Hostess workers strike may kill company

With corporate coffers overflowing and shareholder returns the bottom line corporate concern I'd say Unions get the unconditional nod for the next twenty years just to stay even.

Great post - ignorant over-generalizations should always come first. Maybe you should read about unions requiring separate trucks for bread vs cakes, and seperage workers loading vs stocking. Union monopolies destroyed that company with greed. Now they get what they deserve.

Class war.

Economic illiterates of the world, unite !
 
It's interesting how many of the victims of class warfare are on the side of the people who have robbed them blind and destroyed their life.

The Hostess issue is very clear, first, the company restructured and got a big concession from workers. They took that money and skimmed it, without reinvesting a single bit. Classic liquidiationism strategy. Then, they stopped paying into the pension fund. Classic liquidationism strategy. THEN they demanded more concessions from workers, threatening the workers with unemployment, loss of retirement, etc, if they didn't go back to minimum wage conditions. Since the pension fund was already empty due to looting, and the employees realized that they had nothing to lose, they decided it was time to go all in.

And they did.

And the looters are now selling off the company so they can skim more money. Still classic 1940's-1950's liquidationism strategy, the same strategy that brought about pension fund laws, etc, in the first place.

This is all documented in history, and the fact that the fellow travellers who believe in a totally free market endorse this theft shows just how far people can be led into their own grave. Anyone who thinks this is the union's fault is showing just exactly how far they've been led, and how bad they are for their own personal welfare.
 
It's interesting how many of the victims of class warfare are on the side of the people who have robbed them blind and destroyed their life.

The Hostess issue is very clear, first, the company restructured and got a big concession from workers. They took that money and skimmed it, without reinvesting a single bit. Classic liquidiationism strategy. Then, they stopped paying into the pension fund. Classic liquidationism strategy. THEN they demanded more concessions from workers, threatening the workers with unemployment, loss of retirement, etc, if they didn't go back to minimum wage conditions. Since the pension fund was already empty due to looting, and the employees realized that they had nothing to lose, they decided it was time to go all in.

And they did.

And the looters are now selling off the company so they can skim more money. Still classic 1940's-1950's liquidationism strategy, the same strategy that brought about pension fund laws, etc, in the first place.

This is all documented in history, and the fact that the fellow travellers who believe in a totally free market endorse this theft shows just how far people can be led into their own grave. Anyone who thinks this is the union's fault is showing just exactly how far they've been led, and how bad they are for their own personal welfare.


I guess that you missed that fact that the owners lost hundreds of millions of dollars hoping that the unions could see reason.

536674_466700290037954_1669941924_n.jpg
 
Of course the problem is any CEO capable of turning a failing company around is not going to come cheap, and any competent management personnel can find work elsewhere and thus often have to be paid more to take the risk of being left on a sinking ship. Unskilled workers are fungible.

That's cute. You think CEO's actually do stuff and take risks.

I look forward to hearing the management view. From the union pov, it looks pretty damning.
I have had several close family members, including my father, who spent their lives in a union. My experience with them was that the unions were competent and pragmatic. They would agree to paycuts and stuff if they felt it was actually necessary. That this union didn't agree to it leads me to believe they knew the fix was in before any of it started.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha! Building a brand?? Is there anyone on the Earth who doesn't know about Twinkies? Or doesn't want a nice cheap Twinkie?


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!

Why would anyone ask Obama to do that when he's never done any of that before?

So the people at the top are better off with Hostess going out of business somehow?

Again, explain how those in upper management are better off now that Hostess is no more.

So how'd that strike work out?

I'm certain those at the top are not hurt at all. They will all get new jobs within the year if they aren't yet done vacationing in Italy.

But whenever they do decide to become employed again they will get that cushy new job because they went to the right school or knew the right person at a country club and once there they will offer zero ideas, put in zero effort and accomplish nothing except accumulate more money on the backs of actual workers they feel are subhuman.

Twinkies aren't going anywhere.

I actually can't remember the last time I encountered an actual Hostess brand Twinkie.
 
Why would anyone ask Obama to do that when he's never done any of that before?


I guess you missed Obammy's takeover of the bailout of GM? And Chrysler too? Gosh, maybe you should read the news sometime ... or try to remember it.


Or maybe you missed this petition for Obammy to bailout Hostess ... look carefully, because it originated, not with the people, not within the unions, but within Obammy's administration. Absolutely pathetic ... just like the community-organizer-in-chief!
 
So the people at the top are better off with Hostess going out of business somehow?


Again, explain how those in upper management are better off now that Hostess is no more.


That's like asking if a bank robber is better off after robbing the bank.

Are you going to claim you never heard of a bank robbery that was an inside job?
 
This working class hero stuff is silly. Pretending that the people who run businesses didn't earn their way to the top is ridiculous. Those guys work 80 hr weeks to gain the cred to move up to the executive levels. They work hard.
 
