unionized, but they sure are willing to fight the weak such as non union electricians after Sandy or the California tax payers getting fleeced by the prison guards union.
Unions are as rotten as corporations and the government because they are all controlled by fallible human beings, and all those organizations tend to self destruct without constant adult supervision.
Well, if I made sweeping generalizations on everything as well, I would probably know what you're talking about.
It's only 1 generalization: People are gakky, and when we allow organizations to be gakky the gak hits the fan. Adding a gakky organization like a union to another gakky organization like a corporation or a government agency just creates a double dose of gak. Things don't have to be this way, but that's the exception to the rule.
DeathReaper wrote: What management did was wrong, but the unions are no better, and are no longer needed in the U.S.
Thanks for letting me know not to take you seriously.
Let me tell you a little story about unions.
There was a Com Ed crew from North Carolina, fully trained in high voltage wiring, that the bosses in N Carolina sent to New York to help them restore power to the 100,000 customers that were still without power. This is because their area was fairly quiet and the boss gave them the go ahead for the trip.
These particular customers were without power for a week or so. When the crew arrived and reported to the Com Ed station in New York they were told to go home because they were not union workers...
That is ludicrous. Why would you refuse help when so many customers were still without power, especially at this time of year in New York.
And that is why unions are not needed.
P.S. I worked in Chicago as an Electrician at a convention center. When we were doing set up for a trade show we had to write a report to our foreman if we saw anyone, other than the Electricians that worked at the convention center, plugging in anything.
They had this policy that only the union Electricians could handle the electrical "System" which included plugging in a TV to a standard 110 outlet.
So a vendor, who tripped over the cord of his whole display could not plug it back in himself, he had to send one of his employee's to the trade show info booth, then the info booth had to call our dispatcher, then our dispatcher called us to go fix the issue. The process took anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour just to plug something in.
So yea, you must excuse me if I am not all Gung-ho about unions. They are not efficient, and they promote a lazy working atmosphere.
No doubt there are problems with Unions, but by far the worst offenders are the corporations. Put it this way, if we could trust the corporations to treat employees properly then Unions would not be needed. When you look at the facts even with Unions workers are still treated pretty poorly and in the Hostess case abused by the corporation. So yeah I think Unions still provide a very important role in society.
DeathReaper wrote: What management did was wrong, but the unions are no better, and are no longer needed in the U.S.
Thanks for letting me know not to take you seriously.
So yea, you must excuse me if I am not all Gung-ho about unions. They are not efficient, and they promote a lazy working atmosphere.
It depends. in some cases (and in some industry, such as construction) union bosses are evil because they made various pacts with numerous devils. i.e. Gangsters, especially Sicilian-brand of Mafia.
In the case of Hostess. it is due to the managers misconducts. Teamsters did sign the deal that workers must make a sacrifice for the second time. but other unions had enough. because the promises they believe that it will be bourne out of sacrifices are forgotten.
Hostess workers aren't lazy lots, if they really are, they will say 'no' to the requests that requires Hostess workers to take wages and benefits cut in 2004.
oh! i've forgot about another forces that 'controls' both end of a cuntinuum. the Mafia. I believe that a mafia boss (or different ones in a given scenario) did control both Wallstreet hedgefunds (one that owns Hostess in the last decade), and Unions. no matter who in the continuum of conflict wins, they get paid anyway.
do you really think that many Hostess workers will turn criminal out of series of denounciations from anti-Unionists?
I don't think this will be over. I think Hostess ex-workers are bringing this to the Supreme Court because they believe the said verdict is questionable.
no thatsw not quite how it works.
Its over. They're done.
Sure thing. The supreme court is not going to overturn a bankruptcy liquidation. Besides the company will already be liquidated and without a scrap of anything left by the time the scotus gets around to thinking if they will hear the case. A bankrupt company went bankrupt, it's just that simple.
schadenfreude wrote: The sad state of modern US workers unions is that of cowards, bullies, and suicide bombers.
With companies like hostess the union became a suicide bomber, and the bakers are now going to have to apply for a job at Walmart.
Modern labor leaders are bullies and cowards. They are too gutless to take on though opposition from companies like Walmart and Amazon that treat their employees so badly they probably should unionized, but they sure are willing to fight the weak such as non union electricians after Sandy or the California tax payers getting fleeced by the prison guards union.
