Hostess workers strike may kill company

balrog666 said:
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha! Building a brand?? Is there anyone on the Earth who doesn't know about Twinkies? Or doesn't want a nice cheap Twinkie?
Click to expand...

I had no idea what a Twinkie is until I read this thread and then the Wikipedia article on twinkies.
After that I am pretty sure I don't want a Twinkie, cheap or not.
Apart from that you are missing Foolmewunz's point. If I understood him correctly he is saying that Twinkies and Wonderbread (note to self: Google that.) are somewhat recognized brands but not "in" enough to be competitive. Which is where brand development comes in.

balrog666 said:
Maybe you can get der Bammy to get the bankruptcy court to stiff all their creditors, give them a gubmint bailout, and force them to hand over the company to the baker's union - call it The People's Bakery and promise all those welfare moms and po' chillun free Twinkies for life!
Click to expand...

Congratulations, that part of your post is both racist and classist hyperbole.
 
@Wildcat,

No. Won't play this game. You're usually better informed and don't just pull rhetoric out of your hat. If you can't be arsed to learn the facts in the case, you'll have to consider everything I wrote to be similar to the ****the Unions hyperbole that started this thread. I'm not going to go dig up the court records and the ten years of history on this because I don't have the time.


@Moss,
Yes, you got the gist of my statement. Hostess Brands hasn't worked on any new product development in ages. No fruit roll-ups, health bars, power bars, carrot cake, double-chocolate carob yummies, .... nothing. They're selling the same stuff that they sold when my daughter was a kid thirty years ago, and much of that was available when I was a kid thirty years before that!
 
No more Twinkies? What are rednecks going to deep-fry at state fairs now?


Oh...wait...there's still companies that make butter, mac-n-cheese, oreos, etc...
 
Foolmewunz said:
@Wildcat,

No. Won't play this game. You're usually better informed and don't just pull rhetoric out of your hat. If you can't be arsed to learn the facts in the case, you'll have to consider everything I wrote to be similar to the ****the Unions hyperbole that started this thread. I'm not going to go dig up the court records and the ten years of history on this because I don't have the time.
Click to expand...
Your "facts" appear to be based solely on claims of the baker's union and not from any findings by the bankruptcy court.

And oh wouldn't I like to see poeple go to jail for skipping out on pension payments! It would clear out the Illinois legislature for some new blood, and a good chunk of the municipal and county pols as well.

Yes, pensions get underfunded. It's the nature of the beast, and the primary reason pensions are a relic of the past in private industry. Government pensions roll merrily along, because they exempt themselves from the rules private pensions must play by. But the government can't predict future investment returns any better than private industry, as we are seeing with Illinois and California being Exhibit A.
 
Last edited:
StankApe said:
Apparently Hostess is in Chapter 11 and asked for labor cuts to keep it afloat and the union said no. A judge allowed Hostess to enact the contract without the union's approval and now the have gone on strike.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hostess-shuts-3-plants-035700490.html


Now, I'm no expert on labor relations nor contracts, but on a common sense level it seems that it's better to take a pay cut than it is to lose your job entirely doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It depends on the pay cut amount. I skimmed the article but did not see how much they asked to cut.

To give you an idea a similar plan to cut 10% only was accepted by our worker a few years ago, as long as it was accompagned by a guarantie to rise back with rate above what it was before once the crisis was gone.

if they ask to cut ,say 50% without guarantie of ever coming back to your old pay, then you might as well search for a new job.... Or go no strike with nothing to lose. Apparentely the cut plan was rejected by 92% of the worker.
 
The Don said:
Superficially, yes, and I'm sure that's the message the employer would like to get out there.

It all of course depends on the full picture - which isn't in the full article. If the employees are being asked to take pay cuts but management are getting better and bigger bonuses at the same time then I can see that there may be a reason to gripe. If the pay cuts take wages below a living wage then I can see that there may be a reason to strike. If chapter 11 is being used as a tactic to restructure the business but the pain isn't being shared so employees are being asked to cut wages while creditors are being paid 100% of what is owed then I can see the union having a legitimate complaint.

Here's a .pdf summarising the union's position

http://bctgm.org/PDFs/HostessFactSheet.pdf

Summarising some points from their rather one-sided view:

  • Hostess have failed to pay pension contributions - apparently in contravention of federal law
  • Hostess employees have made concessions since 2004 amounting to $110m, this money has not been re-invested in the business
  • The 6 CEOs since 2004 have increased their own reward by 300% at the same time as asking employees to take pay cuts

Hostess is owned by a private equity company and hedge funds so I can appreciate why they want to perform this restructuring. I can also understand why they have failed to invest in the business and I can see how this annoys the workers.


eta:

from another press release:



http://bctgm.org/PDFs/NationalStrikeHostessBrands_11_9_12.pdf
Click to expand...

