Farewell, Twinkies

[StankApe]

How do you know that what the CEO said wasn't "we could get this company back on it's feet if we could wrangle in these out of control labor pension plans, benefits and wages which are a stranglehold on profits"

then the union said no, and the company fell apart. Hardly being incompetent there eh?

 

[qayak]

Indicators are that you are coming into this with a pro union bias as you have no evidence that the present wages of the members of the various unions weren't prohibitive in allowing the company to climb out of bankruptcy.

And you have no evidence that the wages are the issue.

What I have is a report from 2004 from Hostess saying that "If only the union would agree to these 'reasonable' wage and benefit cuts the company would be healthy again." Well, that was a lie. Why would I believe them this time around. The company is bleeding to death and everyone automatically blames the workers but look at Hostess as a company and you will see the real reason as most business experts have pointed out.

Workers don't decide on the direction of the company, management does. The company is going down because of bad management. If the workers agree to work for free, that won't change, it will just prolong the inevitable.

Better to let the company go tits up and hope whoever buys it is better at it.

P.S.- Do you think you have kept your anti-union bias hidden? It is a myth that unions cause companies to go bankrupt. Yes, they can make it harder to operate but other conditions are far more important than whether a company has a union or not. Management practices are far up the list from unions.

 

[WildCat]

Right here:

Not even in tha ballpark qayak. Can you formulate an argument without resorting to straw?

What you are saying was that in order to ensure the success of the restructuring plan, they needed to attract a competent CEO so tripling the wage of the old CEO was justified.

Except the company still failed so it wasn't.

You seriously think this is even an argument? All a better CEO does is give you a better chance to survive the bankruptcy, there's certainly no guarantees.

That's the thing that is just mind boggling to me. All the people who whine about unions, saying wage should be tied to performance and then turning around and saying something as dumb as "We have to triple the wage to get someone good as CEO!"

How about starting the CEO at what the last one made and then give him performance bonuses when the company turns around? And, just like you want to do with union workers, you slash his wage should the company sink further?

And what caliber of applicants do you think you'll find for that price? Do you think you'll get someone with lots of experience turning around bankrupt companies?

Do you think he would go for it? Neither do I. My only question is why you think the union would be stupid enough to?

Oh, I'm sure you could find someone to be CEO for that price. But it's unlikely to be someone who will give your company a chance to succeed.

 

[StankApe]

I'm not completely anti-union, I'm anti stupid. and I think that the Baker's union was stupid, I also think that whoever takes it over will not be interested in hiring union labor (at least not those union people) in case lean times come during their tenure, as they will think "well ,might as well fold up shop, they aren't going to give up anything"

I disagree that unions can't make companies go under. Increasing costs of antiquated pension plans and the increased cost of medical benefits can damn sure sink a company.

 

[WildCat]

What I have is a report from 2004 from Hostess saying that "If only the union would agree to these 'reasonable' wage and benefit cuts the company would be healthy again."

Do you have a link to that report? Because my working assumption given your record in this thread is that the part you "quoted' (or even words to that effect) doesn't actually appear in the report.

 

[qayak]

How do you know that what the CEO said wasn't "we could get this company back on it's feet if we could wrangle in these out of control labor pension plans, benefits and wages which are a stranglehold on profits"

then the union said no, and the company fell apart. Hardly being incompetent there eh?

If the union said "no" and the company folded, the company was already doomed. You hate unions so much you have turned them into the all powerful boogeyman in you imagination.

 

[StankApe]

You love unions so much you will defend them even when they are obviously acting stupidly.

and I noticed you haven't answered my question in regards to the other unions. were they acting for the better interest of their workers? and if not why?

 

[qayak]

I'm not completely anti-union, I'm anti stupid. and I think that the Baker's union was stupid, I also think that whoever takes it over will not be interested in hiring union labor (at least not those union people) in case lean times come during their tenure, as they will think "well ,might as well fold up shop, they aren't going to give up anything"

I disagree that unions can't make companies go under. Increasing costs of antiquated pension plans and the increased cost of medical benefits can damn sure sink a company.

Anti-stupid? Then you should be glad Hostess is going belly up. Do you realize they came out of bankruptcy with 50% more debt than they went into it with?

Do you also realize that they only came out of bankruptcy in 2009 after 5 years of restructuring, which means it hasn't taken them 7 years to screw things up but 2.

Do you further realize that one of the original bankruptcy investors has said: "If you look in the dictionary at the definition of throwing good money after bad, there should be a picture of Hostess beside it."

This disaster was set up, not by the unions who gave up $110 million and thousands of jobs, but by the management and owners of Hostess. They are the ones who negotiated all the benefits and pensions with the unions in the last contract. Pensions that the company has already taken by the way.

Why do you make it sound like the union took advantage of some poor school kid?

 

[qayak]

You love unions so much you will defend them even when they are obviously acting stupidly.

I don't care that you don't like unions, I just think that you should not like them for the truth, not for a bunch of lies you have read about them.

And, so you know, I would never work for a union. They would not allow me to do what I do. Not many people can do it anyway but because it allows me to make an exceptional amount of money while working the same number of hours as everyone else, I chose the money and won't do anything to upset the status quo.

That doesn't mean I hate, or love, unions. I see unions as a nice balance between ********. You have business ******** that take advantage of everyone they can and you need union ******** to balance that out.

They allow the system to remain moderate and I like moderate.

 

[balrog666]

Why do you make it sound like the union took advantage of some poor school kid idealistic MBA?[

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!

Buy a clue, kid, because that's what they did.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It seems pointless speculation to guess why Hostess failed, unless you are actually looking at their books. Unions! Management! Aliens! It could be all or any or none of those things. Trying to pin the blame on whatever you dislike the most, in theory, about businesses is, well, stupid.

 

[qayak]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!

Buy a clue, kid, because that's what they did.

Tim Collins is an idealistic MBA school child?

Is this the same Tim Collins who made the cover of Asian Fortune magazine as the first foreigner to control a Japanese bank after he turned them around? You know, Tim Collins, the CEO of Ripplewood, which failed to turn around Reader's Digest? And aren't the hedge funds involved specialists in taking over distressed companies by buying their debt at a fraction of it's price?

If an MBA with that much experience, and specialists in corporate takeovers, can be so easily taken advantage of, well, to repeat myself, Hostess deserves to go belly up.

To think that they were taken advantage of by pastry chefs and truck drivers! Well, it just makes me all warm and fuzzy!

 

[qayak]

It seems pointless speculation to guess why Hostess failed, unless you are actually looking at their books. Unions! Management! Aliens! It could be all or any or none of those things. Trying to pin the blame on whatever you dislike the most, in theory, about businesses is, well, stupid.

Yeah, but it's as fun as watching Republicans melt down during and after the election.

 

[balrog666]

Tim Collins is an idealistic MBA school child?

Is this the same Tim Collins who made the cover of Asian Fortune magazine as the first foreigner to control a Japanese bank after he turned them around? You know, Tim Collins, the CEO of Ripplewood, which failed to turn around Reader's Digest? And aren't the hedge funds involved specialists in taking over distressed companies by buying their debt at a fraction of it's price?

If an MBA with that much experience, and specialists in corporate takeovers, can be so easily taken advantage of, well, to repeat myself, Hostess deserves to go belly up.

To think that they were taken advantage of by pastry chefs and truck drivers! Well, it just makes me all warm and fuzzy!

Why did you pick him out of the last six?

 

[This is The End]

Just how do you think you'll attract a talented CEO to a failing company? By offering them reduced pay?

I never buy that argument. Good CEOs are a dime a dozen. You could train a great CEO in one tenth the time it takes to train a great surgeon.

That's the last thing CEOs want you to think though...

 

[This is The End]

If you think you can find good CEOs on the cheap you should become a headhunter.

Again, that is exactly what the CEOs have trained you to think. It's entirely hogwash.

 

[balrog666]

Again, that is exactly what the CEOs have trained you to think. It's entirely hogwash.

Speaking of hogwash ...

 

[Irony]

I ate half a twinkie once, after which I nearly unate it. I can't help but think their going under has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with not making a single product that's worth a damn.

 

[lomiller]

I know what you mean ... People will support the unions, and rather have the company go bust and put everyone out of work, than make any concessions with wages and benefits..

Any Hostess products that are viable will be sold off and continue to be produces and people will be employed in their production. The products that were not viable should have been gone anyway. Even where product lines are ended completely money spent on them will be spent on something else and people will be employed making that instead.

If these jobs were not able to pay good wages and provide good benefits it's ultimately because people are not all that willing to pay for the items being produces and the jobs themselves are therefor inherently low on the productivity scale. Low productivity jobs are not going to sustain a first world lifestyle so seeing them disappear is hardly the end of the world. In fact in many cases it provides the kick in the butt needed to get people to move on to something with more potential.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The CEO was converted from salary+bonuses to salary-only as is typical in bankruptcy proceedings. Other management personnel were treated similarly. Perhaps you were just unaware of the actual facts ... but it doesn't seem like that.

Company is failing so they are guaranteed their bonuses? What kind of logic is that?