Unions Kill Hostess

[chance1]

^ that last sentence doesn't suggest glass half full Ben

Cheer up its Saturday

 

[chrisrobin]

Enter Bain Capital!

I think Rosetta Stone has a Mandarin Chinese version.
I'm certain that the laid off Hostess workers would be happy to work for $.50 an hour in China. Also, the American carry-outs must be terrific. Imagine that: Mac and cheese in little white cartons. I wonder if there is single-payer health insurance there?

 

[Jack Springer]

you just hate working people? its no surprise your side cant win elections.

You're not looking at the whole picture.

The baker's union chose to make this their last stand. They refused to compromise.

The company no doubt has had bad management. The expanded too quickly -- bought too many companies -- accepted too many union contracts from too many unions.

Just means more space at the grocer's for other brands and a chance for the grocery store to make more money off the space while dealing with less people and less trucks at their back docks.

Did you know that the various union contracts did not allow Hostess products to be delivered by one driver to a store? Unions caused a bigger carbon footprint.

 

[chance1]

You're not looking at the whole picture.

The baker's union chose to make this their last stand. They refused to compromise.

The company no doubt has had bad management. The expanded too quickly -- bought too many companies -- accepted too many union contracts from too many unions.

Just means more space at the grocer's for other brands and a chance for the grocery store to make more money off the space while dealing with less people and less trucks at their back docks.

Did you know that the various union contracts did not allow Hostess products to be delivered by one driver to a store? Unions caused a bigger carbon footprint.

union = good
mgmt. = bad

details be damned

that's the narrative in this thread

which ignores the FACTS

it's a super pac ad hehe

 

[White Eagle]

I have yet to see what the salaries of the union workers was. I am gonna stay on the side of the union workers. The links that cityboy-stl posted says enough for me.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...er-the-blame-for-hostesss-downfall/?mobile=nc

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/gregory-rayburn-raise_n_2147043.html

CORRECTION: An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.

Hostess could have ensured the Twinkie's survival simply by paying the executives less, one of the unions organizing company workers alleges.

Those of you that posted that it's the union's fault. If you would supply a link, as you are supposed to do, I just may change my mind.

 

[cityboy-stl]

union = good
mgmt. = bad

details be damned

that's the narrative in this thread

which ignores the FACTS

it's a super pac ad hehe

I'm saying both are bad. Leadership starts at the top. No? That's what you always say anyway. If executives had given themselves 50% pay cuts instead of mega percent increases it would set a good faith example and provided incentive for cooperation and compromise. I'll bet they could have renegotiated union contracts and stayed in business. But no. The 1% gives themselves big salary increases and expects nothing but sacrifice and capitulation from the 99%. I don't for a second believe this whole thing wasn't planned to turn out this way and the 1% of the company will end up richer than ever while the 99% are unemployed. These are Mitt Romney - Bain Capital tactics and one of the main reasons why he lost.

 

[EastMed]

The brands will no doubt be sold at a profit and the re-employed workers will become members of the precariat.

 

[T-Rexx]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Unions did NOT kill Hostess - management did.

You don't run a company by cutting and cutting the salaries of your employees, demanding that they compensate for your incompetence by sacrificing themselves, even as you increase your own salary.

Hostess is being liquidated because it is more valuable to the incompetent owners in liquidation than it is as an operating company. That is, as some have pointed out, the Bain Capital method of "capitalism." The workers are being vilified because they refused to enslave themselves so that bad managers might get even richer.

Hostess's workers are not some evil force victimizing the poor, noble, angelic owners who only want to give them jobs. They are fed up with being exploited and being lied to. They want to be treated fairly.

But, somehow, Hostess's management thinks it is the workers' fault that it is unable to pay them their salaries.

 

[palemale]

Here is the union's perspective:

Our members decided they were not going to take any more abuse from a company they have given so much to for so many years," Hurt said in a statement late Friday. "They decided that they were not going to agree to another round of outrageous wage and benefit cuts and give up their pension only to see yet another management team fail and Wall Street vulture capitalists and 'restructuring specialists' walk away with untold millions of dollars.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html

There had been a previous bankruptcy in which the union gave major concessions apparently, only to see the company be run poorly by vulture capitalists and hedge funds. The workers probably just got tired of giving concessions that went directly into the pockets of Wall Street parasites instead of making the business a going concern.

 

[evanrick]

if unions and management are equally bad at being greedy, what does that say about your argument that you blame the unions when it defies logic that someone would vote themselves out of a job by refusing a new contract?

i see the picture very clearly, as did the millions of people that voted against republicans and their constant blame shifting as to why jobs are not being created, because of unions?

its a hostage situation and your side is upset that you cant barter with peoples lives anymore by threatening with economic terror, fiscal cliffs, and all those threats of doom if "things don't go your way". well they didn't so get over it.

polls have already foreclosed on republican positions on these issues, your just digging yourself deeper.

the more you try to avoid the failures of the republican ideology with excuse after excuse the bigger the blowback will be.

 

[palemale]

This is what the Wall Street Journal on-line had to say:

The company's burdensome debt traces back to Hostess's first trip through bankruptcy in 2004. Missteps by a private-equity firm, hedge funds and managers since burdened the company, despite its more than $2 billion in annual sales.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324556304578122632560842670.html

Sounds to me like the workers got tired of being sucked dry by vulture capitalists.

 

[Jack Springer]

Here is the union's perspective:



http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html

There had been a previous bankruptcy in which the union gave major concessions apparently, only to see the company be run poorly by vulture capitalists and hedge funds. The workers probably just got tired of giving concessions that went directly into the pockets of Wall Street parasites instead of making the business a going concern.

Eventually the same thing will happen to GM. The union parasites will devour the new company ... it's only a matter of time.

 

[evanrick]

Eventually the same thing will happen to GM. The union parasites will devour the new company ... it's only a matter of time.

dont know buddy it seems the hedge funders have already gobbled up the middle class. sorry.

 

[White Eagle]

I'm saying both are bad. Leadership starts at the top. No? That's what you always say anyway. If executives had given themselves 50% pay cuts instead of mega percent increases it would set a good faith example and provided incentive for cooperation and compromise. I'll bet they could have renegotiated union contracts and stayed in business. But no. The 1% gives themselves big salary increases and expects nothing but sacrifice and capitulation from the 99%. I don't for a second believe this whole thing wasn't planned to turn out this way and the 1% of the company will end up richer than ever while the 99% are unemployed. These are Mitt Romney - Bain Capital tactics and one of the main reasons why he lost.

I agree totally

 

[White Eagle]

I still haven't seen what the unions salaries were or what they were asking for. The management just fucked up. and thanks, palemale, for that article.

 

[BostonPirate]

Labor has the ability to shut down a business when the business is not engaging in fair practices and fair labor.

labor is one element of a Capitalist economy that requires a union, just to easily deal with fair pay and industry salary standards with input from all parties. Many MANY union negotiations occur that are quite mutually enjoyable and equitable for all sides involved.

labor DOES have the power to strike, and affect the business they have issues with. How can I say this clearly...

If companies are not occasionally shut down by unhappy employees, then employers of the nation's labor force will not respect their human resources. There has to be a real threat with real consequences if Corporate vultures are put before the needs of the laborers.

The economy needs less underemployed people, we all hear from the GOP, but when an org stands up to make sure that people are not being underpaid or underemployed, the union is castigated.

Foolish.

 

[chance1]

I hope their righteous indignation is keeping their families fed.

Hostess was fucked either way, in the long term... had the Baker's Union agreed to the concessions though (like the Teamster's Union did), they may have had a few extra months to look for a new job while collecting their salary.

the Teamsters were urging the Bakers to put the contract agreement up for an anonymous vote... without public peer pressure, my guess is that it would have passed.

your point is duly noted and said many x before

yet the talking points memo continues to be flat out union = good

couple more mos. of pay = good if you ask me

unions working against their own good and the good of their brothers is not a good thing

it just doesn't make sense on any level

 

[maxpowr9]

After reading more into this, this situation was a complete wash and I don't think it was possible for the company to float. I won't say all hedge fund managers or venture capitalists are evil but when there isn't an open dialogue between management and their employees, the company is almost guaranteed to head to financial ruin.

 

[BostonPirate]

After reading more into this, this situation was a complete wash and I don't think it was possible for the company to float. I won't say all hedge fund managers or venture capitalists are evil but when there isn't an open dialogue between management and their employees, the company is almost guaranteed to head to financial ruin.

Absolutely, and it shouldn't be any other way.

And lets face it, they will sell the rights to someone for making twinkies, as the company is dissolved, so there will be a twinkie reboot by a company that is more solvent.

 

[chance1]

ever have one of these ? OMG so good