• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Farewell, Twinkies

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

Well, gee, what would you be willing to pay an incoming CEO to turn around an already failing business?? Do you think these people grow on trees and work for bananas or what?
 
Why not pay them based on results? A lot of money if they succeed, not so much if they fail.


Because the company is already failing! You have to reverse that and then achieve profitability with the employees that are still left there (i.e., those that haven't left for greener [or more stable or secure] pastures already - think about that for a minute -- just who do you think is left working at a company that has been failing for the last 15 years?).

What "qualified" individual, or management team, is going to want to jump in there and do what needs to be done without up-front compensation?

;)
 
Because the company is already failing! You have to reverse that and then achieve profitability with the employees that are still left there (i.e., those that haven't left for greener [or more stable or secure] pastures already - think about that for a minute -- just who do you think is left working at a company that has been failing for the last 15 years?).

What "qualified" individual, or management team, is going to want to jump in there and do what needs to be done without up-front compensation?

;)

You haven't paid attention to the history. The company restructured and came out of bankruptcy in 2009 with a CEO in position. The same CEO that led them through the bankruptcy. In 2009 they were not a failing company. They were in 2004 and they are again in 2011.

In fact, it would seem that a competent CEO would agree to run the company for what the last CEO made plus performance bonuses if they were truly interested in saving the company like you insist the union should be. You are simply holding the CEO and the union to two completely different standards.

As well, it is against the law in America for the CEO of a company to lie to investors, or the board of directors, but that same CEO can stand in front of a room full of employees and lie out his ass. Which is what usually happens so it is no wonder workers see unions as the only way of getting a fair shake. It isn't like the workers don't have a huge investment in the company they work for, too.

Don't blame unions for the problems. Fix the problems and workers won't need unions.
 
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."
But you think he's lying, don't you? After all, there's no such thing as "bad" money in the fairytale land where driving a company out of business means profit, profit, and more profit.

Maybe he really meant "laughing all the way to the bank"?
 
Why did you pick him out of the last six? :rolleyes:

You have no clue about the history of Hostess. Tim Collins is the CEO of Ripplewood which is the company that owns Hostess. He brokered the restructuring deal along with the CEO of Hostess. That CEO ran the company after they came out of bankruptcy and then a new one took over.

The CEO of Hostess through the bankruptcy was Craig Jung a longtime veteran of Pepsi.

In June 2010 Jung was replaced by Brian Driscoll who had held senior positions at Kraft, Nabisco, Nestle, and Proctor & Gamble.

In February 2011, after Hostess had filed for bankruptcy:

Hostess asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a sweet new employment deal for Driscoll. Its terms guaranteed him a base annual salary of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and "long-term incentive" compensation of up to $2 million. If Hostess liquidated or Driscoll were fired without cause, he'd still get severance pay of $1.95 million as long as he honored a noncompete agreement.

It was this motion in that set the union off. They felt, and rightly so, that Driscoll was hoodwinking them with his "shared burden" propaganda. They informed Driscoll that if he didn't withdraw the motion, they would strike.

Driscoll left without explanation in March and restructuring expert Greg Rayburn took over as CEO after being hired nine days earlier. At this time, bankruptcy court was informed that as the company was going down fast, the top four Hostess executives got pay raises of up to 80% the summer before. Driscoll had also received a pay raise at the time.

At the same time Rayburn became CEO, former House majority leader Dick Gephardt's son, Mathew was put on as an independent board member at $100,000.00 a year.

These people are not idealistic school kids, they are experienced in what they do and are used to getting things the way they want. Basically, the Hostess story is the age old story of a company crying bankruptcy and demanding concessions from workers while the top executives bleed off all the cash they can, while they can.

The union is just trying to protect their members. They won't succeed but at least they are trying.
 
But you think he's lying, don't you? After all, there's no such thing as "bad" money in the fairytale land where driving a company out of business means profit, profit, and more profit.

Maybe he really meant "laughing all the way to the bank"?

Maybe.
 
Well, gee, what would you be willing to pay an incoming CEO to turn around an already failing business?? Do you think these people grow on trees and work for bananas or what?
Do you think that these lavish salaries actually improve the quality of CEO the company gets? It seems to me not unlike the audiophiles thinking their $5000 cable is greatly superior to a $50 one. If you have evidence that these multi-million dollar salaries actually translate into better CEOs I would be happy to see it.
 
ignorance of reality seems to go hand in hand with union lovers. people who have been brainwashed by propaganda their entire lives.

Yes, I'm the brainwashed one. It's not like I've had a great deal of experience with both unions and working without them.

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

It's quite comon in failing companies for upper management to get raises, because otherwise they'll flee the sinking ship for one that's still afloat. Sometimes they manage to save the company, sometimes not. The alternatve is to fail even sooner.

Interesting. You think they could bring in a new CEO and that would change things?

No, in my experience what should be done in these situations is to sack the people in charge and promote from within. Bring up someone that knows the company, knows how things are done, who's opinion has been utterly ignored by the people at the top for too long. That is if this person still exists within the company. In my experience management fires anyone displaying too much competence because they seem them as potential adversaries for future promotions.

Case in point is Lehman Bros who had several people within the company who put a lot of work into proving that their current business plan was doomed to destroy the company if housing values ever dropped. They were all fired and the company continued to acquire toxic derivatives until it did indeed implode.

The perception that CEOs do nothing but play golf is about as accurate and useful as the stereotype of the fat, lazy union "worker" who does nothing but take breaks all day.

That's quite true. CEO's also extort sex out of underlings when they aren't emotionally abusing the family they never wanted in the first place.

