PDA

View Full Version : How will the union supporters spin the Hostess situation?



coachmo
11-16-2012, 07:10 AM
Just curious as to the direction of spin from the union supporters as to the "real" reasons why Hostess asked for permission to file bankruptcy. I'm sure none of the fault or blame should be placed on the unions or their demands!

Sundown49 aka Otey B
11-16-2012, 07:44 AM
Just one word....unemployed..... due to their greedy leaders.

MooseGooser
11-16-2012, 07:53 AM
Prolly use code .....
sumpin like,, we ATE all the Profit..

Gooser

gmhr1
11-16-2012, 08:08 AM
they are closing all the plants , no more twinkies :sad: 18,500 workers will be out of work.

paul young
11-16-2012, 08:18 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Brands

Here's a wealth of information.....It seems the company's economic woes began about 8 years ago and have continued to plague them over the years.

While I think the Union probably played a part in the decision to file bankruptcy yesterday (for the second time in less than a decade), I have to ask why the CEO, who was at the helm when things went south was sent on his way with nearly $3 million in compensation and the executives that remained were given salary increases of up to 80%. It seems a little irresponsible when the company is in such poor shape.

I know Unions are unpopular with most of the people posting here, but it seems to me that there is a lot more to this situation than workers striking to hold onto benefits that were negotiated for many years ago.-Paul

zeus3925
11-16-2012, 08:24 AM
[url]
I know Unions are unpopular with most of the people posting here, but it seems to me that there is a lot more to this situation than workers striking to hold onto benefits that were negotiated for many years ago.-Paul

There frequently is more to the story.

jacduck
11-16-2012, 08:36 AM
The real question here is how can ANY company continue to pay retired or laid off workers 80 + % or their paycheck indefinitely and still survive long term. Auto companies should be proof of the pudding. US auto companies could not compete with foreign owned manufacturers on cost or quality. Look at the compensation packages of southern "foreign" plants vs OH or MI or other union midwest plants. The "foreign" companies deal more astutely with the unions right from the get go. This works for/against any manufacturer. Then check out the sweetheart deal union medical plans got in O care. The old days of union corruption is not behind us it simply put on expensive suits and became political instead of using ballbats for persuasion.

paul young
11-16-2012, 08:54 AM
The real question here is how can ANY company continue to pay retired or laid off workers 80 + % or their paycheck indefinitely and still survive long term. Auto companies should be proof of the pudding. US auto companies could not compete with foreign owned manufacturers on cost or quality. Look at the compensation packages of southern "foreign" plants vs OH or MI or other union midwest plants. The "foreign" companies deal more astutely with the unions right from the get go. This works for/against any manufacturer. Then check out the sweetheart deal union medical plans got in O care. The old days of union corruption is not behind us it simply put on expensive suits and became political instead of using ballbats for persuasion.

Could you please provide a source that shows Hostess employees get 80% of their pay as a pension for the rest of their life? I haven't been able to find that anywhere. For the delivery drivers (Teamsters) The maximum rate is $33/month x years of service. There are worker classifications which are calculated at $17/month x years of service. In order to be vested in the pension plan, workers need to have 10 years of service.

This is what I was able to find.

Further, it would seem that the the pension fund was well funded as the company emerged from the first bankruptcy (2009).

Miscellaneous Fund Statistics as of 09/30/2009 Active Members 25,564
Pensioners & Beneficiaries 30,901
Fund Assets (9/30/09) $2.6 billion
Annual Pension Payments $444 million
Annual Contributions $224 million

Marvin S
11-16-2012, 09:15 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Brands

Here's a wealth of information.....It seems the company's economic woes began about 8 years ago and have continued to plague them over the years.

While I think the Union probably played a part in the decision to file bankruptcy yesterday (for the second time in less than a decade), I have to ask why the CEO, who was at the helm when things went south was sent on his way with nearly $3 million in compensation and the executives that remained were given salary increases of up to 80%. It seems a little irresponsible when the company is in such poor shape.

I know Unions are unpopular with most of the people posting here, but it seems to me that there is a lot more to this situation than workers striking to hold onto benefits that were negotiated for many years ago.-Paul

Paul, I too have a real issue with the compensation packages paid executives, whether with a successful company or one that apparently is being managed to it's demise :(. The food industry is highly competitive - Hostess has brand recognition big time, but dietary habits change, who knows the real truth. Might want to look at the sales force :).

The machinery necessary to do the packaging alone is quite a sight - it is also something created by design engineers for the equipment manufacturers who are in my mind the uinderpaid folks - they made it all possible.

Buzz
11-16-2012, 09:23 AM
Paul, I too have a real issue with the compensation packages paid executives, whether with a successful company or one that apparently is being managed to it's demise :(. The food industry is highly competitive - Hostess has brand recognition big time, but dietary habits change, who knows the real truth. Might want to look at the sales force :).

The machinery necessary to do the packaging alone is quite a sight - it is also something created by design engineers for the equipment manufacturers who are in my mind the uinderpaid folks - they made it all possible.


Something we can agree on. The thing I really liked about working at Siemens was that they put their good engineers into senior positions and pay them like top managers. Their philosophy is, why should a GOOD engineer feel the need to go and be a POOR manager in order to draw a top salary?

twall
11-16-2012, 09:30 AM
Executuve compensation has really expanded over the past decade or two. When companies are doing well it doesn't seem so bad. But, when you hear about compaines going broke and the CEO or CFO leaves with a giant compensation package it really makes me wonder. It is one thing to get paid handsomely for doing well.

Twinkies and Ho-Ho's will survive, Hostess maybe not. I hope that all who lose jobs over this get re-hired by someone quickly. Our economy doesn't need to lose anymore jobs!

Tom

PamK
11-16-2012, 09:50 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Brands

Here's a wealth of information.....It seems the company's economic woes began about 8 years ago and have continued to plague them over the years.

While I think the Union probably played a part in the decision to file bankruptcy yesterday (for the second time in less than a decade), I have to ask why the CEO, who was at the helm when things went south was sent on his way with nearly $3 million in compensation and the executives that remained were given salary increases of up to 80%. It seems a little irresponsible when the company is in such poor shape.

I know Unions are unpopular with most of the people posting here, but it seems to me that there is a lot more to this situation than workers striking to hold onto benefits that were negotiated for many years ago.-Paul

They didn't file for bankruptcy yesterday it was early spring I think. My neighbor work(ed) at the home office. What she has said and I realize that it is management's side is the union bosses told the members not to vote for the contract because there was a buyer that was just waiting to take over. The buyer though has repeatedly said they would not buy the company unless a contract was signed.

She told me the union president told the workers so many mistruths that the judge enforced the contract they wouldn't sign and that is why they went on strike.

The union side that I am reading now is blaming management for bad business practice over the years.

While I have no idea what the concessions were that management was asking for it just seams to me that a job is better than no job.

Julie R.
11-16-2012, 10:02 AM
While I think the Union probably played a part in the decision to file bankruptcy yesterday (for the second time in less than a decade), I have to ask why the CEO, who was at the helm when things went south was sent on his way with nearly $3 million in compensation and the executives that remained were given salary increases of up to 80%. It seems a little irresponsible when the company is in such poor shape.

I know Unions are unpopular with most of the people posting here, but it seems to me that there is a lot more to this situation than workers striking to hold onto benefits that were negotiated for many years ago.-Paul

It does seem wrong for executives of a failing company to get pay increases, but it's equally reprehensible for unions to demand pay/benefit increases when business is clearly on a downhill slide. It doesn't matter when they were negotiated, compromise--including belt tightening--on the part of all parties is necessary when income is plummeting and demise is imminent.

I suspect Hostess started having problems because of the nanny state mentality that Twinkies cause obesity. Same mentality that believes spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat. But the soldiers of the war on junk food always seemed to mention Twinkies so this was a case where Hostess's name brand recognition might've been detrimental. Because after all, the geniuses we're raising in our schools these days probably just stopped buying Twinkies in favor of Zingers or other similar products manufactured by Hostess competition.

Paul "Happy" Gilmore
11-16-2012, 10:23 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Brands

Here's a wealth of information.....It seems the company's economic woes began about 8 years ago and have continued to plague them over the years.

