Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


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.

Andrew1975 wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


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?

Employment. Why is that a difficult concept?

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?

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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?

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.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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?

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.

Just as I thought. Back under the bridge troll.

 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

Mattman154 wrote:

 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.

I kind of agree actually.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 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.

Very well spoken!

Well... looks like the ebayer's buyers/sellers are going to be okay now...

Mediation failed.
[url]
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/20/mediation-between-hostess-union-fails/[/url]

 whembly wrote:
Well... looks like the ebayer's buyers/sellers are going to be okay now...

Mediation failed.
[url]
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/20/mediation-between-hostess-union-fails/[/url]

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!

 whembly wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/twinkies-may-find-buyer-hostess-ceo-says/

Mexican company El 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?

As a final and I imagine last update to this story;

the judge has approved liquidation.

What a sad Thanksgiving for all those workers :(

And it means no compensations will be paid.

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.

 d-usa wrote:

 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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 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.

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.

 Lone Cat wrote:
And it means no compensations will be paid.

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 thats not quite how it works.

Its over. They're done.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
And it means no compensations will be paid.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 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:

 d-usa wrote:

 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.

Almost every employee in the country has benefited in one way or the other because of unions. Maybe people would be happy to go back to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

 DeathReaper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
And it means no compensations will be paid.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 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 ?

Everything went better then expected > "insert evil laughter"

 d-usa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 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?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 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.

Seriously.

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.