Unions are as rotten as corporations and the government because they are all controlled by fallible human beings, and all those organizations tend to self destruct without constant adult supervision.
Well, if I made sweeping generalizations on everything as well, I would probably know what you're talking about.
It's only 1 generalization: People are gakky, and when we allow organizations to be gakky the gak hits the fan. Adding a gakky organization like a union to another gakky organization like a corporation or a government agency just creates a double dose of gak. Things don't have to be this way, but that's the exception to the rule.
And will those ex-Hostess workers get any compesations? if so. who pays them? State government or Federal ones?
If Supreme Court will reject their pleas. then there is some probability that they will conduct a large scale demonstration in front of GEs HQ somewhere in the U.S. they 'know' that G.E. 'gets all the loot'
so what will you say if there's an arson on one of what once Hostess proper? will you blame it on Union, or those disgruntled Ex-workers ?
DeathReaper wrote: What management did was wrong, but the unions are no better, and are no longer needed in the U.S.
Thanks for letting me know not to take you seriously.
Let me tell you a little story about unions.
-snip-quote]
And keep on reinforcing it.
You seriously do not see what is wrong with the unions from the two experiences I have had?
Seriously?
No, I do not see how I am a useless union member, corrupt and leaching of a system that apperantly solely exists because I want to screw over my employers and/or customers because you had a bad experience with the union. Or how my old union I was with during my ambulance days is evil and useless (even though it was formed because the paramedics didn't know if they would have drugs on the ambulance that day or gas in the fuel tank that they would have to fill up themselves).
So, seriously, if you want to continue to post that an entire portion of people are useless, corrupt, whatever, because you had some bad experiences with them then I know that I can ignore your posts on that subject. Especially considering that the whole electrical union story can be explained pretty easily.
Going to start over over from square 1. It's not the workers that are gakky, it's the people in power be they CEOs, politicians, or union bosses. Power corrupts, and in the case of the twinkie the power was in the hands of the union bosses and CEOs. The union bosses couldn't budge on the issue because if a company can walk over it's employees in the way Hostess was proposing what's the point in having a union, paying union dues, and paying the salary of union bosses? The CEOs couldn't budge because even if upper management worked for free the company was too much into the red to recover. It wasn't even areal choice for upper management, it was a either file bankruptcy or fail to make payroll. The real question is why was the company so much in the red.
The easy answer is blame management for not selling health food, which I call BS on. Go to a Walmart in a red state and go whale watching, there is no shortage of demand for junk food and white bread. The problem was a generational pension problem. Production of breads cakes is more industrial manufacturing than baking now, and with robotics every year fewer employees are needed to create a greater amount of product . It doesn't matter if the factory is producing Twinkies or organic 11 whole grain bread,; what does matter is whatever a factory makes a competing company is going to make a similar product, and when it comes time for the consumer to choose between products price matters. End result=leanest running company has an edge. If it's a manufacturing job the company with the fewest # of pensions wins, and the one with the most loses. The baby boomers made corporations and government promise them pensions that gen X & gen Y cannot provide. For the last 50 years politicians, CEOs, and union bosses have taken a lazy shortcut by promising unsustainable pensions to keep workers content without having to responsibility pay them at the time they are working and continued to kick the can down the road until it's someone else's problem.
schadenfreude wrote: Going to start over over from square 1. It's not the workers that are gakky, it's the people in power be they CEOs, politicians, or union bosses. Power corrupts, and in the case of the twinkie the power was in the hands of the union bosses and CEOs.
Glico is likely to be among the buyers. and I'm support this company.
why? they have a very active RnD division. but i don't know if Hedge funds also own Glico too?
^ Pocky is its flagship. but not the only product meow.
schadenfreude wrote: Going to start over over from square 1. It's not the workers that are gakky, it's the people in power be they CEOs, politicians, or union bosses. Power corrupts, and in the case of the twinkie the power was in the hands of the union bosses and CEOs. The union bosses couldn't budge on the issue because if a company can walk over it's employees in the way Hostess was proposing what's the point in having a union, paying union dues, and paying the salary of union bosses? The CEOs couldn't budge because even if upper management worked for free the company was too much into the red to recover. It wasn't even areal choice for upper management, it was a either file bankruptcy or fail to make payroll. The real question is why was the company so much in the red.
The easy answer is blame management for not selling health food, which I call BS on. Go to a Walmart in a red state and go whale watching, there is no shortage of demand for junk food and white bread. The problem was a generational pension problem. Production of breads cakes is more industrial manufacturing than baking now, and with robotics every year fewer employees are needed to create a greater amount of product . It doesn't matter if the factory is producing Twinkies or organic 11 whole grain bread,; what does matter is whatever a factory makes a competing company is going to make a similar product, and when it comes time for the consumer to choose between products price matters. End result=leanest running company has an edge. If it's a manufacturing job the company with the fewest # of pensions wins, and the one with the most loses. The baby boomers made corporations and government promise them pensions that gen X & gen Y cannot provide. For the last 50 years politicians, CEOs, and union bosses have taken a lazy shortcut by promising unsustainable pensions to keep workers content without having to responsibility pay them at the time they are working and continued to kick the can down the road until it's someone else's problem.
I don't really agree with this. I think venture capitol bought hostess with the intention of breaking up Hostess in the first place. It very difficult for me to see how a company could be so poorly managed unintentionally.
The original concessions that the union agreed to were so that Hostess could reinvest in r&d and better production facilities. Promises that went unfulfilled. Combine that with hiring management that had little to no experience in the market and you have a recipe for disaster. There is more to this than poor management, it is blatant disregard for a brand that was a market leader.
No, I do not see how I am a useless union member, corrupt and leaching of a system that apperantly solely exists because I want to screw over my employers and/or customers because you had a bad experience with the union. Or how my old union I was with during my ambulance days is evil and useless (even though it was formed because the paramedics didn't know if they would have drugs on the ambulance that day or gas in the fuel tank that they would have to fill up themselves).
So, seriously, if you want to continue to post that an entire portion of people are useless, corrupt, whatever, because you had some bad experiences with them then I know that I can ignore your posts on that subject. Especially considering that the whole electrical union story can be explained pretty easily.
Seriously.
Why don't you put more words in my mouth that I never said...
I never said the people are useless.
I never said you were a useless union member.
I did say unions are not efficient, and they promote a lazy working atmosphere.
Not all union workers are lazy, never said or implied all...
But some are because of the system, and that is something that makes unions useless.
If you can not fire someone who is working very little and getting full time pay for it, that is just insane.
I used to work for a shipping company, and I saw this stuff happen. The guy unloading the truck I was auditing was going at a good rate. the guy next to him was going about half as fast, and the trucks were both CDW (Computer parts) trucks, so all the merch was about the same size. The guy on the truck I was auditing slows down because the guy in the next truck was going slow.
DeathReaper wrote: Not all union workers are lazy, never said or implied all...
But some are because of the system, and that is something that makes unions useless.
If you can not fire someone who is working very little and getting full time pay for it, that is just insane.
I used to work for a shipping company, and I saw this stuff happen. The guy unloading the truck I was auditing was going at a good rate. the guy next to him was going about half as fast, and the trucks were both CDW (Computer parts) trucks, so all the merch was about the same size. The guy on the truck I was auditing slows down because the guy in the next truck was going slow.
Yeah, so some slow workers really offset everything the unions have achieved for the average person? You really need to educate yourself on what working conditions were like before unions. Sure, they are not perfect and at times they breed mediocrity, but they are definitely not useless.
In all honesty, most demonstrable criticism that can be leveled against a union also seem to apply to pretty much any organization/institution/government/corporation out there.
And in terms of seeing one situation where a union prevented someone from plugging in a tv at some trade show and allowing that to form your entire perspective on unions, all I can say to that deathreaper is the plural of anecdote isn't data.
I could list all of the cases I have personally seen, but that would take more time than I currently have.
I know what conditions were like pre-unions, I have done some research and found out what it used to be like, but in current days, with the media being what it is, unions are not needed.
Turning a crew away that could help restore power to customers, when the help is truly needed is inexcusable.
P.S. I still have a few boxes of Twinkies left if anyone is interested :-)
DeathReaper wrote: I could list all of the cases I have personally seen, but that would take more time than I currently have.
I know what conditions were like pre-unions, I have done some research and found out what it used to be like, but in current days, with the media being what it is, unions are not needed.