While I think the Union probably played a part in the decision to file bankruptcy yesterday (for the second time in less than a decade), I have to ask why the CEO, who was at the helm when things went south was sent on his way with nearly $3 million in compensation and the executives that remained were given salary increases of up to 80%. It seems a little irresponsible when the company is in such poor shape.

I know Unions are unpopular with most of the people posting here, but it seems to me that there is a lot more to this situation than workers striking to hold onto benefits that were negotiated for many years ago.-Paul

I hear the same comments all the time about executives. Not unlike Union Employees', Executives also have contracts which they sign that guarantees them bonuses for everything from cost savings, stock prices to increases in sales. When they tell him to walk, they are still obligated to honor his contract. He did the same thing that the Union Employees' have done. He cost the comapany a lot of money and contributed to its' demise.

Henry V
11-16-2012, 01:24 PM
Just curious as to the direction of spin from the union supporters as to the "real" reasons why Hostess asked for permission to file bankruptcy. I'm sure none of the fault or blame should be placed on the unions or their demands!

You are the only one "spinning" this issue and have conveniently placed the blame squarely on the union. So predictable. Right out of the echo chamber play book.

I am surprised you did not work in "high taxes" and "over regulation" since these factors are the holy trinity of right wing ideology for everything that ails us.

As has been explained here already, there appears to be a much more to this complicated story and there is plenty of blame to go around, including to the unions. Maybe Bain will come in and save the day, get rid of the union, reduce wages and benefits, continue to sell us junk food, and make a nice profit. Hmmm. Sounds like a good project for Mitt Romney since he is unemployed.

Paul "Happy" Gilmore
11-16-2012, 01:38 PM
What do we need unions for beside raising wages now? we have our national health care plan which doesn't do much but run more small businesses out of business? Unions are happier if small businesses are gone. They don't see them a strength because of their lack of support for free enterprise. Unions only want healthy large union companies to prosper.

Buzz
11-16-2012, 01:50 PM
What do we need unions for beside raising wages now? we have our national health care plan which doesn't do much but run more small businesses out of business? Unions are happier if small businesses are gone. They don't see them a strength because of their lack of support for free enterprise. Unions only want healthy large union companies to prosper.


Not sure how you can call it a "national healthcare plan."

I am still amazed that a conservative approach to healthcare that was actually born at the Heritage Foundation is characterized as "socialism." I guess making folks take personal responsibility is socialism these days.

coachmo
11-16-2012, 02:01 PM
So Henry V, that's your spin! I'm the one who is actually spinning the story. WOW! I work in an industry that consists of a large portion of union members. I see the impact unions have on a daily basis. I am interested to see how much of the blame falls on the evil corporation instead of the unions. It's amazing the number of people that will defend unions until their last dying breath. My mistake Henry V, it's better to be unemployed that to take a pay cut. Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you think all of the union bosses are truly concerned with the workers then there is no hope for you. They're no different than the greedy, corrupt corporate leaders that you vilify.

thebigcat
11-16-2012, 02:28 PM
Something we can agree on. The thing I really liked about working at Siemens was that they put their good engineers into senior positions and pay them like top managers. Their philosophy is, why should a GOOD engineer feel the need to go and be a POOR manager in order to draw a top salary?

You must be an engineer...

Henry V
11-16-2012, 03:02 PM
So Henry V, that's your spin! I'm the one who is actually spinning the story. WOW! I work in an industry that consists of a large portion of union members. I see the impact unions have on a daily basis. I am interested to see how much of the blame falls on the evil corporation instead of the unions. It's amazing the number of people that will defend unions until their last dying breath. My mistake Henry V, it's better to be unemployed that to take a pay cut. Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you think all of the union bosses are truly concerned with the workers then there is no hope for you. They're no different than the greedy, corrupt corporate leaders that you vilify.

No spin from me. I do not pretend to know the reasons why the union rejected the offer facing potential unemployment. I also did not vilify corporate leaders or corporations but I did vilify you for jumping on the "its the union's fault" bandwagon. Seems you and many others here are always quick to point out how evil unions are. I am surprised no one has blamed this one on "Obamacare" yet, or did I miss that?

luvmylabs23139
11-16-2012, 03:07 PM
It's Michele Obama's fault. Twinkies are evil according to her. As ar as I'm concerned Twinkies are just gross, never liked them even as a kid.

Henry V
11-16-2012, 03:09 PM
Not sure how you can call it a "national healthcare plan."

I am still amazed that a conservative approach to healthcare that was actually born at the Heritage Foundation is characterized as "socialism." I guess making folks take personal responsibility is socialism these days.
Come on Buzz, under the current line of right wing thinking every type of insurance plan could be considered socialism. By the way, how is your state coming along in developing an exchange for private insurers to compete for customers? You know, the phantom "national health care plan".

Gerry Clinchy
11-16-2012, 04:54 PM
Trumka figures it's the fault of people like Romney and companies like Bain Capital:

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, in a public statement today, said, "What’s happening with Hostess Brands is a microcosm of what’s wrong with America, as Bain-style Wall Street vultures make themselves rich by making America poor. Crony capitalism and consistently poor management drove Hostess into the ground, but its workers are paying the price."



Rush Limbaugh's assessment:

Here it is November the 16th, 2012. Where are we today? I can sum it up for you very simply. Al-Qaeda is alive; Twinkies are dead.

murral stark
11-16-2012, 05:00 PM
I hear the same comments all the time about executives. Not unlike Union Employees', Executives also have contracts which they sign that guarantees them bonuses for everything from cost savings, stock prices to increases in sales. When they tell him to walk, they are still obligated to honor his contract. He did the same thing that the Union Employees' have done. He cost the comapany a lot of money and contributed to its' demise.
The main difference with the Union worker getting fired and the Executive being told to leave. the union worker does not get any severance package where the executive does. At least not in my industry. Depending on why the union worker was terminated, they may or may not get unemployment either.

BonMallari
11-16-2012, 05:24 PM
How long will the Ding Dongs in my fridge last....no more fried Twinkies at the State Fairs.....I think that these items along with Reeses PB Cups are on RoadKill's basic food groups.....

guess that means no baiting duck ponds with Wonder Bread anymore

Terri
11-16-2012, 08:23 PM
I was going to say this had to all be the fault of a woman, but Luvmylabs said it first.

Terri

Larry Thompson1
11-16-2012, 08:37 PM
You are the only one "spinning" this issue and have conveniently placed the blame squarely on the union. So predictable. Right out of the echo chamber play book.

I am surprised you did not work in "high taxes" and "over regulation" since these factors are the holy trinity of right wing ideology for everything that ails us.

As has been explained here already, there appears to be a much more to this complicated story and there is plenty of blame to go around, including to the unions. Maybe Bain will come in and save the day, get rid of the union, reduce wages and benefits, continue to sell us junk food, and make a nice profit. Hmmm. Sounds like a good project for Mitt Romney since he is unemployed.

WOW if Mitt's gonna do that I want some stock there. I know he's gonna turn a profit.

BonMallari
11-16-2012, 09:24 PM
you might want to read this article about Hostess and their Democrat/Teamster/Dick Gephardt connection

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/hostess-liquidation-curious-cast-characters-twinkie-tumbles




Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the just announced Hostess liquidation, one that will be largely debated and discussed in the media, or maybe not at all, is the curious cast of characters and the peculiar history of this particular bankruptcy. Some may not be aware that the company's Chapter 11 (or colloquially known as 22) bankruptcy filing this January, which today became a Chapter 7 liquidation, was the second one in the company's recent history, with Hostess, previously Interstate Bakeries, emerging from its previous protracted multi-year bankruptcy in 2009. What is curious is that its emergence had all the drama of a anti-Mitt Romney PAC funded thriller, with a PE firm, in this case Ripplewood holdings, injecting $130 million in order to obtain equity control of Hostess as it was emerging last time. There were also more hedge funds, investment banks, strategic buyers, politicians involved in this particular story than one can shake a deep fried numismatic value Twinkie at. More importantly, however, as America has been habituated following the last season of the reality TV show known as the presidential election, if Private Equity then "bad." Only this time there is a twist: because it wasn't really PE that was the pure evil in the Obama long-term campaign, it was associating PE with Republicans, and thus: with jobs outsourcing. And here comes the Hostess twist: because Tim Collins of Ripplewood, was a prominent Democrat, a position which allowed him to get involved in the first bankruptcy process in the first place, due to his proximity with the Teamsters' long-term heartthrob Dick Gephardt (whose consulting group just happens to also be an equity owner of Hostess). In other words, the traditional republican-cum-PE scapegoating strategy here will be a tough one to pull off since the narrative collapses when considering that it was a Democrat who rescued the firm, only to see it implode in a trainwreck that has resulted in the liquidation of a legendary brand, and 18,500 layoffs.

