Celtics Blog Forums

Other Discussions => Off Topic => Current Events / Political Discussion => Topic started by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 09:49:02 AM

Title: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 09:49:02 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-hostess-brands-seeks-court-permission-to-liquidate-20121116,0,3175964.story

Those union workers held strong, all the way to the unemployment line.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Interceptor on November 16, 2012, 09:56:15 AM
Sounds like the company was run by fools. When they sell off their brand and assets, getting a new start, there will be a ready pool of people to employ.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 16, 2012, 09:57:57 AM
Sounds like they had a lot of problems beyond whether their bakers would accept a pay cut.

But man, when the Teamsters are telling your union they're dumb to strike and need to be more democratic about the decision-making process...you've probably gone too far. 

Hope someone snaps up Hostess' brands.  Except Snowballs.  Those things belong on the ash heap of history.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 09:59:36 AM
Sounds like they had a lot of problems beyond whether their bakers would accept a pay cut.

But man, when the Teamsters are telling your union they're dumb to strike and need to be more democratic about the decision-making process...you've probably gone too far. 

Hope someone snaps up Hostess' brands.  Except Snowballs.  Those things belong on the ash heap of history.

All I know is I hope somebody grabs Honey Buns.  Those 600 Calorie wonders need to keep going.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 10:00:46 AM
Sounds like the company was run by fools. When they sell off their brand and assets, getting a new start, there will be a ready pool of people to employ.

at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Interceptor on November 16, 2012, 10:03:22 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 10:05:16 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

That doesnt address either of the issues I mentioned... will the workers accept lower wages from another company?  Are they better off getting unemployment than they would have been working at the wages hostess wanted?
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: angryguy77 on November 16, 2012, 10:06:32 AM
Not a big deal, these people will not have a problem finding work since the latest job report suggest the economy is moving in the right direction.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Cman on November 16, 2012, 10:09:04 AM
The company is going out of business sooner or later.
Does anyone buy its stuff anymore? They are losing shelf space to snack food companies which have better products, and all snack food companies are making changes to be healthier. Hostess is so far over in the unhealthy column that they are never going to make the switch.

Sometimes, companies just have to go out of business. Sounds like this is such a case.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Cman on November 16, 2012, 10:09:44 AM
Not a big deal, these people will not have a problem finding work since the latest job report suggest the economy is moving in the right direction.

True. They'll have an easier time now than if the closure was, say,  three years ago.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Interceptor on November 16, 2012, 10:10:36 AM
That doesnt address either of the issues I mentioned... will the workers accept lower wages from another company?  Are they better off getting unemployment than they would have been working at the wages hostess wanted?
They'll either accept them, or find another job. Unemployment doesn't last forever, and it's unlikely to be better than a real job even in the short term. They would have needed to have had pretty posh pay in their old job for unemployment to be better than taking a pay cut at a new job.

Not a big deal, these people will not have a problem finding work since the latest job report suggest the economy is moving in the right direction.
The way this usually works, is that some/most of them will be re-hired by whoever buys the assets.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Cman on November 16, 2012, 10:10:45 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

I think pretty soon we won't see twinkies in grocery stores. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Chris on November 16, 2012, 10:18:11 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

That doesnt address either of the issues I mentioned... will the workers accept lower wages from another company?  Are they better off getting unemployment than they would have been working at the wages hostess wanted?

Of course they will.  Because it won't be a union, it will be individuals looking for jobs. 

It is the Union leaders who messed this up, not the employees.

...although, who knows if it really was the union, or if the owners just wanted an excuse to get out.  The healthfood craze is still going strong, making hostess a declining commodity, but now they can sell the rights to the products and name, and move on to something that might not be on the downside.  The union officials just misread the situation, and didn't take this option seriously in negotiations.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: angryguy77 on November 16, 2012, 10:21:13 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

That doesnt address either of the issues I mentioned... will the workers accept lower wages from another company?  Are they better off getting unemployment than they would have been working at the wages hostess wanted?

Of course they will.  Because it won't be a union, it will be individuals looking for jobs. 

It is the Union leaders who messed this up, not the employees.

...although, who knows if it really was the union, or if the owners just wanted an excuse to get out.  The healthfood craze is still going strong, making hostess a declining commodity, but now they can sell the rights to the products and name, and move on to something that might not be on the downside.  The union officials just misread the situation, and didn't take this option seriously in negotiations.

The people that went on strike were just as much at fault. They could have crossed the line and went back to work, instead they let someone else do the thinking for them. They deserve to lose their jobs.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Chris on November 16, 2012, 10:23:41 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

That doesnt address either of the issues I mentioned... will the workers accept lower wages from another company?  Are they better off getting unemployment than they would have been working at the wages hostess wanted?

Of course they will.  Because it won't be a union, it will be individuals looking for jobs. 

It is the Union leaders who messed this up, not the employees.

...although, who knows if it really was the union, or if the owners just wanted an excuse to get out.  The healthfood craze is still going strong, making hostess a declining commodity, but now they can sell the rights to the products and name, and move on to something that might not be on the downside.  The union officials just misread the situation, and didn't take this option seriously in negotiations.

The people that went on strike were just as much at fault. They could have crossed the line and went back to work, instead they let someone else do the thinking for them. They deserve to lose their jobs.