Turning a crew away that could help restore power to customers, when the help is truly needed is inexcusable.
P.S. I still have a few boxes of Twinkies left if anyone is interested :-)
Yeah, you are right the media always stands up for workers. Have you not been following the news? The first thing the Media did was throw the unions and workers under the bus! "Greedy unions cause the destruction of Hostess" was the main headline for days. Completely ignoring any of the facts of the situation, that the fall of hostess was caused my willful mismanagement. There was very little mention of the original concessions that the union agreed to years ago during the first bankruptcy only to see the company try to screw them again.
This is the same media, judicial and law enforcement system that has let the corporations completely rape the country for the last decade. Do you know how bad you have to screw people to actually do jail time for these crimes? Bernie Madoff! Just about anything less than Bernie Madoff and you get off with a slap on the wrist. Look up the SEC and see how often they hand out any real punishments. Corporations and people can basically outright steel billions of dollars and when they get caught the punishment is forfeiture of their license for 5 years!...Corporations have absolutely no fear of their workers, customers or the general pubilc, and they certainly don't have to fear the law....So yeah unions are needed.
DeathReaper wrote: II know what conditions were like pre-unions, I have done some research and found out what it used to be like, but in current days, with the media being what it is, unions are not needed.
Wooh! That gave me a great laugh to get the morning going. Thank you.
I know what conditions were like pre-OSHA, I have done some research and found out what it used to be like, but in current days, with the media being what it is, OSHA is not needed.
I know what conditions were like pre-EMTALA, I have done some research and found out what it used to be like, but in current days, with the media being what it is, EMTALA is not needed.
I would not trust FOXCNNMSNBC to advocate for my safety and well being. They are businesses to make money, not charitable NGOs looking out for the common man.
DeathReaper wrote: Turning a crew away that could help restore power to customers, when the help is truly needed is inexcusable.
Ah. That bit of kool-aide.
Look for follow-ups on the original story. The people who turned the crew away were not affilitate with the union, ConEd, or the local government. They were just some idiots looking to cause trouble.
DeathReaper wrote: I could list all of the cases I have personally seen, but that would take more time than I currently have.
I know what conditions were like pre-unions, I have done some research and found out what it used to be like, but in current days, with the media being what it is, unions are not needed.
Turning a crew away that could help restore power to customers, when the help is truly needed is inexcusable.
P.S. I still have a few boxes of Twinkies left if anyone is interested :-)
Yeah, you are right the media always stands up for workers. Have you not been following the news? The first thing the Media did was throw the unions and workers under the bus! "Greedy unions cause the destruction of Hostess" was the main headline for days. Completely ignoring any of the facts of the situation, that the fall of hostess was caused my willful mismanagement. There was very little mention of the original concessions that the union agreed to years ago during the first bankruptcy only to see the company try to screw them again.
This is the same media, judicial and law enforcement system that has let the corporations completely rape the country for the last decade. Do you know how bad you have to screw people to actually do jail time for these crimes? Bernie Madoff! Just about anything less than Bernie Madoff and you get off with a slap on the wrist. Look up the SEC and see how often they hand out any real punishments. Corporations and people can basically outright steel billions of dollars and when they get caught the punishment is forfeiture of their license for 5 years!...Corporations have absolutely no fear of their workers, customers or the general pubilc, and they certainly don't have to fear the law....So yeah unions are needed.
And because media serves the Stock Exchange. not the public interest nor the fair competition.
while saying that Media serves the greedy corporates. It also made the NeoNazi concepts of 'Jews controls Media, Controls world economy' valid regardless of any non-racial realism. I don't think Socialism is good, but unregulated capitalism is no less evil. Regulated capitalism is always better than the two.
But as long as this system benefits national economics. any protests will be snuffed and vilified.
As long as Union exists and capitalists still remain so greed. lobbyism will sure to follow.
Public disobidient might be needed.
Has any TV news agency interview any union boss since the fall of Hostess?
schadenfreude wrote: Going to start over over from square 1. It's not the workers that are gakky, it's the people in power be they CEOs, politicians, or union bosses. Power corrupts, and in the case of the twinkie the power was in the hands of the union bosses and CEOs. The union bosses couldn't budge on the issue because if a company can walk over it's employees in the way Hostess was proposing what's the point in having a union, paying union dues, and paying the salary of union bosses? The CEOs couldn't budge because even if upper management worked for free the company was too much into the red to recover. It wasn't even areal choice for upper management, it was a either file bankruptcy or fail to make payroll. The real question is why was the company so much in the red.