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.

This is actually quite sensible. I obviously bring a bias to this discussion having seen several companies destroy themselves while ignoring sensible advice that would have saved them.

Well, gee, what would you be willing to pay an incoming CEO to turn around an already failing business?? Do you think these people grow on trees and work for bananas or what?

I think they are mythical.

Do you think that these lavish salaries actually improve the quality of CEO the company gets? It seems to me not unlike the audiophiles thinking their $5000 cable is greatly superior to a $50 one. If you have evidence that these multi-million dollar salaries actually translate into better CEOs I would be happy to see it.

In Germany the CEO's are very good (as opposed to the morons over here in the USA) and they rarely make more than six times the salary of the typical employee. They see the long term success of the company as more important than a huge bloated salary.
 
Do you think that these lavish salaries actually improve the quality of CEO the company gets? It seems to me not unlike the audiophiles thinking their $5000 cable is greatly superior to a $50 one. If you have evidence that these multi-million dollar salaries actually translate into better CEOs I would be happy to see it.

Precisely...
 
Now personally, I have always refused to join a union if one was present where I worked (and the laws of my state permit that). I don't like the concept of collective bargaining. I prefer that my value be dictated by my performance and not because of what some union thug and Mgmt rep decide it's worth. Plus, I think mgmt should be able to fire bad workers without needing an act of congress. The above union description sounds pretty ideal to me.

My union is for support staff in a school district, it is a standard contract as is the teachers/certified staff.

Here is a big secret, you CAN fire most tenured teachers as well.

BUT you have to follow the grievance policy which most admins are too lazy to do, my sister in law, fired a tenured staff member last year, it was dragged out because the superintendent gave this individual a huge break. They had gone trough warning and two remediation phases and should have been terminated forthwith, yet it was the administration that gave them yet another two remediation phases.

They failed those two as well, people in my union get fired all the time, about three a year, the main issue is that administrators WON'T take the time to fire tenured staff. Except when they engage in gross malfeasance.

I like the contract, I have worked at will my whole life, three times I have lost my job because of ******** supervisors would did not like me. Not because of my competence or job performance, but because they had a personality issue with me. And so they would trump up a cause to fire me, no hearing, no verbal warning, no written warnings, not following procedures and policy as written, just termination. And then they would say, 'You can draw unemployment'.

Unions are no worse then the crony politics and personal gain choices made by administration.

Now what I hate are when union members (not the union) try to make a deal out of something not in the contract. Which in my union never even makes it very far, they do useful things like try to get us full medical, most of us aides are 'full time' at 7 hours/day, so we do not get full medical. So they fight for stuff like that and standard step increase...

Now the certified staff union is much whinier and more powerful and my employer has a history that they still continue of allowing the union to try to do human relations, and become in NON-CONTRACT issues. And this is the fault of the union rep and the administration.

And I blame the administration, the school board and the union on this one. We had some ******** of the first degree from the last director of HR who violated state law and policy at will. This created a really bad situation and the certified staff union became all involved in stuff that is not in the contract. Hopefully this will change but I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
I was doing some housecleaning yesterday and behind the couch found a single packaged Hostess cupcake. The cellophane-wrapped singles you get in the big box.
It was faded, dried-out, and nasty looking.
I have placed it in a place of reverence.....
 
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.
^^^
This

As best I can tell from the reading I've done, this company had built up too much debt, and there was just no way to restructure it other than dissolving it. Pension fund liabilities were a real problem, as they are almost everywhere that they still exist, but other sources of debt were also an issue.

The only way to resolve it would be to cut wages severely, and they tried. The problem is that they tried to cut the wages so low that the workers could get a better deal elsewhere, so the Bakers union wasn't buying it. There was no way out.

It will be a major inconvenience for those who lost their jobs. They'll have to get new jobs, and they will.
 
Interesting. You think they could bring in a new CEO and that would change things?

No, in my experience what should be done in these situations is to sack the people in charge and promote from within.
And your experience is...?
 
^^^
The only way to resolve it would be to cut wages severely, and they tried. The problem is that they tried to cut the wages so low that the workers could get a better deal elsewhere, so the Bakers union wasn't buying it. There was no way out.

Since Hostess is selling its assets you have to wonder how many of those employees will get that better deal in the same building they are working in now.
 
Do you think that these lavish salaries actually improve the quality of CEO the company gets? It seems to me not unlike the audiophiles thinking their $5000 cable is greatly superior to a $50 one. If you have evidence that these multi-million dollar salaries actually translate into better CEOs I would be happy to see it.
So you have examples of a bankrupt company being saved by someone they hired for cheap?
 
Hostess admitted in September 2012 that the real cause of their demise is declining sales.

The Debtors have experienced a significant decline in the demand for their branded sweet goods and bread products. According to data from Information Resources Incorporated (the "IRI"), an independent market research concern that reports sales trends in most supermarkets (excluding mass merchandisers, club stores and discount stores), the Debtors' total unit volume of branded sweet goods declined by 4.3% during the latest 52 weeks ending September 5, 2012, and revenues from the Debtors' branded sweet good products declined 1.5% during the same period. The Debtors' total unit volume of branded bread products declined by 9.6% during the latest 52 weeks ending September 5, 2012. Revenues related to the Debtors' bread products declined 5.3% from the comparable period one year ago.

The Debtors believe that they will continue to experience reduced demand for their products based on various factors, including some of the factors discussed in greater detail below.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-real-reasons-hostess-went-bankrupt
 

Back
Top Bottom