I am not arguing with that...although I think it is completely setting aside all of the psychology behind it.  There is a reason unions work so well, group thinking is a powerful thing. 

Not to mention, I am sure these workers were fed all kinds of lies by their leaders (or maybe not lies, maybe their leaders were just idiots), telling them how good it was going to be once they won.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Interceptor on November 16, 2012, 10:23:51 AM
The people that went on strike were just as much at fault. They could have crossed the line and went back to work, instead they let someone else do the thinking for them. They deserve to lose their jobs.
You have presented no evidence that any of this is true.

The employees are under no obligation to accede to the demands of Hostess. This may in fact be a better long-term result for almost everyone, since Hostess is no longer going to limp along, half-dead.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 10:25:30 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

That doesnt address either of the issues I mentioned... will the workers accept lower wages from another company?  Are they better off getting unemployment than they would have been working at the wages hostess wanted?

Of course they will.  Because it won't be a union, it will be individuals looking for jobs. 

It is the Union leaders who messed this up, not the employees.

...although, who knows if it really was the union, or if the owners just wanted an excuse to get out.  The healthfood craze is still going strong, making hostess a declining commodity, but now they can sell the rights to the products and name, and move on to something that might not be on the downside.  The union officials just misread the situation, and didn't take this option seriously in negotiations.

Arent they part of a bigger union though, not just having to do with Hostess?  It was my understanding the bigger union will still be intact and probably will deal with whoever buys the assets
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 16, 2012, 10:26:04 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

I think pretty soon we won't see twinkies in grocery stores. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Ever look at the nutritional info on a Twinkie?  They're really not that bad by current standards.  Kinda scary that the stereotypical Bad Snack Food of a couple decades ago pales in comparison to the megasnacks of today.

I think the biggest surprise in this whole thing is that Hostess had bakers.  I always figured their foods were kinda injection-molded or something.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Moranis on November 16, 2012, 10:27:02 AM
Little Debbies were way better any way.  Not better for you mind you, just better.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Chris on November 16, 2012, 10:28:43 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

That doesnt address either of the issues I mentioned... will the workers accept lower wages from another company?  Are they better off getting unemployment than they would have been working at the wages hostess wanted?

Of course they will.  Because it won't be a union, it will be individuals looking for jobs. 

It is the Union leaders who messed this up, not the employees.

...although, who knows if it really was the union, or if the owners just wanted an excuse to get out.  The healthfood craze is still going strong, making hostess a declining commodity, but now they can sell the rights to the products and name, and move on to something that might not be on the downside.  The union officials just misread the situation, and didn't take this option seriously in negotiations.

Arent they part of a bigger union though, not just having to do with Hostess?  It was my understanding the bigger union will still be intact and probably will deal with whoever buys the assets

Oh, I am not saying that the workers are going to go back to work for Hostess.  I am saying they will find other jobs. 

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that the employees now will not take any job unless they are given what the union was asking for from Hostess.

I have a feeling this is going to turn a lot of these workers against that union.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Moranis on November 16, 2012, 10:36:45 AM
McKee Foods (Little Debbies) and Bimbo Bakeries (Entenmann) are not unionized.  I don't believe Sara Lee and Kraft, Inc. are either.  Since those 4 entities are the most likely to buy assets from Hostess, most of the Hostess brands going forward will not be made by a unionized workforce.  Thus, the union essentially shot itself in the foot even if much of the former Hostess workers get hired on by the new entity, they will not be unionized. 

Should be interesting to watch going forward.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Cman on November 16, 2012, 10:58:33 AM
Thus, the union essentially shot itself in the foot even if much of the former Hostess workers get hired on by the new entity, they will not be unionized. 


Disagree that the analysis is as simple as you are making it out to be. The unions are engaged in a repeated game. They lose on this one and Hostess management does as well. But, the unions gain bargaining power in future negotiations with other companies.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: BballTim on November 16, 2012, 11:27:29 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

I think pretty soon we won't see twinkies in grocery stores. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Ever look at the nutritional info on a Twinkie?  They're really not that bad by current standards.  Kinda scary that the stereotypical Bad Snack Food of a couple decades ago pales in comparison to the megasnacks of today.

I think the biggest surprise in this whole thing is that Hostess had bakers.  I always figured their foods were kinda injection-molded or something.

  I'd guess that the people who load the flour/sugar/whatever into the machines and run the machines are called bakers.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: indeedproceed on November 16, 2012, 11:28:01 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

That doesnt address either of the issues I mentioned... will the workers accept lower wages from another company?  Are they better off getting unemployment than they would have been working at the wages hostess wanted?

Of course they will.  Because it won't be a union, it will be individuals looking for jobs. 

It is the Union leaders who messed this up, not the employees.

...although, who knows if it really was the union, or if the owners just wanted an excuse to get out.  The healthfood craze is still going strong, making hostess a declining commodity, but now they can sell the rights to the products and name, and move on to something that might not be on the downside.  The union officials just misread the situation, and didn't take this option seriously in negotiations.

The people that went on strike were just as much at fault. They could have crossed the line and went back to work, instead they let someone else do the thinking for them. They deserve to lose their jobs.

I am not arguing with that...although I think it is completely setting aside all of the psychology behind it.  There is a reason unions work so well, group thinking is a powerful thing. 