The easy answer is blame management for not selling health food, which I call BS on. Go to a Walmart in a red state and go whale watching, there is no shortage of demand for junk food and white bread. The problem was a generational pension problem. Production of breads cakes is more industrial manufacturing than baking now, and with robotics every year fewer employees are needed to create a greater amount of product . It doesn't matter if the factory is producing Twinkies or organic 11 whole grain bread,; what does matter is whatever a factory makes a competing company is going to make a similar product, and when it comes time for the consumer to choose between products price matters. End result=leanest running company has an edge. If it's a manufacturing job the company with the fewest # of pensions wins, and the one with the most loses. The baby boomers made corporations and government promise them pensions that gen X & gen Y cannot provide. For the last 50 years politicians, CEOs, and union bosses have taken a lazy shortcut by promising unsustainable pensions to keep workers content without having to responsibility pay them at the time they are working and continued to kick the can down the road until it's someone else's problem.
I don't really agree with this. I think venture capitol bought hostess with the intention of breaking up Hostess in the first place. It very difficult for me to see how a company could be so poorly managed unintentionally.
The original concessions that the union agreed to were so that Hostess could reinvest in r&d and better production facilities. Promises that went unfulfilled. Combine that with hiring management that had little to no experience in the market and you have a recipe for disaster. There is more to this than poor management, it is blatant disregard for a brand that was a market leader.
This is EXACTLY what i said earlier. Hostess Workers held an optimism that the managers will reinvest on business once they recovered labour wage cuts.
Where's Ex-Hostess worker rally where reality should be brought to light?? mew!
Looks Hostess has finally admitted the union allegations were true - management had been shorting the pension fund*.
Hostess tapped into pension funds to stay afloat
The Wall Street Journal reports Hostess used employee pension money to stay afloat as it sank deeper and deeper toward bankruptcy.
It isn't clear how much money was taken from those pension funds.
Monday is also the final day for bidders interested in taking over what's left of Hostess to step forward. Hostess says so far, 160 companies have expressed interest in its brands which include Wonder Bread and Twinkies.
Hostess closed last month. It had facilities across the country including a bakery in Oakland.
*A longer, more nuanced, and generally better article is here; but I'm using the short article because I know perfectly well no one's really going to read it afore they start going wharblgarbl unions.
Ouze wrote: *A longer, more nuanced, and generally better article is here; but I'm using the short article because I know perfectly well no one's really going to read it afore they start going wharblgarbl unions.
What do you mean "finally admits" Hostess publically told all of the Multi employer pensions they were supposed to contribute to that they would stop in August of 2011. It was widely reported on by January 2012. And by the time this thread started was an indisputable fact. Where did you think that money was going? A piggybank? Of course they used OT for day to day operations. Just like they used the money saved from axing pensions and wages in 2009 to find operations and pay balance minimums to creditors. This is a non-story and ranks with, "parents stop paying allowance to keep house, children report allowance used to pay for food and mortgage".
AustonT wrote: What do you mean "finally admits" Hostess publically told all of the Multi employer pensions they were supposed to contribute to that they would stop in August of 2011. It was widely reported on by January 2012. And by the time this thread started was an indisputable fact. Where did you think that money was going? A piggybank? Of course they used OT for day to day operations. Just like they used the money saved from axing pensions and wages in 2009 to find operations and pay balance minimums to creditors. This is a non-story and ranks with, "parents stop paying allowance to keep house, children report allowance used to pay for food and mortgage".
I don't believe I've read the details previous to today. If you google "hostess pension", you'll see there are literally dozens of stories on this, none with a timestamp earlier than December 9th.
AustonT wrote: What do you mean "finally admits" Hostess publically told all of the Multi employer pensions they were supposed to contribute to that they would stop in August of 2011. It was widely reported on by January 2012. And by the time this thread started was an indisputable fact. Where did you think that money was going? A piggybank? Of course they used OT for day to day operations. Just like they used the money saved from axing pensions and wages in 2009 to find operations and pay balance minimums to creditors. This is a non-story and ranks with, "parents stop paying allowance to keep house, children report allowance used to pay for food and mortgage".
