112 replies to this topic

[Shane Nokes]

soniqstylz, on 17 November 2012 - 00:25, said:

The company was going under as it was. By striking instead of quitting, you get some of what pension you're owed, contracts are honored through bankruptcy court. If you quit, you're still out of a job, you get no unemployment, etc.

Again, when concesssions had already been given, when management was upping their own salaries, why take a pay cut when you're already working below market value?

No, they were teetering on the edge. They made it very clear that the company would stay alive if the workers returned...but that they couldn't afford a prolonged strike.

I know that you're trying to debate with me here...but you're debating a scenario that only has losers...no winners on either side.

soniqstylz, on 17 November 2012 - 00:29, said:

What demands were there? Please name them.

If you can't make a profit while paying less than market labor costs, you're a ****ty employer who deserves to go out of business.

In fact with this here you just verified for me that you have no idea why Hostess was doing what it was, or what they had been through in the last decade.

Do the research before stepping up to the plate to debate a topic...because you're coming off pretty bad on this one.

[Yogurtmaster]

I hope Hostess can survive in another way because I would not have my ding dongs and my susie-q's :-(

[Boo Berry]

Hostess won't survive, the brands most likely will though.

[Skin]

jakem1, on 16 November 2012 - 12:57, said:

So you're advocating undermining workers rights so you can have junk food? Nice.

workers rights?

[+techbeck]

I am sure someone will buy/bail them out. I don't see Hostess going away...hopefully not...so I am sure everyone's twinkies are safe.

[dead.cell]

muggerfugger, on 16 November 2012 - 13:01, said:

I don't eat this crap. Alot of businesses are going through this. The workers want more more and more. Soon as you give them more they want more again. I don't know the particular problems with Hostess, but i've seen many local places have problems with this. For example Boeing. Every other damn year i have to hear or see the workers picketing outside.
Luckily Boeing makes enough money to deal with this crap.

I'm not going to protest that my boss keeps giving me more. Sometimes you should just be happy with what you have, and realize you're more fortunate than others.

This sounds like a result of that.

Yeah, I hear ya. Reminds me of this article I read just yesterday, talking about Walmart workers striking on Black Friday.

http://occupyamerica...friday-strikers

Probably not likely to have the same outcome as Hostess, but it is rather interesting (my bad if it was posted already too, didn't read the middle 5 pages).

Anyways, don't care about their products, but I do feel for the workers who didn't ask for any of this.

[cropcircles]

I doubt they'll be gone for good. Hostess is a gold mine and some company will buy it if they haven't already.

[soniqstylz]

Shane Nokes, on 17 November 2012 - 00:31, said:

No, they were teetering on the edge. They made it very clear that the company would stay alive if the workers returned...but that they couldn't afford a prolonged strike.

I know that you're trying to debate with me here...but you're debating a scenario that only has losers...no winners on either side.



In fact with this here you just verified for me that you have no idea why Hostess was doing what it was, or what they had been through in the last decade.

Do the research before stepping up to the plate to debate a topic...because you're coming off pretty bad on this one.

Re-read this. I'll even make bullet points for you

* Was in bankruptcy from 2004 - 2009. Union made $110 million PER YEAR in concessions to help come out, including job losses. The company was almost liquidated then.
* Company was sold to two vulture capitalist groups who saddled the company with more debt - it stands now at $1b. It actually came out of bankruptcy with MORE debt than it went in with.
* Company was making $2.5b per year in revenue -- typical labor burden is 30-40%, marking around $60k per year in compensation for workers (about $30/hour). According to Toledo, OH news, workers there were making $9.70/hr. THAT'S LESS THAN MARKET LABOR COSTS. Teamster members were being paid $18/$19 per hour in total compensation. Again, below typical market labor burden.
* CEO and executives voted themselves pay raises earlier this year - 30 - 80% for executives, 300% for CEO. However, this is the 6th CEO in the last decade.
* The company wanted to slash all compensation by 31% including pension and benefits, and wages by 8%. Hostess had stopped contributing to pensions at all in August 2011, in violation of collective bargaining.
* Hostess has lost $250 million annually since coming out of bankruptcy, losing money in 30 of the past 37 quarters.
* NY Times reports that Hostess doesn't even have a finance department -- in January.

The company was failing, people aren't into big sugary snacks anymore, they hadn't adapted. ****ty management, and shifting blame where it's convenient.

With the liquidation, the two hedge fund firms will walk away with a ton of money.

But it's the labor's fault, right?

I believe, sir, you have no idea why Hostess was doing this.

[sava700]

someone will still make their products when sold - but in the mean time we have idiots running around cleaning shelves in stores.

[SecretAgentMan]

Twinkies can survive a nuclear holocaust but not years of mismanagement by the 1%, lol.

[Ryoken]

Well that union got what it deserved.. And no one is gonna buy up Hostess as a company, they will buy the assets.. what does that mean ? It means that even if another company re-opens the plants, they get the hire fresh, under a whole new contract.. they thought 8% cut was bad, I'll bet you the rates they will get if they even can get rehired will be more like 15-20% less, having to start over with a new pension, probably a lot fewer benefits, etc..

I believe that Unions that force a company to close down, being they are not reasonable enough to make a deal to keep their jobs, should be treated as though they quit, as in No Unemployment benefits, at all. ( the other union members can get theirs, after all they came to the table, and made deals, even if it huts now, 8% cut huts a lot less than a 100% cut.. ).

This wasn't a company turning in massive profits looking to cut costs to increase them. This was a company trying to survive, that could not continue to operate with it's current costs..