Not to mention, I am sure these workers were fed all kinds of lies by their leaders (or maybe not lies, maybe their leaders were just idiots), telling them how good it was going to be once they won.

Not for nothin, but coming down on the workers or their leaders or the union bosses and assigning anything as 'their fault' seems to be pretty premature considering the information from that article. The company obviously has managerial issues on top of any labor dispute involved here, who is to say what level of concessions from workers would've kept Hostess running?

Who is to say that the workers would've ever been able to get any of that back?

Seems to me that Hostess was sick for a long time, and this was just the way out. Maybe the strike broke their back, but if they were expecting unrealistic concessions from their workers just to stay in business, it seems like they should've expected this outcome for some time.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 11:34:28 AM
at what cost?  Probably not what they demand to be paid.  But when you think about it, won't these workers likely be collecting more in unemployment than they would have made at reduced wages from Hostess?
Welcome to Capitalism. Sometimes, badly-run companies just need to die. Someone will make a fresh start, with lower overhead, and Twinkies will go right back to making us morbidly obese.

That doesnt address either of the issues I mentioned... will the workers accept lower wages from another company?  Are they better off getting unemployment than they would have been working at the wages hostess wanted?

Of course they will.  Because it won't be a union, it will be individuals looking for jobs. 

It is the Union leaders who messed this up, not the employees.

...although, who knows if it really was the union, or if the owners just wanted an excuse to get out.  The healthfood craze is still going strong, making hostess a declining commodity, but now they can sell the rights to the products and name, and move on to something that might not be on the downside.  The union officials just misread the situation, and didn't take this option seriously in negotiations.

The people that went on strike were just as much at fault. They could have crossed the line and went back to work, instead they let someone else do the thinking for them. They deserve to lose their jobs.

I am not arguing with that...although I think it is completely setting aside all of the psychology behind it.  There is a reason unions work so well, group thinking is a powerful thing. 

Not to mention, I am sure these workers were fed all kinds of lies by their leaders (or maybe not lies, maybe their leaders were just idiots), telling them how good it was going to be once they won.

Not for nothin, but coming down on the workers or their leaders or the union bosses and assigning anything as 'their fault' seems to be pretty premature considering the information from that article. The company obviously has managerial issues on top of any labor dispute involved here, who is to say what level of concessions from workers would've kept Hostess running?

Who is to say that the workers would've ever been able to get any of that back?

Seems to me that Hostess was sick for a long time, and this was just the way out. Maybe the strike broke their back, but if they were expecting unrealistic concessions from their workers just to stay in business, it seems like they should've expected this outcome for some time.

Your right it was premature, lets everybody calm down and have  a beer summit

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lF_Diu1frk8/0.jpg)
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: indeedproceed on November 16, 2012, 11:37:27 AM
Your right it was premature, lets everybody calm down and have  a beer summit

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lF_Diu1frk8/0.jpg)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if the story ends with me getting a White House Honey Porter...well okay.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: BballTim on November 16, 2012, 11:38:03 AM
Hope someone snaps up Hostess' brands.  Except Snowballs.  Those things belong on the ash heap of history.

  The problems is, once every 3-4 years you're in the mood for one, and nothing else really hits the spot.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 11:42:36 AM
Your right it was premature, lets everybody calm down and have  a beer summit

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lF_Diu1frk8/0.jpg)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if the story ends with me getting a White House Honey Porter...well okay.

Not being sarcastic, I just think a beer summit is the best way to end any premature conclusions
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: indeedproceed on November 16, 2012, 11:43:22 AM
Your right it was premature, lets everybody calm down and have  a beer summit

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lF_Diu1frk8/0.jpg)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if the story ends with me getting a White House Honey Porter...well okay.

Not being sarcastic, I just think a beer summit is the best way to end any premature conclusions

So you're saying you're not pregnant, you just had the stomach flu?


No prob, babe! Beer summit!
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 16, 2012, 11:43:54 AM
Hope someone snaps up Hostess' brands.  Except Snowballs.  Those things belong on the ash heap of history.

  The problems is, once every 3-4 years you're in the mood for one, and nothing else really hits the spot.

I can honestly say I've never craved a Snowball in my life.  This is a pretty good description of how I feel about their cupcakes, though, and once in a great while Twinkies.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 11:45:33 AM
Your right it was premature, lets everybody calm down and have  a beer summit

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lF_Diu1frk8/0.jpg)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if the story ends with me getting a White House Honey Porter...well okay.

Not being sarcastic, I just think a beer summit is the best way to end any premature conclusions

So you're saying you're not pregnant, you just had the stomach flu?


No prob, babe! Beer summit!

Wouldnt the world be a better place?
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: LooseCannon on November 16, 2012, 11:49:28 AM
It sounds like this may have been Bain-style venture capitalism at work here.  Reportedly, the executives got some nice raises earlier this year, including the CEO getting a bump from 750K to $2.5m.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 16, 2012, 11:52:50 AM
It sounds like this may have been Bain-style venture capitalism at work here.  Reportedly, the executives got some nice raises earlier this year, including the CEO getting a bump from 750K to $2.5m.

It sounds like they need stimulus funds.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Moranis on November 16, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
Thus, the union essentially shot itself in the foot even if much of the former Hostess workers get hired on by the new entity, they will not be unionized. 