Blackstone
11-16-2012, 11:17 PM
Hostess had been in financial trouble for the last 8 or 9 years. The workers have taken 2 pay cuts already, lost their pension, and lost most benefits. Now, from what I understand, they are being asked to take another 8% pay cut. At some point, the job isn't worth saving. Maybe they are at that point now.

luvmylabs23139
11-17-2012, 08:09 AM
When the union rules require 2 seperate trucks deliver wonder bread and twinkies to the same location it makes it rather hard to improve efficency and reduce costs.

Gerry Clinchy
11-17-2012, 08:25 AM
Hostess had been in financial trouble for the last 8 or 9 years. The workers have taken 2 pay cuts already, lost their pension, and lost most benefits. Now, from what I understand, they are being asked to take another 8% pay cut. At some point, the job isn't worth saving. Maybe they are at that point now.
Lest we miss Bon's point in the matter: the individuals involved with constructing this situation were Dems, who also get involved with PE firms. And it would seem that those equity owners must have approved the payouts to the executives that surely would have helped the company grow weaker. The crony capitalism mentioned earlier would seem to be among Dems, rather than Reps this time.

The NY Times is really stooping to new lows in journalism. Their coverage of the Hostess liquidation is given this headline today: Interactive Feature: Quiz: Hostess and Its Cakes
Hostess Brands announced plans to wind down operations and sell off its brands. Test your knowledge of Hostess and the cakes it is known

Pete
11-17-2012, 08:28 AM
I think we need to bail them out. I can't imagine life without devil dogs ,, Yankee doodles, and butter scotch crumpets. Twinkies hold the same prestige as Cadillac once did. This proves the end of the world is near.

Pete

HPL
11-17-2012, 08:35 AM
How long will the Ding Dongs in my fridge last....no more fried Twinkies at the State Fairs.....I think that these items along with Reeses PB Cups are on RoadKill's basic food groups.....

guess that means no baiting duck ponds with Wonder Bread anymore

In response to your initial question: Forever I think as long as you don't eat them. Since there is no nutrition there, it seems to me that there is very little to "go bad". ;-)

Golddogs
11-17-2012, 09:38 AM
Very enlightening article.

A better case for poor bussiness practice seems the major cause of the demise as opposed to blaming the union, which at 30% of the workforce, is a less likely smokimg gun.


Twinkies maker Hostess reaches the end of the line

More than 18,000 jobs lost as maker of Wonder Bread and Ding Dongs couldn’t weather strike


By Candice Choi and Tom Murphy

Associated Press

Twinkies may not last forever after all.

Hostess Brands Inc., the maker of the spongy snack with a mysterious cream filling, said Friday, Nov. 16, that it would shutter after years of struggling with management turmoil, rising labor costs and the ever-changing tastes of Americans even as its pantry of sugary cakes seemed suspended in time. The company filed a motion to liquidate Friday with U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The shuttering means the loss of about 18,500 jobs. Hostess said employees at its 33 factories were sent home and operations suspended. Its roughly 500 bakery outlet stores will stay open for several days to sell remaining products.

Last week, thousands of members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union went on strike after rejecting the company’s latest contract offer.

The company had reached a contract agreement with its largest union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which this week urged the bakery union workers to hold a secret ballot on whether to continue striking. Although many bakery workers decided to cross picket lines this week, Hostess said it wasn’t enough to keep operations at normal levels.

Some of Hostess’ beloved brands such as Ding Dongs and Ho Ho’s likely will be snapped up by buyers and find a second life, but for now the company says its snack cakes should be on shelves for another week or so. The news stoked an outpouring of nostalgia around kitchen tables, water coolers and online as people relived childhood memories of their favorite Hostess goodies.

Customers streamed into the Wonder/ Hostess Bakery Outlet in a strip mall in Indianapolis on Friday afternoon after they heard about the company’s demise. Charles Selke, 42, pulled a pack of Zingers raspberry- flavored dessert cakes out of a plastic bag stuffed with treats as he left the store.

“How do these just disappear from your life?” he asked. “That’s just not right, man. I’m loyal. I love these things, and I’m diabetic.”

After hearing the news on the radio Friday morning, Samantha Caldwell of Chicago took a detour on her way to work to stop at a CVS store for a package of Twinkies to have with her morning tea and got one for her 4-year-old son as well.

“This way he can say, ‘I had one of those,’ ” Caldwell, 41, said.

It’s a sober end for a storied name. Hostess’ roster of brands dates as far back as 1888.

But as larger competitors inundated supermarket shelves with an array of new snacks and variations on popular brands, Hostess cakes seemed caught in a bygone time.

CEO Gregory Rayburn, who was hired as a restructuring expert, said Friday that sales volume was flat to slightly down in recent years. He said the company booked about $2.5 billion in revenue a year, with Twinkies alone generating $68 million so far this year.

Hostess’ problems ran far deeper than changing tastes, however. In January, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the second time in less than a decade. Its predecessor company, Interstate Bakeries, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2004 and changed its name to Hostess after emerging in 2009.

Hostess, based in Irving, Texas, said it was saddled with costs related to its unionized workforce.

But management missteps were another problem. Hostess came under fire this spring after it was revealed that nearly a dozen executives received pay hikes of up to 80 percent last year even as the company was struggling. Although some of those executives later agree to reduced salaries, others — including former CEO Brian Driscoll — had left the company by the time the pay hikes came to light.

Then, last week, came the bakery workers strike. The union represents about 30 percent of the company’s workforce. By that time, the company had reached a contract agreement with the Teamsters.

In a statement, the bakery union said Hostess failed because the six management teams over the past eight years weren’t able to make it profitable — not because workers didn’t make concessions.

“Despite a commitment from the company after the first bankruptcy that the resources derived from the workers’ concessions would be plowed back into the company, this never materialized,” the union said.

Uncle Bill
11-17-2012, 12:28 PM
Here's a "Libertarian" take on the closing of an Iconic brand. Not positive, but I think this is the first of many "_______Shrugged" companies that will be going elsewhere soon. As Maggie Thatcher once said about socialism, " sooner of later, you eventually run out of other people's money."

UB



http://agorafinancial.com/temp/DR/email/JoelBowman.jpg


Joel Bowman


When a company peddling sugar-infused cream rolls to the most obese population on the planet goes broke, you know market conditions have broken down.

Yesterday, Hostess Brands Inc., the company responsible for such delightful dietary abominations as Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Devil Dogs, Ring Dings, Suzy Q’s and, of course, Drake’s Coffee Cakes, filed a motion for bankruptcy.



http://dailyreckoning.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2012/11/DRUS11-17-12-1.png (http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/AA0Pkg/AA0kuA/AAfJ7w/AQ/AnzL8g/kulr)
Sorry Newman...“No Cake For You!”



Too bad. It seems Colorado and Washington states just couldn’t legalize marijuana fast enough to bolster demand lines for the financially-addled junk food outfit.

The Hostess announcement might have caused a wave of relief for clogged arteries and strained, double-wide diner stools around the country, but it also means 18,000 now-former workers added to the nation’s growing un- and under-employed lists. The move will also involve the closure of 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers, approximately 5,500 delivery routes and 570 bakery outlet stores throughout the United States.

Ouchie!

In a cruel, though not-unusual, twist of fate, many of those 18,000 workers were involved in the very strikes that ultimately crippled the company.

Double ouchie!

The Ho Ho’s purveyors closed up shop after a weeklong standoff with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM). Yes, such a thing actually exists. A statement released by the company read:



The Board of Directors authorized the wind down of Hostess Brands to preserve and maximize the value of the estate after one of the Company's largest unions, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), initiated a nationwide strike that crippled the Company's ability to produce and deliver products at multiple facilities.