I don't believe I've read the details previous to today. If you google "hostess pension", you'll see there are literally dozens of stories on this, none with a timestamp earlier than December 9th.
Hostess has not been paying future pension benefits since August, thereby breaking its union contracts.
Even with the pension expense savings, the company still needs more money within the next several weeks. And private-equity firm Ripplewood Holdings, which holds a controlling ownership in Hostess, will not reinvest capital unless it gets its union concessions, one source said.
Hostess (which reported a $341 million net loss in its last fiscal year) spends about $103 million a year contributing to multi-employer plans, and has been funding amounts well beyond the obligations stemming from its own workforce. That said, it hasn’t contributed to the plans since August, when it began running into larger financial difficulties.
Lone Cat wrote: 1. Hostess managers embezzled employee pension funds to fill their own pockets
2. Wallstreet
1. That's not what happened
2. What does the Stock Exchange/Investment bankers have to do with any of this besides not being willing to throw any more money into the gaping useless maw that /was/ Hostess?
Lone Cat wrote: 1. Hostess managers embezzled employee pension funds to fill their own pockets
2. Wallstreet
1. That's not what happened
2. What does the Stock Exchange/Investment bankers have to do with any of this besides not being willing to throw any more money into the gaping useless maw that /was/ Hostess?
So tell me what happened with number 1, because they used Pension Funds to stay a float, and then gave themselves bonuses. It kinda looks like Management took money from the pensions so they could artificially keep the place going to give themselves bonuses. Of course, I don;t know all that much about business so please enlighten me.
What do Investment Bankers have to do with it? Well, some would argue that the private equity firm that had taken over could be picketed? They still exist right? It is just Hostess that is gone. Again, I'm no business expert so I could be WAY off base.
However, either way, this looks pretty bad when an average, non-business guy looks at it.
1. What actually happened?
2. Hedgefund did control HOSTESS in the closing days, all six CEOs had no skills in confectionery market. read several pages and you will learn that the Hedge fund simply tried to reap profits out of Hostess. too bad the methods are purely evil. sent managers who had no skills in confectionery market to run the company so it will be systematically ruined, then sold out the brand in a bidding prices.
Hedgefuns usually located in or near Wallstreet.
So tell me what happened with number 1, because they used Pension Funds to stay a float, and then gave themselves bonuses. It kinda looks like Management took money from the pensions so they could artificially keep the place going to give themselves bonuses. Of course, I don;t know all that much about business so please enlighten me.
Hostess did not "use Pension Funds to stay afloat." Multi Employer Pension Funds as the name suggests are contributed to by more than one Employer, none of whom have access to the money itself. Because, you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to set up a fund that employers despise then give them a bank card. What Hostess did is stop paying into the funds to keep themselves afloat for another 12 months. That's exactly what the article Ouze posted says.
The maneuver probably doesn't violate federal law because the money Hostess failed to put into the pension didn't come directly from employees, experts said.
The maneuver probably doesn't violate federal law because the money Hostess failed to put into the pension didn't come directly from employees, experts said.
Does that make it more clear?
Yes.
To clarify, in order for this employer sponsored fund to exist, wouldn't it have to have been negotiated and argeed to in previous Union contracts, or was it just a goodwill gesture by the company to have this employer sponsored pension fund?
Vulcan: you'll note the column title is "kind of creditor"
Not all outlays.
Easy E: they specifically BROKE thier union contracts when they stopped paying. Big impetus behind the strike in the first place. The articles I linked towards Ouze explain it. It's called betrayl with no (synonym for fix). I think.
Che-Vito wrote: Go figure; the old CEO makes off with ~$2,000,000 in severance...despite him raiding the employee's pension funds to keep the company operating longer. Somehow, that's 'legal'.
1. Call it 'Embezzlement' please.
2. There should be debate in the Congress regarding to this 'outrageous' and you view those six CEO actions on the pension fund as a 'transgression'
AustonT wrote: Vulcan: you'll note the column title is "kind of creditor"
Not all outlays.
Easy E: they specifically BROKE thier union contracts when they stopped paying. Big impetus behind the strike in the first place. The articles I linked towards Ouze explain it. It's called betrayl with no (synonym for fix). I think.