Disagree that the analysis is as simple as you are making it out to be. The unions are engaged in a repeated game. They lose on this one and Hostess management does as well. But, the unions gain bargaining power in future negotiations with other companies.
Hostess was the only unionized company in that field. 
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: LooseCannon on November 16, 2012, 12:17:07 PM
Hostess was the only unionized company in that field.

That's untrue.  Grupo Bimbo, a Mexico-based company who once tried to buy Hostess during its earlier bankruptcy and which owns brands such as Entennman's, Thomas (as in English muffins),  Sara Lee, and Brownberry, seems to be described as the biggest competitor to Hostess and it seems to be unionized.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: nickagneta on November 16, 2012, 12:23:24 PM
The strike might have been the final straw that sent the company under but if the strike didn't happen, Hostess was going to go under sooner or later. Fattening snack food company in a world trending towards health consciousness that was being run poorly.

Sometimes bad companies just need to go out of business and sometimes and doesn't matter how it is done.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Cman on November 16, 2012, 02:38:33 PM
Hostess was the only unionized company in that field.

That's untrue.  Grupo Bimbo, a Mexico-based company who once tried to buy Hostess during its earlier bankruptcy and which owns brands such as Entennman's, Thomas (as in English muffins),  Sara Lee, and Brownberry, seems to be described as the biggest competitor to Hostess and it seems to be unionized.

Also, isn't it the Teamsters? They are involved in more than just baking.... so, I think my point about this being a repeated game holds.

In any case, I'm with nichagenta on this: the company was bound to fail sooner or later given the market trends. Plus, everything I've seen on this company was that there were a whole lot of things wrong with it other than "the union". 
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Brendan on November 17, 2012, 10:37:37 AM
The strike might have been the final straw that sent the company under but if the strike didn't happen, Hostess was going to go under sooner or later. Fattening snack food company in a world trending towards health consciousness that was being run poorly.

Sometimes bad companies just need to go out of business and sometimes and doesn't matter how it is done.
This is refreshing to see, if only the crony capitalists in both parties would have followed this advice for the auto industry (circa 2009) and airline industry (circa 2002) and the financial industry (circa 2007). Bankruptcy provides correct protection and certainty for investors, controlled liquidation or reorganization processes, and all-in-all better outcomes than bailouts and interventions.

Capitalism requires that risk and reward be privatized. Unions shouldn't get special protection like they do, and IMO public sector unions should be illegal, but regardless of either of those positions, unions are highly incentivized to compromise with management in cases where bankruptcy is a real chance. And when they don't they bare a lot of the burden (like in this case where they unioned themselves right out of 18,000 jobs or so.) That's an OK outcome from my perspective.

(By the way, I've known the CFO for a very well known brand that went out of business via bankruptcy. And he made a lot of money. And people were ticked off "how unfair." Running a business that's going through a bankruptcy is VERY HARD. It's also hard to attract quality execs to businesses facing structural challenges. It's also damaging to the executives personal brand. BUT absent very good leadership, the company will almost certainly fail, and in bankruptcy a lack of good leadership will cost the owners of the business lots of money. I think it's a lot more fair to criticize the quality of the candidate being paid, then the actual amount it costs. There just aren't many execs that can competently manage this kinds of situations AND want to.)
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: nickagneta on November 17, 2012, 11:41:23 AM
The strike might have been the final straw that sent the company under but if the strike didn't happen, Hostess was going to go under sooner or later. Fattening snack food company in a world trending towards health consciousness that was being run poorly.

Sometimes bad companies just need to go out of business and sometimes and doesn't matter how it is done.
This is refreshing to see, if only the crony capitalists in both parties would have followed this advice for the auto industry (circa 2009) and airline industry (circa 2002) and the financial industry (circa 2007). Bankruptcy provides correct protection and certainty for investors, controlled liquidation or reorganization processes, and all-in-all better outcomes than bailouts and interventions.

Capitalism requires that risk and reward be privatized. Unions shouldn't get special protection like they do, and IMO public sector unions should be illegal, but regardless of either of those positions, unions are highly incentivized to compromise with management in cases where bankruptcy is a real chance. And when they don't they bare a lot of the burden (like in this case where they unioned themselves right out of 18,000 jobs or so.) That's an OK outcome from my perspective.


I agree with everything you said here. God, Brendan, is that a first? ;D
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: OmarSekou on November 17, 2012, 11:44:27 AM
Serious questions: How long until Twinkies go off the shelves? How long do Twinkies last?
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 17, 2012, 11:57:36 AM
Serious questions: How long until Twinkies go off the shelves? How long do Twinkies last?
ha ha ha.  I told my husband to make a run on the local grocery stores and buy them all up.  The last forever, and in 100 years they may be worth big bucks.  He will probably have the only viable supply.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 17, 2012, 12:00:12 PM
The strike might have been the final straw that sent the company under but if the strike didn't happen, Hostess was going to go under sooner or later. Fattening snack food company in a world trending towards health consciousness that was being run poorly.

Sometimes bad companies just need to go out of business and sometimes and doesn't matter how it is done.
This is refreshing to see, if only the crony capitalists in both parties would have followed this advice for the auto industry (circa 2009) and airline industry (circa 2002) and the financial industry (circa 2007). Bankruptcy provides correct protection and certainty for investors, controlled liquidation or reorganization processes, and all-in-all better outcomes than bailouts and interventions.