“We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike,” warned Gregory F. Rayburn, chief executive officer, on Wednesday. “Therefore, if sufficient employees do not return to work by 5 p.m., EST, on Thursday to restore normal operations, we will be forced to immediately move to liquidate the entire company, which will result in the loss of nearly 18,000 jobs.”

Not good enough, retorted the unionists.

“Hostess Brands is making a mockery of the labor relations system that has been in place for nearly 100 years,” union president, Frank Hurt, said in a statement earlier this week. “Our members are not just striking for themselves, but for all unionized workers across North America who are covered by collective bargaining agreements.”

When workers didn’t return to man the mixers, Hostess shuttered shop...causing a flurry of #HostessShrugged hashtags to light up the Twittersphere.

BCTGM, which represents more than 80,000 industry workers, argued that the company’s policies would send its members back to workplace standards of the 1950s...back when people earned a 1950s wage and benefits package for performing a 1950s job...like quality control management on the Zingers and Sno Balls production line.

So just how hard done by were the browbeaten proletariats manning the Twinkie timers?

The mean hourly wage for the designation of “bakeries and tortilla manufacturers” was $12.57 in 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Workers manning the Hostess picket lines this week were earning roughly 35% more than the national average.

“The union’s demands had plagued Hostess for years, forcing — through the legalized monopolization of labor supply — wages that the market wouldn’t bear,” writes Bob Confer in a column for The New American (http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/AA0Pkg/AA0kuA/AAfJ8A/AQ/AnzL8g/2-7y). “The striking line workers were paid healthy salaries, $16 to $18 per hour. In a low-profit, low-selling-price business such as baked goods, those wages aren’t sustainable, especially considering that baking and distribution involve a lot of manpower.”

“Hostess was looking for wage concessions of only eight percent,” continued Confer. “Even after the cuts, Hostess still would have been paying their workers handsomely, 24 percent more than the industry norm. Mind you, this one-year cut would have been followed by guaranteed wage increases of three percent in each of the three years that followed, capped off by one percent in the fourth year. So, the pain would have been only temporary and cancelled out in just three years.”

Apparently, BCTGM had confused the relationship between employer and employee. It is a privilege to work for a company, not a right. Pension plans, medical coverage and other bells and whistles are not something automatically owing to each and every person capable of holding up a sign demanding such things. To the extent that these modern day luxuries are offered at all, they are offered at the behest of the company’s owners and/or management.

There will, no doubt, be complaints about the “greedy capitalists” who took advantage of the poor, helpless worker class. And, to be sure, insiders did award themselves some rather hefty raises when it became obvious the company had no viable economic future. (The CEO was gifted a somewhat tasteless 300% raise after the company filed its first bankruptcy suit earlier this year.)

But if the capitalists are so greedy, so profiteering, why stay and toil for them? If workers are unhappy, if they feel themselves poorly treated, they are free to leave and seek other employment at any time. They are also free to “down spatulas” and to collectively bargain...just as they are free to strike themselves out of a job.

The truth is that, without “greedy capitalists,” unions of the world wouldn’t ever have a Hostess to kill. So, our congratulations go to the aptly-named, Mr. Hurt. Now you and your comrades-in-arms can feast on 100% of the Cup Cakes that Hostess will never make.

Blackstone
11-17-2012, 12:35 PM
Lest we miss Bon's point in the matter: the individuals involved with constructing this situation were Dems, who also get involved with PE firms. And it would seem that those equity owners must have approved the payouts to the executives that surely would have helped the company grow weaker. The crony capitalism mentioned earlier would seem to be among Dems, rather than Reps this time.

The NY Times is really stooping to new lows in journalism. Their coverage of the Hostess liquidation is given this headline today: Interactive Feature: Quiz: Hostess and Its Cakes
Hostess Brands announced plans to wind down operations and sell off its brands. Test your knowledge of Hostess and the cakes it is known



I don't think there is a political spin to be put on this at all. There are greedy Dems. just like there are greedy Repubs. Just because this greedy person happened to be a Dem. That doesn't make what happen a Dem. problem.

Uncle Bill
11-17-2012, 12:46 PM
I don't think there is a political spin to be put on this at all. There are greedy Dems. just like there are greedy Repubs. Just because this greedy person happened to be a Dem. That doesn't make what happen a Dem. problem.

Pretty much how lefties explain their love for their union bosses, that receive exhorbitant 'salaries' for being pure takers....nothing produced by that batch of corrupt 'leaders' except intimidation.

UB

Gerry Clinchy
11-17-2012, 01:08 PM
I don't think there is a political spin to be put on this at all. There are greedy Dems. just like there are greedy Repubs. Just because this greedy person happened to be a Dem. That doesn't make what happen a Dem. problem.
Yet, if they were Reps, it WOULD be a Rep problem. Bain Capital, today, is run by people who contributed heavily to Obama's campaign, but Bain remained an Rep "problem".

Blackstone
11-17-2012, 01:44 PM
Yet, if they were Reps, it WOULD be a Rep problem. Bain Capital, today, is run by people who contributed heavily to Obama's campaign, but Bain remained an Rep "problem".

I don't see Bain as a Republican problem, just a greed problem. Of course, when people are eager to assign political blame, they will paint it that way.

Blackstone
11-17-2012, 02:00 PM
Pretty much how lefties explain their love for their union bosses, that receive exhorbitant 'salaries' for being pure takers....nothing produced by that batch of corrupt 'leaders' except intimidation.

UB

I don't have any union bosses, never have. But, I'm not so jaded by reading all the anti-union and anti-Dem propoganda that I can no longer be fair and open minded when it comes to either party.

Uncle Bill
11-17-2012, 02:05 PM
I don't have any union bosses, never have. But, I'm not so jaded by reading all the anti-union and anti-Dem propoganda that I can no longer be fair and open minded when it comes to either party.

Part of the sheeple crowd? Or just another fool?

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those that made him their President.



UB

Henry V
11-17-2012, 02:20 PM
Classic stuff UB.

Apparently, BCTGM had confused the relationship between employer and employee. It is a privilege to work for a company, not a right. Pension plans, medical coverage and other bells and whistles are not something automatically owing to each and every person capable of holding up a sign demanding such things. To the extent that these modern day luxuries are offered at all, they are offered at the behest of the company’s owners and/or management.

Its always those darn workers causing the problems. Since the "job creators" have a greater proportion of the wealth than ever before, where are the jobs?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/Users/cunninghamlg/CEOvsWORKERcomp.jpg?uuid=DvkH0JuIEeGewk3kPCNo5A
http://washingtonpolicywatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/us-share-of-net-worth1.jpg?w=610

Is anyone else concerned that the top 10% of Americans control 75% of the wealth. How can this be good for our economy? No wonder there is little consumer demand. Heaven forbid their tax rates go up a few percentage points to where they were at during the boom times.

Henry V
11-17-2012, 02:27 PM
Part of the sheeple crowd? Or just another fool?

The danger to America is not W, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of a W presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Bush, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a George W. Bush. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those that made him their President.



UB
Fixed it for you. Do you not see the irony that you repeatedly regurgitate text from extreme right wing "news" sources and then call others sheeple?

Blackstone
11-17-2012, 02:41 PM
Part of the sheeple crowd? Or just another fool?

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those that made him their President.



UB

I’m sheeply? lol You are the one that blindly follows any right wing propaganda you find. You will post anything anti-Obama, anti-union, or anti-Dem without questioning it or even checking to see if it has any validity. Some of it doesn’t even make any sense. Yet, you just regurgitate them as if they were facts. Now, that’s what I call sheeply.

You have posted this article many times. But the reality of it is, the fools we must survive are the ones with antiquated extreme ways of thinking. Hopefully, they will all soon follow the dodo bird on into extinction.

Blackstone
11-17-2012, 03:24 PM
Fixed it for you. Do you not see the irony that you repeatedly regurgitate text from extreme right wing "news" sources and then call others sheeple?

UB has blinders on. He’s so deeply indoctrinated in the extreme right wing ideology that he can’t see anything else. He has absorbed so much extreme right wing propaganda that his view of the world has become myopic, and he can no longer see the truth. That’s why he and his extreme right wing buddies were so surprised when Romney lost the election. He was listening to the right wing polls that kept telling him Romney was ahead. Now he and his kind are sitting around pointing fingers and assigning blame, trying to explain why Romney lost the election. They don’t understand that they are the reason he lost.