So, can we agree it looks kind of looks like the management of Hostess broke the contract, used the pension to keep the company afloat, and then paid themselves bonuses?
Can we also agree that this might not look good for the management types?
Can we also agree that this might not look good for the management types?
We can agree up to this point. The executive will not recieve those bonuses automatically. They are continginent on benchmarks for the liquidation of the company. Ultimately they will recieve those bonuses by making the liquidation of Hostess fast and bringing in as much money as they can. Anything above the 860M that is secured debt will be funneled towards the 1B in pension fund debt. I'm sure your also torqued that Hostess will be doling out 4.36M to non-executives in the same period.
Does it look bad for the management? Kind of depends on who you are. If you believe that every manager is evil and make sure to repeating point out executive compensation then I'm sure it does. If you think people should get paid for thier work, and that keeping 18,000 people employed with less benefits is better than having 15,000 people unemployed with no benefits; then probably not.
Heard the expression before, but never knew what it meant. I still do not understand it, even though I read the wiki article on it.
It's not that hard of a concept. In the words of Cake "You're drinking what they're selling". The Republicans and the rich have been trying to blame the unions for everything. You have bought it.
Can we also agree that this might not look good for the management types?
We can agree up to this point. The executive will not recieve those bonuses automatically. They are continginent on benchmarks for the liquidation of the company. Ultimately they will recieve those bonuses by making the liquidation of Hostess fast and bringing in as much money as they can. Anything above the 860M that is secured debt will be funneled towards the 1B in pension fund debt. I'm sure your also torqued that Hostess will be doling out 4.36M to non-executives in the same period.
Does it look bad for the management? Kind of depends on who you are. If you believe that every manager is evil and make sure to repeating point out executive compensation then I'm sure it does. If you think people should get paid for thier work, and that keeping 18,000 people employed with less benefits is better than having 15,000 people unemployed with no benefits; then probably not.
Yeah it was a leap year that started on a Thursday. A whale exploded in Taiwan. There was a hajj stampede in Saudi Arabia. Human Embryos were cloned in South Korea. Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. The Summer Olympics were held in Athens. SpaceshipOne won the X Prize. Pat Tillman, Ray Charles, and Ronald Regan died.
Ahhhh 2004.
Vulcan wrote: Hostess in 2004? They would have been coming out of the bankruptcy they filed in 2003.
They filed bankruptcy because they had $600 million in debt.
The union allowed pay and position cuts to keep the company afloat, to the tune of 25% the total payroll.
The corporate executives 'earned' millions in bonuses.
The company came OUT of bankruptcy with $800 million in debt. Yes, more than they went in with.
I think that rather solves the whole mystery of why the company went under, don't you?
And this event influences the workers recent vote to rejects the deal that requires workers to take another pay cut.
in 2004 Workers believed that the pay cut is 'for the common good', they hoped that the company will reinvest and came back on its own feet.
the 'promise' is not fulfilled however.
Vulcan wrote: Hostess in 2004? They would have been coming out of the bankruptcy they filed in 2003.
They filed bankruptcy because they had $600 million in debt.
The union allowed pay and position cuts to keep the company afloat, to the tune of 25% the total payroll.
The corporate executives 'earned' millions in bonuses.
The company came OUT of bankruptcy with $800 million in debt. Yes, more than they went in with.
I think that rather solves the whole mystery of why the company went under, don't you?
And this event influences the workers recent vote to rejects the deal that requires workers to take another pay cut.
in 2004 Workers believed that the pay cut is 'for the common good', they hoped that the company will reinvest and came back on its own feet.
the 'promise' is not fulfilled however.
Corporate greed is part of it. Corporate executive greed is another.
Corporate profits have risen 2000% the past 20 years, even as the purchasing power of the average American has decreased by something like 5%. But executive compensation has risen 5000% in the same period.
Anyone want to guess who sets pay rates for corporate executives? If you guessed the shareholders, you'd be WRONG. Shareholders are mushroomed to the maximum extent of the law - and given America doesn't have ANY laws saying corporations must keep shareholders informed, they know nothing they don't dig out of the corporation with their own two hands.
Executive pay is determined by the Corporate Board... made up of those very same executives. And there is NO ONE who has the authority to review their decisions.