Capitalism requires that risk and reward be privatized. Unions shouldn't get special protection like they do, and IMO public sector unions should be illegal, but regardless of either of those positions, unions are highly incentivized to compromise with management in cases where bankruptcy is a real chance. And when they don't they bare a lot of the burden (like in this case where they unioned themselves right out of 18,000 jobs or so.) That's an OK outcome from my perspective.


I agree with every you said here. God, Brendan, is that a first? ;D
This means I agree with both of you!  It just proves you should try hard not to make  political enemies, because you never know who's going to agree with you on a different subject.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Brendan on November 17, 2012, 02:53:11 PM
The strike might have been the final straw that sent the company under but if the strike didn't happen, Hostess was going to go under sooner or later. Fattening snack food company in a world trending towards health consciousness that was being run poorly.

Sometimes bad companies just need to go out of business and sometimes and doesn't matter how it is done.
This is refreshing to see, if only the crony capitalists in both parties would have followed this advice for the auto industry (circa 2009) and airline industry (circa 2002) and the financial industry (circa 2007). Bankruptcy provides correct protection and certainty for investors, controlled liquidation or reorganization processes, and all-in-all better outcomes than bailouts and interventions.

Capitalism requires that risk and reward be privatized. Unions shouldn't get special protection like they do, and IMO public sector unions should be illegal, but regardless of either of those positions, unions are highly incentivized to compromise with management in cases where bankruptcy is a real chance. And when they don't they bare a lot of the burden (like in this case where they unioned themselves right out of 18,000 jobs or so.) That's an OK outcome from my perspective.


I agree with everything you said here. God, Brendan, is that a first? ;D
I always thought you had the capacity to learn   :o

Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Bahku on November 17, 2012, 03:08:44 PM

A world without Twinkies ...


(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m32eDPx2tYw/UKaAwjjsROI/AAAAAAAANVk/-vrmR6_EuBk/s1600/Twinkie_Tombstone.jpg)


... is a world gone mad!


 >:(

Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Redz on November 17, 2012, 04:02:22 PM
The strike might have been the final straw that sent the company under but if the strike didn't happen, Hostess was going to go under sooner or later. Fattening snack food company in a world trending towards health consciousness that was being run poorly.

Sometimes bad companies just need to go out of business and sometimes and doesn't matter how it is done.

There is no good way to spruce up the Twinkie image to the health-conscious consumer (though I think they did offer a reduced fat one at some point).  A whole grain organic free range Twinkie just wasn't going to happen.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Brendan on November 17, 2012, 07:21:04 PM
The strike might have been the final straw that sent the company under but if the strike didn't happen, Hostess was going to go under sooner or later. Fattening snack food company in a world trending towards health consciousness that was being run poorly.

Sometimes bad companies just need to go out of business and sometimes and doesn't matter how it is done.

There is no good way to spruce up the Twinkie image to the health-conscious consumer (though I think they did offer a reduced fat one at some point).  A whole grain organic free range Twinkie just wasn't going to happen.
Must of America hasn't gone all health conscious just yet.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: crownsy on November 17, 2012, 07:31:17 PM
The strike might have been the final straw that sent the company under but if the strike didn't happen, Hostess was going to go under sooner or later. Fattening snack food company in a world trending towards health consciousness that was being run poorly.

Sometimes bad companies just need to go out of business and sometimes and doesn't matter how it is done.

There is no good way to spruce up the Twinkie image to the health-conscious consumer (though I think they did offer a reduced fat one at some point).  A whole grain organic free range Twinkie just wasn't going to happen.
Must of America hasn't gone all health conscious just yet.

Apparently enough have to make an industry based entirely around unhealthy snake cakes plummet sales wise over the last 10 years.

People still eat pretty poorly, but I don't think the same amount of people let their kids pound 3-4 twinkees or other sugarrush treats a day as they used to.

People want at least the appearance of food being good for them now days. Example: sales of weight watchers type "healthy snacks" have exploded over the last 2-3 years.


Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 17, 2012, 07:36:28 PM
Poor Tallahasee going to have real hard time find twinkies in zombieland 2..
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: KCattheStripe on November 17, 2012, 07:54:00 PM
Poor Tallahasee going to have real hard time find twinkies in zombieland 2..

My first thought too.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Roy H. on November 18, 2012, 08:21:01 AM
So bizarre.  Here is a story from my local paper:

Quote
Labor leaders in Maine say the resilience of the Hostess workers on the picket line at the company’s Biddeford plant, which is in the process of being shut down after the company on Friday said it would liquidate the business, gives them inspiration in the face of what they believe have been ongoing efforts — by politicians, including Gov. Paul LePage, and corporate investors — to reduce union influence.

Bakers’ union officials and their supporters say also that the demise of Hostess Brands Inc., which failed to convince striking workers to return to their jobs, is a warning sign for corporate investors seeking to squeeze more profits out of the working class.

“Unions have been losing power for years,” said Ken Rumney, a striking worker outside of the Hostess plant in Biddeford on Friday. “This is an exceptional case. If Hostess had been allowed to get away with what they’d been trying to do, other corporations would have lined up to try the same tactics. Hopefully, this will be an example to other companies not to [try to] break their unions.”