Uncle Bill
11-17-2012, 04:17 PM
UB has blinders on. He’s so deeply indoctrinated in the extreme right wing ideology that he can’t see anything else. He has absorbed so much extreme right wing propaganda that his view of the world has become myopic, and he can no longer see the truth. That’s why he and his extreme right wing buddies were so surprised when Romney lost the election. He was listening to the right wing polls that kept telling him Romney was ahead. Now he and his kind are sitting around pointing fingers and assigning blame, trying to explain why Romney lost the election. They don’t understand that they are the reason he lost.

Try again, Mr. Fool. Elections have consequences, and soon those taxes and Obamacare will hit you like a load of bricks. When your job has gone the way of the dodo bird, I will remind you of how estatic you were with this regimes re-election. When you are dealing with the SFN crowd that has no respect for what you own, and have just become a batch of anarchists like that mob you watch on TV in the comfort of your home....THEN you can tell me how much fun you are having with this current oligarchy in charge.

UB

Blackstone
11-17-2012, 04:55 PM
Try again, Mr. Fool. Elections have consequences, and soon those taxes and Obamacare will hit you like a load of bricks. When your job has gone the way of the dodo bird, I will remind you of how estatic you were with this regimes re-election. When you are dealing with the SFN crowd that has no respect for what you own, and have just become a batch of anarchists like that mob you watch on TV in the comfort of your home....THEN you can tell me how much fun you are having with this current oligarchy in charge.

UB

Your utter disrespect and contempt for anyone that doesn't agree with you, and the fact that you always resort to juvenile name calling, only proves your lack of character and lack of intellegence. My only fear for America is that some extremist regiem with views like your will somehow gain control of the country. Hopefully that will never happen.

zeus3925
11-17-2012, 05:11 PM
Did you know UB has a portrait of Joe Goebels in his living room? He burns incense in front of it everyday.

Blackstone
11-17-2012, 05:32 PM
Did you know UB has a portrait of Joe Goebels in his living room? He burns incense in front of it everyday.

Wasn't Goebels Minister of Propaganda? UB must be listening to some of his old speeches. You know he's easily led. He'll be probably be regurgitating some of those soon.

coachmo
11-17-2012, 09:18 PM
Are you two the pots or the kettles? Just asking.

Blackstone
11-18-2012, 12:30 AM
Not sure. Which one are you?

mngundog
11-18-2012, 01:48 AM
Your utter disrespect and contempt for anyone that doesn't agree with you, and the fact that you always resort to juvenile name calling, only proves your lack of character and lack of intellegence. My only fear for America is that some extremist regiem with views like your will somehow gain control of the country. Hopefully that will never happen.
Man your having an argument with the copy and paste boy, it would be simpler to just get your own subscription to the Limbaugh letter than to have a battle with a guy that hasn't had posted his own thoughts in the last five years.

Gerry Clinchy
11-18-2012, 05:49 AM
I don't see Bain as a Republican problem, just a greed problem. Of course, when people are eager to assign political blame, they will paint it that way.
Blackstone, I can agree that no particular party or any group of individuals, have the corner on greed.

We cannot deny, however, that the Dems pilloried Romney for being a part of Bain, even for things that happened after Romney left Bain. Yet, I doubt that any of the MSM will even mention that a Dem PE firm is behind Hostess' demise. Wonder if the union bosses are also in tune with the fact that their battle has been with fellow Dems?

Seems like the Dems have achieved the ultimate in class warfare when their own constituencies are battling each other. Maybe the powers that were running Hostess anticipated that the union constituency would ultimately win this battle, so paid off those executives in advance?

And who gets the fuzzy end of the lollypop? Not the union bosses. Not those executives. Not the PE company. It was the 18,000+ workers who will have no job now. Yup, I can clearly see how this administration will "grow the economy from the middle out." Nobody bothered to explain how that concept works ... but it sure made for a good sound bite.

BonMallari
11-18-2012, 06:49 AM
the Democratic smear machine did a great job to villify Bain Capital, when they arent even in the Top Ten of Venture capital firms in the US.....but then firms like Warren Buffett's beloved Berkshire Hathaway gets a pass, same with Goldman Sachs who single handed controls more of the banking and stock manipulation here in the US..

Blackstone
11-18-2012, 09:02 AM
Blackstone, I can agree that no particular party or any group of individuals, have the corner on greed.

We cannot deny, however, that the Dems pilloried Romney for being a part of Bain, even for things that happened after Romney left Bain. Yet, I doubt that any of the MSM will even mention that a Dem PE firm is behind Hostess' demise. Wonder if the union bosses are also in tune with the fact that their battle has been with fellow Dems?

Seems like the Dems have achieved the ultimate in class warfare when their own constituencies are battling each other. Maybe the powers that were running Hostess anticipated that the union constituency would ultimately win this battle, so paid off those executives in advance?

And who gets the fuzzy end of the lollypop? Not the union bosses. Not those executives. Not the PE company. It was the 18,000+ workers who will have no job now. Yup, I can clearly see how this administration will "grow the economy from the middle out." Nobody bothered to explain how that concept works ... but it sure made for a good sound bite.

Again, I don’t think this is really a political issue. Yes, Bain was vilified, but only because Democrats sought to vilify Romney. I never heard them accuse Bain of being a Republican PE firm.

I doubt the union or the union workers at Hostess care about the political affiliation of the persons at the head of the PE firm that acquired them, and I doubt the firm cared about the political affiliations of the workers. It was all about making money, and greed has no political affiliation.

The sad part is the workers will pay the ultimate price by losing their jobs. But, it’s hard to see how the Obama administration can be held accountable for the failure. Hostess/Interstate Bakeries was in financial trouble long before Obama came along. All those jobs were in jeopardy 8 years when Hostess filed for the 1st bankruptcy. Ten thousand jobs were lost as a result of that bankruptcy (was that the Bush administration’s fault?). Workers took wage and benefit concessions, and were forced into an ESOP. Poor management decisions are what led to the demise of Hostess, not the union. It’s not like workers were being compensated with an exorbitant salary or benefit package.

This is really not a political issue. It is a poor management issue. The company failed, and people lost their jobs. It is sad, but it had nothing to do with either political party.

zeus3925
11-18-2012, 09:17 AM
Amid the commentary on Hostess's failure is the company's lack of innovation . The tried to stand pat on their product line and had not introduced new product line for years. They really missed the changes in the market place and that had more to do with their demise than anything. The company had management problems for years and it was only a matter of time before the company would go bankrupt a second time--union or no union.

Ken Bora
11-18-2012, 10:22 AM
I was chatting with our bread delivery guy about this the other day. He is an independant. Owns his truck and rout. Has a couple other brands on his truck other that the primary. Lots of bakery and drivers do this. If a truck is going to a store every morning, and has some empty space it just makes sence. Anyway, he was saying he could never add hostess cakes because of the union hostess workers used. The twinkies had to be on hostess trucks. The driver HAD to have a "puller" a second guy, not work alone. It is a Union lifestyle, my bread guys words. That is more than just the workers or the corperate bosses earnings. But how they have to do stuff. Instead of a lean and mean independant driver like my bread guy they, by the union they chose worked fat and happy. Again my bread guys words. And lean and mean beats fat and happy all week long and twice on Sundays! Just the way of the world.

Blackstone
11-18-2012, 12:39 PM
I was chatting with our bread delivery guy about this the other day. He is an independant. Owns his truck and rout. Has a couple other brands on his truck other that the primary. Lots of bakery and drivers do this. If a truck is going to a store every morning, and has some empty space it just makes sence. Anyway, he was saying he could never add hostess cakes because of the union hostess workers used. The twinkies had to be on hostess trucks. The driver HAD to have a "puller" a second guy, not work alone. It is a Union lifestyle, my bread guys words. That is more than just the workers or the corperate bosses earnings. But how they have to do stuff. Instead of a lean and mean independant driver like my bread guy they, by the union they chose worked fat and happy. Again my bread guys words. And lean and mean beats fat and happy all week long and twice on Sundays! Just the way of the world.