It's too bad that in cases like this the gov't couldn't let them fire all the striking employees, and start fresh, without a union..

Reminds me of a few companies here in Canada.. The day their employees vote to unionize, the company just shuts down and moves. I know Maple Leaf Foods has done that once or twice now.. It's just we aren't dealing with this ****, don't like our pay, go elsewhere, don't feel safe, contact the gov who enforce labour laws, there's no need for more drama that most ( not all!, but most ) unions like to bring.

A good example.. A a Old Age home there are several unions here, Nurses Union for the RN's, they never cause trouble, if their member is in the wrong, then the Union won't back them at all, they don't make outrageous demands, and always try to work with management.. can't remember the last time they threatened to strike.
But there are also Unions for the LPN,s and PCW's ( Basically Diet Nurses ).. Anyway, their unions will Always defend their member under almost any scenario ( for example, one was caught throwing patent medications out case she through the patient was too difficult to deal with.. yes throwing away meds the patent needs to live, cause it was easier.. union saw it, and was "Well she should have gotten training from Management so she would know that wasn't the right thing to do..".. Really ? REALLY ? Blame management for your member thinking it's okay to throw out medication ? ).. Those unions threaten strikes over almost anything, file grievances just to be difficult, and are never satisfied..

Anyway, far off on a tangent there lol. Anyway, I feel bad for Hostess, and their other employees, being screwed over by one union trying to play a game of chicken with everyones future.

[Shane Nokes]

soniqstylz, on 17 November 2012 - 00:54, said:

Re-read this. I'll even make bullet points for you

* Was in bankruptcy from 2004 - 2009. Union made $110 million PER YEAR in concessions to help come out, including job losses. The company was almost liquidated then.
* Company was sold to two vulture capitalist groups who saddled the company with more debt - it stands now at $1b. It actually came out of bankruptcy with MORE debt than it went in with.
* Company was making $2.5b per year in revenue -- typical labor burden is 30-40%, marking around $60k per year in compensation for workers (about $30/hour). According to Toledo, OH news, workers there were making $9.70/hr. THAT'S LESS THAN MARKET LABOR COSTS.
* CEO and executives voted themselves pay raises earlier this year - 30 - 80% for executives, 300% for CEO. However, this is the 6th CEO in the last decade.
* The company wanted to slash all compensation by 31% including pension and benefits, and wages by 8%. Hostess had stopped contributing to pensions at all in August 2011, in violation of collective bargaining.
* Hostess has lost $250 million annually since coming out of bankruptcy, losing money in 30 of the past 37 quarters.
* NY Times reports that Hostess doesn't even have a finance department -- in January.

The company was failing, people aren't into big sugary snacks anymore, they hadn't adapted. ****ty management, and shifting blame where it's convenient.

With the liquidation, the two hedge fund firms will walk away with a ton of money.

But it's the labor's fault, right?

I believe, sir, you have no idea why Hostess was doing this.

Which just goes to show that you still weren't paying attention to what I was saying...I said both sides were losers in this.

I don't praise either side for their actions. That's part of my point. The workers left rather than continuing to work...and the company owners decided to liquidate before things went completely down the tubes.

No one wins...no one is awesome in this.

[nohone]

soniqstylz, on 16 November 2012 - 22:58, said:

Wrong, they knew full well it would shutter Hostess. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49853624 They wanted to work -- just not for concessions that management themselves didn't want to make, despite the fact that, mathematically, it was management's fault that the company was in debt in the first place.

So why didn't the people who didn't want to work for the lower wages just leave? Instead, they decided to go on strike, and the people who would have worked for the lower wages could have kept their jobs. Instead, when a union goes on strike, everybody has to stop working including those who would work at the lower wage. And now all of them are out of a job.


And as for those who are saying that they will be bought by another company who will rescue them from closing permanently - if only there was a type of business that buys out failing or failed companies, and props them up to help get them back on their feet. Just thinking off the top of my head, maybe they could name one instance of this company, oh, I don't know, Bain Capital. But then again, maybe we shouldn't, because for the past few months, we have been told those types of companies are evil.

[Shane Nokes]

nohone, on 17 November 2012 - 01:25, said:

So why didn't the people who didn't want to work for the lower wages just leave? Instead, they decided to go on strike, and the people who would have worked for the lower wages could have kept their jobs. Instead, when a union goes on strike, everybody has to stop working including those who would work at the lower wage. And now all of them are out of a job.


And as for those who are saying that they will be bought by another company who will rescue them from closing permanently - if only there was a type of business that buys out failing or failed companies, and props them up to help get them back on their feet. Just thinking off the top of my head, maybe they could name one instance of this company, oh, I don't know, Bain Capital. But then again, maybe we shouldn't, because for the past few months, we have been told those types of companies are evil.

I completely agree with your point about the people who pushed for the strike affecting the workers. That's part of the point I was making earlier. The fact that it is a union shop was screwing a lot of people who may still have wanted to work.

I do not agree with your last bit though. Hostess was already bought several years ago...by a company that operates very much like Bain...and they did to it what Bain did to those other companies...that's part of why they were in such bad shape.



BTW for anyone wanting a good peek at the story on this (and why both sides are losers in this situation)...read this article:
http://www.businessi...hostess-2012-11

[TRC]

It would be awesome if another company bought them and went back the original 1930s recipe, before they were laced with cheap substitutes and chemical preservatives. Probably won't because of cost and shelf life issues but even as a kid in the 80s I remember they tasted much better. The ones they sell today honestly taste kind of gross to me, especially the filling.