“I think we’re the first ones who have stood up and said, ‘We’re not going to let you get away with it,’” said Sue Tapley, the strike captain on hand Friday morning at the Biddeford plant, which employed nearly 600 people. “You can fight them. You can shut them down.”

So here in Maine, the striking workers think it's a good thing that they're all going to lose their jobs?  The "worker vs. corporation" thing is stupid; the workers "won" by being laid off?

It makes no sense to me.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 18, 2012, 09:30:13 AM
Now that Hostess is going under, can the workers claim unemployment benefits, even though they effectively caused the job loss themselves?  I know that an employee used to be unable to claim unemployment benefits if he quit his job, as opposed to being fired, but my knowledge is antiquated.   
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: mgent on November 18, 2012, 09:57:10 AM
I laughed when I walked into a gas station at 12 last night and saw a completely empty hostess stand that was full 3 hours prior.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Redz on November 18, 2012, 10:42:42 AM
So bizarre.  Here is a story from my local paper:

Quote
Labor leaders in Maine say the resilience of the Hostess workers on the picket line at the company’s Biddeford plant, which is in the process of being shut down after the company on Friday said it would liquidate the business, gives them inspiration in the face of what they believe have been ongoing efforts — by politicians, including Gov. Paul LePage, and corporate investors — to reduce union influence.

Bakers’ union officials and their supporters say also that the demise of Hostess Brands Inc., which failed to convince striking workers to return to their jobs, is a warning sign for corporate investors seeking to squeeze more profits out of the working class.

“Unions have been losing power for years,” said Ken Rumney, a striking worker outside of the Hostess plant in Biddeford on Friday. “This is an exceptional case. If Hostess had been allowed to get away with what they’d been trying to do, other corporations would have lined up to try the same tactics. Hopefully, this will be an example to other companies not to [try to] break their unions.”

“I think we’re the first ones who have stood up and said, ‘We’re not going to let you get away with it,’” said Sue Tapley, the strike captain on hand Friday morning at the Biddeford plant, which employed nearly 600 people. “You can fight them. You can shut them down.”

So here in Maine, the striking workers think it's a good thing that they're all going to lose their jobs?  The "worker vs. corporation" thing is stupid; the workers "won" by being laid off?

It makes no sense to me.

Cutting their noses to spite their faces.

Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: LooseCannon on November 18, 2012, 11:16:45 AM
So here in Maine, the striking workers think it's a good thing that they're all going to lose their jobs?  The "worker vs. corporation" thing is stupid; the workers "won" by being laid off?

It makes no sense to me.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then the notion of "live free or die" shouldn't make sense to you because why would anyone think it is a good thing to die?

Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: JSD on November 18, 2012, 11:20:24 AM
No bailout, Obama? Come on...
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: crownsy on November 18, 2012, 11:36:38 AM
You seen Craigslist the last few days?

It is hilarious. Sex acts for Twinkies being offered all over the place, one guy has 100 boxes of twinkies he will sell you for the Low, Low price of 50 thousand dollars.

Never Change internet, Never change.  ;D
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Roy H. on November 18, 2012, 11:59:49 AM
So here in Maine, the striking workers think it's a good thing that they're all going to lose their jobs?  The "worker vs. corporation" thing is stupid; the workers "won" by being laid off?

It makes no sense to me.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then the notion of "live free or die" shouldn't make sense to you because why would anyone think it is a good thing to die?

I don't think anybody who chose the "die" option is running around celebrating the message they sent to the killers, and patting themselves on the back.

Also, I'm not sure that an 8% pay cut is worth "dying" for.  Of course, those who "died" also didn't have 99 weeks of unemployment coming their way.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: guava_wrench on November 18, 2012, 12:40:28 PM
Labor had already bent over backwards for Hostess. Management (why did the CEO get a 300% raise from an already failing business?) didn't help and the market was shifting. Labor needs to stand up and not allow management to place the full burden of mismanagement on their backs while CEOs get golden parachutes. It will be interesting seeing which vultures made money off of the failure.

Good riddance that Hostess is gone. I am glad to see America shifting away from this crap to the point that weak junk food competitors are falling by the wayside.

We have a sick management model in the US. A good year means bonuses for upper management. A bad year means cutting compensation for labor. Something is off, and it might have to do with who holds power instead of with who adds value to a business.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 18, 2012, 12:51:13 PM
So here in Maine, the striking workers think it's a good thing that they're all going to lose their jobs?  The "worker vs. corporation" thing is stupid; the workers "won" by being laid off?

It makes no sense to me.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then the notion of "live free or die" shouldn't make sense to you because why would anyone think it is a good thing to die?
I am from NH...it is not good to die, but it is better than to live in chains.  So, I guess those employees think it is better to have no job than to have a bad job.  They got what they wanted.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: guava_wrench on November 18, 2012, 01:25:58 PM
So here in Maine, the striking workers think it's a good thing that they're all going to lose their jobs?  The "worker vs. corporation" thing is stupid; the workers "won" by being laid off?