Well that explain a lot thanks. I have known quite a few of those "plundering", one in the region of my parents.
 
Moss said:
I had no idea what a Twinkie is until I read this thread and then the Wikipedia article on twinkies.
After that I am pretty sure I don't want a Twinkie, cheap or not.
Apart from that you are missing Foolmewunz's point. If I understood him correctly he is saying that Twinkies and Wonderbread (note to self: Google that.) are somewhat recognized brands but not "in" enough to be competitive. Which is where brand development comes in.
Click to expand...


Well, for you young people who have no sense of history (or innocent foreigners), Hostess practically invented the snack cake industry and was the number one company here for decades. Until the unions killed it. It finally died 10 years ago and and has been limping along as a zombie ever since. RIP, Hostess.


Moss said:
Congratulations, that part of your post is both racist and classist hyperbole.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I'm glad you noticed! :D
 
Last edited:
balrog666 said:
Well, for you young people who have no sense of history, Hostess practically invented the snack cake industry and was the number one company there for decades. Until the unions killed it. It finally died 10 years ago and and has been limping along as a zombie ever since. RIP, Hostess.
Click to expand...


See Location field for why at least one of your assumptions may be slightly off. ;)
ETA: I see you already noticed.
Blaming the unions is convenient. A lack of product innovation seems to be the more likely culprit.



balrog666 said:
Thanks, I'm glad you noticed! :D
Click to expand...

Well, it was hard to miss.
 
jj said:
Ok, I went to read this. This is the same deal as Borders, inept management, lack of control of expansion, etc, giving the cash to the people at the top, and now that it's all come down around them, they want to loot the company by liquidating it and taking the rest of the money as fees for service.

They're looting the debtors, they're looting the shareholders, and they're putting 10,000 people or so out of work in order to enrich upper management. Management has also avoided trying to find a buyer, or anything else, is determined to liquidate, and is spoiling to close the whole business as fast as possible.

That seems clear.

We're talking about people who make 11.50 an hour, you realize. Those are the people on strike. The insults levelled at this union are purely an attack on human beings who are trying to survive, and nothing else.

Those of you who don't understand, look up "liquidationism" and its effect on the last great depression. You'll see just what's happening here.
Click to expand...

They must have hired Mitt Romney as their business consultant.
 
WildCat said:
Your "facts" appear to be based solely on claims of the baker's union and not from any findings by the bankruptcy court.

And oh wouldn't I like to see poeple go to jail for skipping out on pension payments! It would clear out the Illinois legislature for some new blood, and a good chunk of the municipal and county pols as well.

Yes, pensions get underfunded. It's the nature of the beast, and the primary reason pensions are a relic of the past in private industry. Government pensions roll merrily along, because they exempt themselves from the rules private pensions must play by. But the government can't predict future investment returns any better than private industry, as we are seeing with Illinois and California being Exhibit A.
Click to expand...

Governments, unlike businesses, can continue to force their customers to keep buying their product. When businesses have troubles, they have to cut prices or make improvements to the product. Government is under no such limitation and just raises the price.
 
Moss said:
See Location field for why at least one of your assumptions may be slightly off. ;)
ETA: I see you already noticed.
Blaming the unions is convenient. A lack of product innovation seems to be the more likely culprit.

Well, it was hard to miss.
Click to expand...


Unions mandate a lack of innovation by requiring so-called "union work rules", inflexible "job definitions", and prohibiting any such thing as meritorious promotions or independent hiring and firing ... unions are inherently evil; management that agrees with such union demands may be evil or perhaps just stupid.

However, YMMV with foreign unions.
 
btw, Hostess shut down today for good. so the union won, good for them! lololololol

that unemployment check will be sweet dripping in all that dignity
 
StankApe said:
btw, Hostess shut down today for good. so the union won, good for them! lololololol

that unemployment check will be sweet dripping in all that dignity
Click to expand...


Except that laid-off strikers aren't entitled to any unemployment benefits in most states. Let them eat Twinkies Little Debbie Snacks!
 
really? I think that's kind of lame. I can understand not getting benefits DURING a strike. but if the company goes under and lays everybody off, I think that they should qualify for unemployment.
 
This sure has been in the news a lot. I can understand why some people are bemoaning the loss of Ding Dongs and Twinkies from their lives. But Wonderbread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom