How will the union supporters spin the Hostess situation?

[twall]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?