It makes no sense to me.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then the notion of "live free or die" shouldn't make sense to you because why would anyone think it is a good thing to die?
I am from NH...it is not good to die, but it is better than to live in chains.  So, I guess those employees think it is better to have no job than to have a bad job.  They got what they wanted.
Perhaps their concern was that labor was always asked to make the concession to keep Hostess afloat while they gave big raises to CEOs whose leadership clearly wasn't reviving the company. Why should austerity measures be imposed by managers hypocritically siphoning off money?
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: LooseCannon on November 18, 2012, 01:49:02 PM
These workers have been used as punching bags.  Telling them that they should just accept any cuts to keep their jobs is like telling a battered woman that she should stay with her husband because he has a good job that allows him to provide for her.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 18, 2012, 02:06:01 PM
These workers have been used as punching bags.  Telling them that they should just accept any cuts to keep their jobs is like telling a battered woman that she should stay with her husband because he has a good job that allows him to provide for her.

We should just pay for their retirements now.  They are victims for having to work for a living. 
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Brendan on November 18, 2012, 02:31:31 PM
So here in Maine, the striking workers think it's a good thing that they're all going to lose their jobs?  The "worker vs. corporation" thing is stupid; the workers "won" by being laid off?

It makes no sense to me.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then the notion of "live free or die" shouldn't make sense to you because why would anyone think it is a good thing to die?
Huh?

Live free or die - as a motto, or the historical circumstances it was said - has no relevance to the Hostess workers situation.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Brendan on November 18, 2012, 02:33:20 PM
These workers have been used as punching bags.  Telling them that they should just accept any cuts to keep their jobs is like telling a battered woman that she should stay with her husband because he has a good job that allows him to provide for her.
What?

Is this sarcastic?

Expecting workers to negotiate salaries on par with their current macro and industry dynamics is like telling a battered woman to suck it up? Except for the workers you know getting paid all the years they worked and of course, not getting beaten.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: indeedproceed on November 18, 2012, 02:40:53 PM
So here in Maine, the striking workers think it's a good thing that they're all going to lose their jobs?  The "worker vs. corporation" thing is stupid; the workers "won" by being laid off?

It makes no sense to me.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then the notion of "live free or die" shouldn't make sense to you because why would anyone think it is a good thing to die?
Huh?

Live free or die - as a motto, or the historical circumstances it was said - has no relevance to the Hostess workers situation.

I think the connection he was looking for is that maybe for the workers involved, sometimes its worth standing up for what you believe in (in this case, what the workers believe to be fair compensation) even if the cost is your job.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 18, 2012, 02:42:24 PM
Someone called the workers abused by management.

The problem now is that those workers have to find a job that pays more and is less abusive than the Hostess jobs...in a poor state, in a poor job market.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: indeedproceed on November 18, 2012, 02:48:02 PM
Someone called the workers abused by management.

The problem now is that those workers have to find a job that pays more and is less abusive than the Hostess jobs...in a poor state, in a poor job market.

Yes, that is a problem for them. Standing up for what you believe in can have bad consequences sometimes. Its a bill lots of people aren't willing to pay.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: nickagneta on November 18, 2012, 03:07:59 PM
Why are none of the conservatives posting here responding to guava's claim that the management was taking huge pay increases while asking for the workers to take pay cuts?

Just wondering. Personally, I could care less about the subject so I am not going to research guava's claim, but if true, I could see why the labor union didn't want to give in and I can see why the company went under. Its a poor management decision to take massive bonus' and raises in good years and yet ask just the labor to give back during hard times.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Roy H. on November 18, 2012, 03:21:55 PM
Wow...  Comparing being asked to take an 8% pay cut to being a battered woman.  That's a new low.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Roy H. on November 18, 2012, 03:25:25 PM
Why are none of the conservatives posting here responding to guava's claim that the management was taking huge pay increases while asking for the workers to take pay cuts?

Just wondering. Personally, I could care less about the subject so I am not going to research guava's claim, but if true, I could see why the labor union didn't want to give in and I can see why the company went under. Its a poor management decision to take massive bonus' and raises in good years and yet ask just the labor to give back during hard times.

I'm no fan of companies crying poverty and then lavishing outrageous salaries on executives.  I just don't see anything noble about purposefully putting a company out of business, and then celebrating that 18,500 people lost their jobs.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: LooseCannon on November 18, 2012, 03:45:47 PM
Someone called the workers abused by management.

The problem now is that those workers have to find a job that pays more and is less abusive than the Hostess jobs...in a poor state, in a poor job market.

Yes, that is a problem for them. Standing up for what you believe in can have bad consequences sometimes. Its a bill lots of people aren't willing to pay.

Bain-style capitalism is killing America.  This is class war being waged on the working class and I applaud these workers for recognizing the state of war that is being forced upon them and being willing to shoot back instead of bending over and taking it.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 18, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
Why are none of the conservatives posting here responding to guava's claim that the management was taking huge pay increases while asking for the workers to take pay cuts?

Just wondering. Personally, I could care less about the subject so I am not going to research guava's claim, but if true, I could see why the labor union didn't want to give in and I can see why the company went under. Its a poor management decision to take massive bonus' and raises in good years and yet ask just the labor to give back during hard times.
I didn't answer, personally, because I have no idea what the management situation is.  I don't see that that has any bearing, except that I feel the stock holders should have final say on that.  I would prefer that profits go to the people who invest in the company and the management should have fair compensation, as should the workers. 
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: nickagneta on November 18, 2012, 07:46:58 PM
Why are none of the conservatives posting here responding to guava's claim that the management was taking huge pay increases while asking for the workers to take pay cuts?

