Hey, lets hear it for the unions....

[Gilligan]

“Hostess failed because its six management teams over the last eight years were unable to make it a profitable, successful business enterprise.

]

Umm..maybe I'm just a bit thick...but wouldn't a rational person conclude from that ....that the entire business model has simply failed and is no longer viable?? It happens...thousands of times every year..year in and year out..as it has for centuries.

 

[GURPS]

And so are those 10 vulture board members who gave themselves a hefty compensation package (the CEO's being 300% of his salary). hahahahahahaha!

So, they were working for a company that was going down anyway. They were losing their pension, they were losing their healthcare, and they were expected to work for a non-livable wage. Personally, I would have taken the cuts while looking for other work, but it really was basically a no-win situation for them. I guess they thought it better to go down on their terms. Everyone lost. :shrug:

bolded red says it all .............. going down anyway


now they have NO JOBS ......

...... someone else will be making twinkies, in a RIGHT TO WORK STATE ...........

a 4% cut makes a non livable wage ..........

The company is now controlled by a group of investment firms, including hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital.

oh those evil investment funds ........ pox on them, they lose their investment - someone gets a nice tax wright off this year


From Hostess.com;

The wind down was necessitated by an inflated cost structure that put the Company at a profound competitive disadvantage. The biggest component of the Company’s costs was its collective bargaining agreements that covered 15,000 of 18,500 employees.

Hostess Brands worked tirelessly to complete a reorganization of its business as a going concern, including spending the better part of 18 months negotiating with its key constituents to obtain a consensual agreement to lower costs to a sustainable level. The Company had obtained the support of its largest union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and its lenders. However, the BCTGM leadership chose not to negotiate a new labor contract and instead, when presented with a final offer, launched a campaign to cripple the Company’s operations and force it to liquidate.

we will see how the bakers union dues cards taste

 

[Radiant1]

bolded red says it all

Yes, the bolded red says it all.

 

[Larry Gude]

Let me tell you where I stand. I think the fact that both unions and corporations can be considered a person and have political influence and donate cash to PACs or politicians is absolutely ludicrous Yup. It is bad for the nation, has been bad and will continue to be bad for us. A corporation can not vote. It should therefore not have the same rights of free speech and/or association as an individual. and pisses me off to no end. They both are good and bad, depending on situations and perspective. They both have their virtues and vices.
)

 

[Larry Gude]

b
...... someone else will be making twinkies, in a RIGHT TO WORK STATE ...........

You sure about that? As a practical matter a bakery needs locations serviceable to it's markets. You can't make bread in South Carolina and have it fresh California.

 

[ylexot]

You sure about that? As a practical matter a bakery needs locations serviceable to it's markets. You can't make bread in South Carolina and have it fresh California.

For bread, you have a point. For Twinkies...not so much.

 

[MarieB]

Sun Capital expressed interest in the company, and they said they believe they could offer the union a better contract. They have tried to buy the company before

 

[Larry Gude]

For bread, you have a point. For Twinkies...not so much.

Serviceable can mean many things! Delivery cost, restock timing. I'm actually surprised twinkies aren't made in China. Just make one batch a year and keep them in freighters, prepositioned in harbors around the globe.

 

[JoeRider]

ok, well he has no agenda.

So what is his agenda? Seems facts are on his side. .... Where are yours?

 

[JoeRider]

I hope I am reading this wrong since I just jumped in when I saw IBM mentioned.
I worked for IBM for 33 years and it is the perfect example of what a non union company can accomplish with workers that enjoy their job and and are expected to perform on their own. I saw very few people fired and those that were, begged for it in one way or other. Usually it was for the generous separation benefits. If I read your post correctly, you are so ignorant of IBM that there is no point in trying to educate you.

I do have issue with IBM off shoring to India and the layoff cycles in the 90's where pretty brutal is my understanding. Still, the point is much innovation is not something that the union helps with. Those are the things that really make life better for us all. Might be more supportive of the union if I saw really value.

 

[BigBlue]

So what is his agenda? Seems facts are on his side. .... Where are yours?

Fact is he got fired from ABC for using his personal agenda in his stories,not as agitating but really not much different then Glen Beck.

 

[acommondisaster]

fact is he got fired from abc for not promoting the liberal agenda in his stories,not as agitating but really not much different then glen beck.

fify

 

[terbear1225]

bolded red says it all .............. going down anyway


now they have NO JOBS ......

...... someone else will be making twinkies, in a RIGHT TO WORK STATE ...........

a 4% cut makes a non livable wage ..........

Curious just what is considered a livable wage

 

[Radiant1]

Curious just what is considered a livable wage

IMO, it varies upon location but is the minimum wage required for one person to sustain basic necessities of life such as shelter, food, clothing, utilities.

 

[MMDad]

IMO, it varies upon location but is the minimum wage required for one person to sustain basic necessities of life such as shelter, food, clothing, utilities.

It would be silly to think that an unskilled worker should get that. That's something you build up to, not that you are entitled to. Anyone who is willing to work for it can get that wage.

Something being left out is the employee's part of the equation. If they don't bother to learn a trade, get a basic education, or work their way up from the bottom, do they deserve to earn a "living wage?"

 

[Radiant1]

It would be silly to think that an unskilled worker should get that. That's something you build up to, not that you are entitled to. Anyone who is willing to work for it can get that wage.

Something being left out is the employee's part of the equation. If they don't bother to learn a trade, get a basic education, or work their way up from the bottom, do they deserve to earn a "living wage?"

Yeah, so? We weren't talking about unskilled workers. How do you define skilled worker? Although not all, I suspect a good many of the workers in question in this thread are/were skilled to some degree in that they have were trained and knowledgable of their trade. It may not be a noble profession in your eyes, but that doesn't mean they aren't skilled.

 

[MMDad]

Yeah, so? We weren't talking about unskilled workers. How do you define skilled worker? Although not all, I suspect a good many of the workers in question in this thread are/were skilled to some degree in that they have were trained and knowledgable of their trade. It may not be a noble profession in your eyes, but that doesn't mean they aren't skilled.

Sorry, I mixed up treads with the low wage tread. I do see Gurp's post about a 4% decrease making a livable wage into an unlivable wage as extremely inane. If you take someone who makes $40,000 and decrease their wage to $38,600, I don't believe you have tipped the scale for the vast majority of workers.

We've taken a hit like that just in healthcare premiums, which went up as much as 50% for some of our employees this year. It hurts, but it's still far better than not having a job at all.

 

[Radiant1]

Sorry, I mixed up treads with the low wage tread. I do see Gurp's post about a 4% decrease making a livable wage into an unlivable wage as extremely inane. If you take someone who makes $40,000 and decrease their wage to $38,600, I don't believe you have tipped the scale for the vast majority of workers.

Yes, you did. I'll forgive you.

I could be wrong, but I think it was an 8% cut and also a reduction in hours. IF the average Hostess worker made 40,000/year then an 8% cut still would not result in an unlivable wage. I don't know what the average wage for Hostess workers was, but I doubt the factory line workers received that much. Even so, they were union so I'm sure it wasn't too shabby.

 

[MarieB]

Yes, you did. I'll forgive you.

I could be wrong, but I think it was an 8% cut and also a reduction in hours. IF the average Hostess worker made 40,000/year then an 8% cut still would not result in an unlivable wage. I don't know what the average wage for Hostess workers was, but I doubt the factory line workers received that much. Even so, they were union so I'm sure it wasn't too shabby.

You have to take into consideration that it wasn't the first cut amongst involved other things

The bakery workers union said the contract would cut wages and benefits by 27 to 32 percent, including an immediate 8 percent wage cut.

I don't know what the salaries are there or how long this guy has been there but it's a significant drop in salary

Mike Hummel, a union member who works at the Lenexa plant, said that because of the union’s concessions, his pay has plummeted from a peak of $48,000 to $34,000 last year and an expected $30,000 this year.

Hostess bakery walkouts threaten company’s future - KansasCity.com

 

[Larry Gude]

You have to take into consideration that it wasn't the first cut amongst involved other things

I don't know what the salaries are there or how long this guy has been there but it's a significant drop in salary

Which, again, begs the question; why have unions supported a party that supports their demise? The Democrats are, and have been, supportive of mass illegal immigration and the last thing unionized labor can withstand is the wage pressure of an uncontrolled labor pool.

Sure, it can be argued that the GOP is not union friendly if you don't count George Bush and congressional Republicans who started all this bail out nonsense in the first place but, at least in the GOP, there is at least some desire to control immigration which can ONLY help union labor. As it is, a company can not accept $50 or $40 or $30 or even $15 an hour labor if significantly cheaper labor is available to their competition.