There are a couple of ways to look at this. The question is, why did the Hostess union workers want a 2nd guy on the truck? Were they just lazy, or were there health implications. I have 2 friends that were UPS drivers. They both now suffer from knee and back problem that, according to them, came from years of getting in and out of the trucks delivering packages. Would a 2nd guy have helped prevent this? I don’t know, but it’s worth consideration.

There is also a local waste disposal company here that was started by a guy and his wife around 1960. In the beginning, he threw the garbage, and she drove the truck. His knees and back caused him a considerable amount of problems later in life. He had both knees replaced, and 2 back surgeries. He told me it was the result of lifting the cans and jumping on and off of the truck. Unfortunately for him, hospital workers dropped him after his 2nd back surgery while trying to move him from one bed to another. He is now a paraplegic.

Now, as an independent truck owner and business owner, like your delivery guy, are you willing to take more personal health risks for your own financial gain than you would be for financial gains going to the company or someone else?

Ken Bora
11-18-2012, 04:27 PM
.....Now, as an independent truck owner and business owner, like your delivery guy, are you willing to take more personal health risks for your own financial gain than you would be for financial gains going to the company or someone else?
Of course you would be. And the flip side. As a baker would you rather worry about trucks and maintenance and drivers, or just bake the best Twinkie you could? In this particular instance the product was legendary. The customer base was in place. The demand from the retailers was steady. You just needed to get the Twinkie from over to store shelf. Even the independent drivers are already in place. One would just have to open the kitchen door and ask, “Who wants to truck my Twinkie?” Independent drivers would win, the bakery would win, who is left out of the loop? Oh right, the union. And I am sure this delivery issue is just one of many that led to the Twinkie demise. One of many I am sure.

road kill
11-18-2012, 05:10 PM
The main difference with the Union worker getting fired and the Executive being told to leave. the union worker does not get any severance package where the executive does. At least not in my industry. Depending on why the union worker was terminated, they may or may not get unemployment either.

I beleive it was you who mentioned that the displaced salaried non-union Delphi workers made the choice.

I guess that works both ways.........:D

twall
11-19-2012, 09:22 AM
Workers took wage and benefit concessions, and were forced into an ESOP. Poor management decisions are what led to the demise of Hostess, not the union.

The workers were forced into ownership of the company, and that was a bad thing?

The unions were not the entire reason, but a contributing factor, to the demise of Hostess in its' current form. I could see not wanting to own part of a sinking ship. However, if I owned part of it I would be much more willing to bail faster.

Lowe's is an ESOP. While new hires are not going to make as much as some of the first employees did from the ESOP, they still have a stake in the company.

I work for a company that become an ESOP about the time I started. We are still in the process of buying out the owners of the company. We are at the point where the ESOP owns more of the company than the original owners. Stock value is increasing. People are starting to realize they have an impact on the bottom line. You can now look at someone and say that is costing all of us money.

Tom

menmon
11-19-2012, 11:04 AM
ESOPs have hurt a many a worker....companies can borrow against the assets of the ESOP. When they fail the creditors get the assets in the ESOP instead of the workers they were intended for. Many a leverage buyout has been arranged by leveraging up the ESOP and then the company'd debt burden causes it to fail.

ESOPs are bad!!!!

zeus3925
11-19-2012, 11:06 AM
Companies that go bottom up are the ones that write their own obituaries. Usually it places blame on someone else--environmentalists, unions, government, etc. How many times does the company obit say, "We, the management, screwed up"? You know the answer --zip. It isn't worth the effort to carry the dead company's propaganda line. It is so much Bull Roar.

youngblood
11-19-2012, 11:16 AM
Sitting in my News, Media, and Politics class right now... All my (extremely) liberal professor is saying about this is the management raided the pension fund and he hopes they hang. He will not listen to anything else, especially about the Union.

Is this true the management was taking from the pension fund to keep the company afloat?

Buzz
11-19-2012, 11:28 AM
Sitting in my News, Media, and Politics class right now... All my (extremely) liberal professor is saying about this is the management raided the pension fund and he hopes they hang. He will not listen to anything else, especially about the Union.

Is this true the management was taking from the pension fund to keep the company afloat?

Why don't you ask your professor where his information is coming from so you can look at it for yourself?

road kill
11-19-2012, 11:33 AM
If management would just grant ALL of da unions demands, they would be soooo much better off!!!:D

menmon
11-19-2012, 11:37 AM
yes they borrowed against the ESOP (pension plan) to keep the company going so they can pay theirselves. When a company gets in a distress situation, it becomes survival of the management. I use to work on the distressed desk at Merrill Lynch...my job was to determine where the value was and make recommendation as to how we were going to partcipate in the debt of these companies. Anything out of managements mouth at this point is a lie or denial, and I've seen company go to market and raise money before the world kwew thir fate, and have all this money to pay down debt but instead burn it away keeping their jobs.

Might want to listen to this liberal professor. He is right on this one. Best thing you can do is quit carring this political bias into the classroom and try to learn something.

road kill
11-19-2012, 11:46 AM
yes they borrowed against the ESOP (pension plan) to keep the company going so they can pay theirselves. When a company gets in a distress situation, it becomes survival of the management. I use to work on the distressed desk at Merrill Lynch...my job was to determine where the value was and make recommendation as to how we were going to partcipate in the debt of these companies. Anything out of managements mouth at this point is a lie or denial, and I've seen company go to market and raise money before the world kwew thir fate, and have all this money to pay down debt but instead burn it away keeping their jobs.

Might want to listen to this liberal professor. He is right on this one. Best thing you can do is quit carring this political bias into the classroom and try to learn something.
But the secular progressive professor's political bias is quite all right with you?

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb142/Hondo_0351/ROFLMAO.jpg

charly_t
11-19-2012, 12:23 PM
Why don't you ask your professor where his information is coming from so you can look at it for yourself?

Wrong thing to do if he wants a good grade. Never a good move.

Gerry Clinchy
11-19-2012, 12:25 PM
Again, I don’t think this is really a political issue.

It was the Dems who made it a political issue ...

Yes, Bain was vilified, but only because Democrats sought to vilify Romney.

So, why not also vilify the individuals who were responsible for the de-construction of Hostess?

I never heard them accuse Bain of being a Republican PE firm.

No, Bain was not captioned as a Rep firm ... and, in fact, it is now run by people who contributed heavily to Dem campaigns in this election.

So, Bain was only a "bad guy" when run by Romney?

Yes, I do believe that people will work hard to advance themselves. When they have some means beyond their own basic survival, they are also moved to help those less fortunate do the same. I think both are part of human nature: to struggle to improve one's place in life and to have compassion to help another human do the same. And there is greed and lack of compassion in some humans as well. And it has also been historical that when humans are made to work "for the greater good", and receive very little from the work in a personal way, they lose their enthusiasm for the working.

zeus3925
11-19-2012, 12:54 PM
If management would just grant ALL of da unions demands, they would be soooo much better off!!!:D

I would hope that management would not agree to all demands from "da Union". Frequently they do not.


Unions are there to negotiate not dictate. Labor contracts are reached through negotiation. As a negotiator --union or management--you never come away with 100% of your initial demands. Unions don't generally have enough clout to get everything. As it foolhardy for a union to kill the golden goose, it is also incumbent on management not to give away the store. The function of unions is to negotiate contracts where their members can make a decent living so that their basic needs can be met. Unions also are charged with negotiating work rules that that protect the health and safety of their members. Unions also serve as a conduit in resolving disputes in the work place.

After all, an employee is not a wage slave. He/She is a person that is deserving of dignity and respect. If that recognition existed to a greater extent in the work place then there would not be a need for a union. But in a world where CEO are paid 400X the basic workers pay, I can't understand the all the beef about unions.

duckheads
11-19-2012, 01:02 PM
If management would just grant ALL of da unions demands, they would be soooo much better off!!!:D

We all know that if the company "management" would give the union all they ever wanted the company would be not only be profitable but flourishing today. Oh by the way I have a bridge in Port St Lucie, FL want to buy it?

When the union has to much say in how a company can run it's business that business is going to eventually become non profitable and non productive. Same problem with the schools and unions.

menmon
11-19-2012, 01:12 PM
But the secular progressive professor's political bias is quite all right with you?

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb142/Hondo_0351/ROFLMAO.jpg

Who said it was bias. The proffesor got it right. Just business!

twall
11-19-2012, 01:55 PM
ESOPs have hurt a many a worker....companies can borrow against the assets of the ESOP. When they fail the creditors get the assets in the ESOP instead of the workers they were intended for. Many a leverage buyout has been arranged by leveraging up the ESOP and then the company'd debt burden causes it to fail.

ESOPs are bad!!!!

Ahh...there are lots of bad things that can happen in companies. An ESOP, Employee Stock Ownership Pan, actually gives employees ownership in the company. While many may stay with that company until they retire, it is not a retirement program. When I leave this company, regardless of whether I retire or not, my shares will be bought back by the company.

In the interim lots of things could happen. This is a healthcare business. Obamacare could cut our reimbursements to the point we go broke. Our stock will be worthless. That would be bad.

Tom

Uncle Bill
11-19-2012, 02:22 PM
http://5minforecast.agorafinancial.com/files/2012/11/111912_fmf4.png

Just waiting for more to follow.

UB

zeus3925
11-19-2012, 02:37 PM
It ain't the only cupcake in town.

menmon
11-19-2012, 02:39 PM
Bottomline....Hostess lost their creativity....easy to do when someone saddles you with debt

huntinman
11-19-2012, 02:42 PM
It ain't the only cupcake in town.

Tell that to those 18,000 unemployed folks.

menmon
11-19-2012, 03:36 PM
Ahh...there are lots of bad things that can happen in companies. An ESOP, Employee Stock Ownership Pan, actually gives employees ownership in the company. While many may stay with that company until they retire, it is not a retirement program. When I leave this company, regardless of whether I retire or not, my shares will be bought back by the company.

In the interim lots of things could happen. This is a healthcare business. Obamacare could cut our reimbursements to the point we go broke. Our stock will be worthless. That would be bad.

Tom

And the management in charge borrowers against your stock and when they fail...you have nothing. See you just half the story.

Buzz
11-19-2012, 03:37 PM
Wrong thing to do if he wants a good grade. Never a good move.


I disagree. I'm not suggesting he challenge the professor in front of the class. I'm suggesting he take advantage of his professor's office hours to ask questions, challenge him respectfully, and try and understand where he is coming from. My bet, this interaction will most likely enhance his grade and his education.

charly_t
11-19-2012, 04:19 PM
I disagree. I'm not suggesting he challenge the professor in front of the class. I'm suggesting he take advantage of his professor's office hours to ask questions, challenge him respectfully, and try and understand where he is coming from. My bet, this interaction will most likely enhance his grade and his education.

And I respectfully dissagree with you on this. Two people that I know did just what you are suggesting. I would never suggest to any student of any age to bring up a possibly negative view to any teacher/prof etc. Those grades are going to follow you the rest of your life if you are a student. We can say what we think and feel in most settings but not at school. A family member, who is by the way more tactful than I am, found out the hard way about this. Got to be carefull how we advise the young who are still in school.

menmon
11-19-2012, 04:41 PM
I actually agree with Charly

Having said this...I don't think what the professor said is wrong or political. As usual the right is trying to make it that way...just business. Bad management driven by bad capital structure and the workers suffer the most....nothing new.

HPL
11-19-2012, 05:46 PM
And I respectfully dissagree with you on this. Two people that I know did just what you are suggesting. I would never suggest to any student of any age to bring up a possibly negative view to any teacher/prof etc. Those grades are going to follow you the rest of your life if you are a student. We can say what we think and feel in most settings but not at school. A family member, who is by the way more tactful than I am, found out the hard way about this. Got to be carefull how we advise the young who are still in school.

There is a real problem here. You are suggesting that when the chips are down one should "go along to get along". If the student feels strongly, and if some research is done to get the facts, my feeling is stand up in class and take your best shot. If the professor is honorable, honest discussion should be welcomed. If not, perhaps the administration needs to hear or, if a public institution, even the legislature.

zeus3925
11-19-2012, 06:26 PM
Having been on both sides of the desk, I have often challenged a prof when something he said didn't make sense to me. I did not do it unless I had done my homework so as to make a valid defense of my ideas. There were times I was assigned a paper on the subject, but I never lost a grade because I brought the challenge.

Similarly I never held a student in a in disregard that challenged me. Hopefully, it lead to a discussion that would benefit the students in a class I was teaching. Never can I say I was subjective to the point I would give him a lesser grade for the attempt.

charly_t
11-19-2012, 07:31 PM
There is a real problem here. You are suggesting that when the chips are down one should "go along to get along". If the student feels strongly, and if some research is done to get the facts, my feeling is stand up in class and take your best shot. If the professor is honorable, honest discussion should be welcomed. If not, perhaps the administration needs to hear or, if a public institution, even the legislature.

You bet your bottom dollar there is a problem ! My son lost a letter grade for every day he was absent that year after he talked to the teacher. You can't fight some things. That little rule was on the books so they could punish students who skipped school. It was not meant to be used for what that teacher was using it for. All people are not fair so I would never tell a student to question a teacher/prof. We could argue right and wrong all day about this but it won't change a thing. School board was notified, lawyer consulted. There was nothing we could do.

Cody Covey
11-20-2012, 01:18 PM
Having been on both sides of the desk, I have often challenged a prof when something he said didn't make sense to me. I did not do it unless I had done my homework so as to make a valid defense of my ideas. There were times I was assigned a paper on the subject, but I never lost a grade because I brought the challenge.

Similarly I never held a student in a in disregard that challenged me. Hopefully, it lead to a discussion that would benefit the students in a class I was teaching. Never can I say I was subjective to the point I would give him a lesser grade for the attempt.

For the most part I agree with you...But with that said people tend to think a little different regarding anything political, and despite what Menmon states this is political because it has an issue of unions around it. Whether the right or left is correct in this instance regarding unions telling someone their political view is incorrect (even if not really meant that way) is not a good idea. In other contexts I believe you are right. I went to school as a Network Admin and it was frequent we would find little things wrong with the book or our teacher and of course he gracefully accepted the change. But politics and unions especially are a different beast imo.

Blackstone
11-21-2012, 06:50 AM
The workers were forced into ownership of the company, and that was a bad thing?

The unions were not the entire reason, but a contributing factor, to the demise of Hostess in its' current form. I could see not wanting to own part of a sinking ship. However, if I owned part of it I would be much more willing to bail faster.

Lowe's is an ESOP. While new hires are not going to make as much as some of the first employees did from the ESOP, they still have a stake in the company.

I work for a company that become an ESOP about the time I started. We are still in the process of buying out the owners of the company. We are at the point where the ESOP owns more of the company than the original owners. Stock value is increasing. People are starting to realize they have an impact on the bottom line. You can now look at someone and say that is costing all of us money.

Tom

Tom,

Workers didn't want the ESOP. Now, the stock they took in exchange for wages is worthless. So, yes, it was a bad thing. I have seen it several times before when companies force an ESOP on employees. It saves the company money, but rarely benefits the employees. It usually works better when the employees or employee union voluntarily negotiate an ownership program.

Blackstone
11-21-2012, 06:55 AM
I was chatting with our bread delivery guy about this the other day. He is an independant. Owns his truck and rout. Has a couple other brands on his truck other that the primary. Lots of bakery and drivers do this. If a truck is going to a store every morning, and has some empty space it just makes sence. Anyway, he was saying he could never add hostess cakes because of the union hostess workers used. The twinkies had to be on hostess trucks. The driver HAD to have a "puller" a second guy, not work alone. It is a Union lifestyle, my bread guys words. That is more than just the workers or the corperate bosses earnings. But how they have to do stuff. Instead of a lean and mean independant driver like my bread guy they, by the union they chose worked fat and happy. Again my bread guys words. And lean and mean beats fat and happy all week long and twice on Sundays! Just the way of the world.

Ken,

I believe workers are entitled to a safe and healthy working environment. I don't think the answer is to get rid of workers that want a safe environment in favor of workers or independents that are willing to work in less safe conditions. Again, I don't know this was the reason Hostess drivers wanted a 2nd person onboard, but it seems likely.

zeus3925
11-21-2012, 07:54 AM
Now the truth comes out. Hostess's board ousted CEO Brian Driscoll in March, 2012, after it was revealed his salary was tripled to $2.5 million at the same time he demanded steep pay cuts for workers.

luvmylabs23139
11-21-2012, 08:29 AM
Ken,

I believe workers are entitled to a safe and healthy working environment. I don't think the answer is to get rid of workers that want a safe environment in favor of workers or independents that are willing to work in less safe conditions. Again, I don't know this was the reason Hostess drivers wanted a 2nd person onboard, but it seems likely.