Just wondering. Personally, I could care less about the subject so I am not going to research guava's claim, but if true, I could see why the labor union didn't want to give in and I can see why the company went under. Its a poor management decision to take massive bonus' and raises in good years and yet ask just the labor to give back during hard times.
I didn't answer, personally, because I have no idea what the management situation is.  I don't see that that has any bearing, except that I feel the stock holders should have final say on that.  I would prefer that profits go to the people who invest in the company and the management should have fair compensation, as should the workers.
I agree. Make money for the stockholders. Fairly compensate everyone else. But if corporate greed at the top was siphoning off huge bucks in good years and in bad years were asking for give backs from labor then I'm not for that.

I hate what happened at AIG and some of the banks where stockholders lost huge bucks, layoffs happened like crazy and yet upper corporate types got huge bonuses and golden umbrella retirement walkaways. If management did similar stuff at Hostess, then I guess everyone got what they deserved except the top management walked away a lot richer.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: lon3lytoaster on November 18, 2012, 08:12:17 PM
I have never had a Twinkie. What did I miss out on?
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: nickagneta on November 18, 2012, 08:13:54 PM
I have never had a Twinkie. What did I miss out on?
Not a whole lot.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: lon3lytoaster on November 18, 2012, 08:27:50 PM
I have never had a Twinkie. What did I miss out on?
Not a whole lot.

Good to know. Some people are acting like it was manna from heaven or something. I don't know.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 18, 2012, 09:03:23 PM
I read a little more about this over the weekend - apparently the contract wasn't just an 8% pay cut, it was 8% in the first year and further cuts each year, totaling a 27% pay cut in 5 years.  So they didn't just turn down a pay cut, they turned down 5 consecutive pay cuts, with major benefit cuts on top.   

Makes the refusal make a lot more sense - regardless of the outside job market, people are going to balk at that kind of change, especially when they've seen chronic mismanagement costing the company far more than the salary cuts would save.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 19, 2012, 09:02:57 AM
That does seem pretty steep, but I guess you have to do what you have to do.  Maybe those jobs could be done by part time workers with fewer benefits?  I know it is not optimal, but those full time workers will have to find other jobs anyway, and that would still supply some jobs...maybe could have saved the company until better time returned, when they could again go into full production mode?

I have no idea of their balance sheet or management salaries, however.  I do not know if management is ripping off both stockholders and employees. 

BTW, this is the kind of thing that Mitt Romney's  "Bain" did.  Try to save a company and return it to profit,  or if it is not salvageable, recoup as much from its loss as possible for the stockholders (sale of assets, etc.), not close down healthy companies. IMO, this is the kind of stuff that the government should not interfere with.  Let private enterprise figure it out.  Companies that fail do so for a reason, and if government keeps getting involved, I believe it eventually puts government at risk, too.   
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: Cman on November 19, 2012, 10:08:23 AM
I read a little more about this over the weekend - apparently the contract wasn't just an 8% pay cut, it was 8% in the first year and further cuts each year, totaling a 27% pay cut in 5 years.  So they didn't just turn down a pay cut, they turned down 5 consecutive pay cuts, with major benefit cuts on top.   

Makes the refusal make a lot more sense - regardless of the outside job market, people are going to balk at that kind of change, especially when they've seen chronic mismanagement costing the company far more than the salary cuts would save.

The refusal makes sense on many levels.

The union could see the writing on the wall for this company (which was on the ropes and had been in bankruptcy before).  They figured even if they gave in, the chance the company would be around in a year was relatively small. So, they decided to make a point by not caving in.

As such, the question of whether it was a successful move or not should not be judged by whether or not Hostess went out of business, but by whether or not it bolsters the negotiation stance of other unions in similar positions throughout the country. The union is banking on the latter. Time will tell whether they were right or not, but in any case seems a reasonalbe risk to take.
Title: Re: Hostess Goes out of Business, Strike was the Fatal Blow
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 19, 2012, 10:34:28 AM
I read a little more about this over the weekend - apparently the contract wasn't just an 8% pay cut, it was 8% in the first year and further cuts each year, totaling a 27% pay cut in 5 years.  So they didn't just turn down a pay cut, they turned down 5 consecutive pay cuts, with major benefit cuts on top.   

Makes the refusal make a lot more sense - regardless of the outside job market, people are going to balk at that kind of change, especially when they've seen chronic mismanagement costing the company far more than the salary cuts would save.

The refusal makes sense on many levels.

The union could see the writing on the wall for this company (which was on the ropes and had been in bankruptcy before).  They figured even if they gave in, the chance the company would be around in a year was relatively small. So, they decided to make a point by not caving in.

As such, the question of whether it was a successful move or not should not be judged by whether or not Hostess went out of business, but by whether or not it bolsters the negotiation stance of other unions in similar positions throughout the country. The union is banking on the latter. Time will tell whether they were right or not, but in any case seems a reasonalbe risk to take.
I saw on Yahoo news that there has been interest in a takeover.  One of the companies is the largest bread company in Mexico.  If it can't be accomplished, probably will be liquidated.  The head of the bread baking (?) industry said the jobs would not be lost, but would simply move and the new jobs would be filled by union people ???  Sounds like so much blather and hot air to me.  The company evidently said it is not just the salaries and the benefits, but is also taxes and tariffs  on sugar and other supplies that is killing the company.