That point can be argued from both sides, but what about the fact that even if certain products (wonder bread and Twinkies for example) are made at the same bakery they had to be delivered to the retail locations on seperate trucks per the unions?
Why send 2 trucks rather than one? Just from a fuel expense angle it is not a good business practice.

murral stark
11-21-2012, 04:24 PM
That point can be argued from both sides, but what about the fact that even if certain products (wonder bread and Twinkies for example) are made at the same bakery they had to be delivered to the retail locations on seperate trucks per the unions?
Why send 2 trucks rather than one? Just from a fuel expense angle it is not a good business practice.

Possibly there wasn't room on one truck to deliver the complete order of both items. One truck hauled the bread and the other hauled the twinkies. Quite possibly the loading doors for twinkies and bread were not the same for where the products were produced. Twinkies production could quite possibly be in an entirely different building. Logistically it may be more efficient to use 2 trucks to deliver at the same time, rather than have one truck make another trip back to the dock to pick up the remainder of the order.

luvmylabs23139
11-21-2012, 04:49 PM
Possibly there wasn't room on one truck to deliver the complete order of both items. One truck hauled the bread and the other hauled the twinkies. Quite possibly the loading doors for twinkies and bread were not the same for where the products were produced. Twinkies production could quite possibly be in an entirely different building. Logistically it may be more efficient to use 2 trucks to deliver at the same time, rather than have one truck make another trip back to the dock to pick up the remainder of the order.

Gotta love that liberal spin.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/dogs/dog-chasing-tail-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/dog.chasing.tail-emoticon-2381.html)

Gerry Clinchy
11-21-2012, 05:07 PM
Possibly there wasn't room on one truck to deliver the complete order of both items. One truck hauled the bread and the other hauled the twinkies. Quite possibly the loading doors for twinkies and bread were not the same for where the products were produced. Twinkies production could quite possibly be in an entirely different building. Logistically it may be more efficient to use 2 trucks to deliver at the same time, rather than have one truck make another trip back to the dock to pick up the remainder of the order.
Another scenario: if one loaded Twinkies and bread to go to the same store, and you needed two trucks to do the whole load, it might prove more efficient, and result in fewer hours for each driver; and also less fuel for the trucks used.

But, then, the union might not allow for the workers to be given less hours for the week. And other union rules might not allow those workers to be put to work at other jobs for which they were qualified to use up the newly available hours.

We do forget that unions are not only involved with the wages and benefits, but often with complicated union rules that make it difficult to utilize worker time as efficiently as it might be if such rules did not interfere.

murral stark
11-21-2012, 05:20 PM
Another scenario: if one loaded Twinkies and bread to go to the same store, and you needed two trucks to do the whole load, it might prove more efficient, and result in fewer hours for each driver; and also less fuel for the trucks used.

But, then, the union might not allow for the workers to be given less hours for the week. And other union rules might not allow those workers to be put to work at other jobs for which they were qualified to use up the newly available hours.



We do forget that unions are not only involved with the wages and benefits, but often with complicated union rules that make it difficult to utilize worker time as efficiently as it might be if such rules did not interfere.

that would be a problem that should be addressed during the contract negotiations so the company has the right to operate the business and assign work in the most efficient manner.
In my experience, it goes to the seniority topic. there is an old saying, "The oldest may, and the youngest must." Translation, the senior employee has to option to pick up the hours or turn them down. When it comes down to getting the job done, the least senior employee must pick up the hours. another term used is, "Low qualified operator". Meaning the company can force the lowest senior employee that is qualified to do the job, take the assignment to accomplish the task.

murral stark
11-21-2012, 05:24 PM
Gotta love that liberal spin.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/dogs/dog-chasing-tail-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/dog.chasing.tail-emoticon-2381.html)

that is not liberal spin. The shipping part I was talking about is something that I actually know how it functions. since that is what I do for my job. I also happen to work in a food production company and have been involved in the food industry for 25 years. this is one topic that I actually know something about.

Gerry Clinchy
11-21-2012, 07:51 PM
that would be a problem that should be addressed during the contract negotiations so the company has the right to operate the business and assign work in the most efficient manner.
That certainly would make sense, but it appears that it doesn't necessarily happen that way. Remember it took a very long time for the railways to phase out "firemen" by attrition. (The fellows who fed coal into the locomotive engines ... whose job was made absolete when the trains stopped running on coal.)

Even today, auto workers who cannot be officially laid off, spend time getting paid for sitting in a room doing nothing. Surely there is SOMEthing constructive that these idle workers could do ... even if it meant some kind of volunteerism/public service, if the union would allow it.

murral stark
11-21-2012, 08:17 PM
That certainly would make sense, but it appears that it doesn't necessarily happen that way. Remember it took a very long time for the railways to phase out "firemen" by attrition. (The fellows who fed coal into the locomotive engines ... whose job was made absolete when the trains stopped running on coal.)

Even today, auto workers who cannot be officially laid off, spend time getting paid for sitting in a room doing nothing. Surely there is SOMEthing constructive that these idle workers could do ... even if it meant some kind of volunteerism/public service, if the union would allow it.

I can't speak to how the other industries operate in a union environment. I know in my industry that there is no sitting in a room getting paid to do nothing. There is a contractual amount of guaranteed hours. If there is not enough work there are 2 ways we handle it. We ask the employees if they want to waive their weekly guarantee and go home. If so, they sign a waiver form, witnessed by the shop steward and they get paid for the actual amount of hours they work that week. If they want to get their guaranteed hours, it is our responsiblilty as managers to find them work to keep them busy to get their hours. In my industry there is never a time that we can't find something for them to do. It may not be the most desirable task, but it is work that needs to be done. Cleaning, painting even transferring to another department to work.

Gerry Clinchy
11-21-2012, 09:14 PM
Murral, that makes sense.

I had a client who worked for Lucent Technologies. He was in a maintenance position. When the company began to begin its descent into the toilet, and workers were being reduced, several workers were transferred from one dept to another. However, the union contract prevented that for those in maintenance. So, for one year, he and about 4 other workers, reported to their workplace to sleep (he worked the 3rd shift). They had absolutely nothing to do. They were bored silly, but the union rules would not permit them to do anything but their assigned job.

So, sometimes things make sense ... and some times they are just wasteful.

Mike W.
11-21-2012, 09:21 PM
I am pretty close to this situation. In fact, I know several guys who are on the creditors committee.

murral stark
11-21-2012, 09:49 PM
Murral, that makes sense.

I had a client who worked for Lucent Technologies. He was in a maintenance position. When the company began to begin its descent into the toilet, and workers were being reduced, several workers were transferred from one dept to another. However, the union contract prevented that for those in maintenance. So, for one year, he and about 4 other workers, reported to their workplace to sleep (he worked the 3rd shift). They had absolutely nothing to do. They were bored silly, but the union rules would not permit them to do anything but their assigned job.

So, sometimes things make sense ... and some times they are just wasteful.

You are absolutely correct. That is very wasteful and senseless. Stuff like that is what gives unions a bad name. I would think that if someone really wanted to push the issue, they could have given them option A and B. Option A would be to go work in another department as a production worker or Option B is that your position has been eliminated and your services are no longer needed. Grievances would be filed, but if the company stood their ground, and took it all the way to arbitration, most likely the company would win. Even with my union roots, that scenario you described is way out of control.

murral stark
11-24-2012, 09:59 PM
No more discussion on this topic? Must be the weekend and people are busy.

BonMallari
11-24-2012, 10:32 PM
No more discussion on this topic? Must be the weekend and people are busy.

Everybody lost....jobs were lost....a poorly managed company that should have been left to die off was finally dealt a final blow....the consumer will have to hope that the products they came to love will reappear from a different source..probably the only ones that came out ahead were the greedy executives that stuffed their pockets with bonuses and salaries at everyone elses expense..sad when you think about it...sad but probably fitting