I guess that you missed that fact that the owners lost hundreds of millions of dollars hoping that the unions could see reason.

How does "see reason" see pension funds left unfunded, salary cut to levels below unemployment, etc. I think the "reasoning" is clear. If your job sucks so badly that unemployment pays better ...
 
There's something missing from every story I read about this strike.

I saw several references to an 8% pay cut, but I haven't seen anything about from what to what? Is is $10.00 down to $9.20, or is it $20.00 down to $18.40?

Were these overpaid workers who didn't realize how good they had it? Or were these people struggling to live a decent living for whom one more slap in the face was just too much to bear?

Putting it differently, have these workers who lost their jobs really lost anything? If these were crummy jobs, they'll find new ones, and some of the people laid off will come out much better than what they were doing at Hostess. If these were great jobs, then, maybe they should have been a bit more realistic.
 
One of the things the Unions are fighting is the change from a guaranteed , fixed $ pension to the 401(K) type pension, where the company either contributes to the fund, or matches a person's contributions.
The fixed pension has been gone from Management and engineering for years (except Represented management and engineers, e.g. SPEEA)--In fact, when I was laid-off from "A major aerospace firm" it was specified that any re-hires would come back under the 401(K) retirement rather than the fixed system we were under due to longevity--so I took Early Retirement and let them pay me the rest of my life.
The fixed Retirement is the one that usually is under-funded, and the 401(K) version does generally allow the employee to direct where the contributions are invested--and it is portable (usually) while the fixed pension is not.
 
I'm shocked, shocked, shocked that none of the people who claim this was a big conspiracy by equity firms to run Hostes into bankruptcy because somehow this means big money for the equity firm has supported the claim.

1. Buy a failing company for hundreds of millions of dollars.
2. Run it into the ground and force it into closure.
3. ?
4. Profit!

Surely someone can explain Step 3?
 
How does "see reason" see pension funds left unfunded, salary cut to levels below unemployment, etc. I think the "reasoning" is clear. If your job sucks so badly that unemployment pays better ...


If you don't make a profit, you can't fund anything ... ever. And now they won't.

And if your job sucks so badly, perhaps you need to look for a new job or a learn a new skill that makes it profitable for someone to employ you.
 
And if your job sucks so badly, perhaps you need to look for a new job .....

Perhaps that's what the Hostess employees did.

That's why I asked if these were good jobs or rotten jobs. If they were lousy jobs, then it's no big deal that they are gone.

If these were pretty good jobs that people wanted to have, even at the reduced pay level, then obviously they screwed up.
 
I'm shocked, shocked, shocked that none of the people who claim this was a big conspiracy by equity firms to run Hostes into bankruptcy because somehow this means big money for the equity firm has supported the claim.

1. Buy a failing company for hundreds of millions of dollars.
2. Run it into the ground and force it into closure.
3. ?
4. Profit!

Surely someone can explain Step 3?

Instead of asking others, several times, to educate you on the topic of most every thread you post in, why don't you take a few minutes and look it up. I believe I've posted links in other threads you were a part of which answer this. But just for you I'll post them again.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...tory-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Here's how Romney would go about "liberating" a company: A private equity firm like Bain typically seeks out floundering businesses with good cash flows. It then puts down a relatively small amount of its own money and runs to a big bank like Goldman Sachs or Citigroup for the rest of the financing. (Most leveraged buyouts are financed with 60 to 90 percent borrowed cash.) The takeover firm then uses that borrowed money to buy a controlling stake in the target company, either with or without its consent. When an LBO is done without the consent of the target, it's called a hostile takeover; such thrilling acts of corporate piracy were made legend in the Eighties, most notably the 1988 attack by notorious corporate raiders Kohlberg Kravis Roberts against RJR Nabisco, a deal memorialized in the book Barbarians at the Gate.

Romney and Bain avoided the hostile approach, preferring to secure the cooperation of their takeover targets by buying off a company's management with lucrative bonuses. Once management is on board, the rest is just math. So if the target company is worth $500 million, Bain might put down $20 million of its own cash, then borrow $350 million from an investment bank to take over a controlling stake.

But here's the catch. When Bain borrows all of that money from the bank, it's the target company that ends up on the hook for all of the debt.

Now your troubled firm – let's say you make tricycles in Alabama – has been taken over by a bunch of slick Wall Street dudes who kicked in as little as five percent as a down payment. So in addition to whatever problems you had before, Tricycle Inc. now owes Goldman or Citigroup $350 million. With all that new debt service to pay, the company's bottom line is suddenly untenable: You almost have to start firing people immediately just to get your costs down to a manageable level.

Fortunately, the geniuses at Bain who now run the place are there to help tell you whom to fire. And for the service it performs cutting your company's costs to help you pay off the massive debt that it, Bain, saddled your company with in the first place, Bain naturally charges a management fee, typically millions of dollars a year. So Tricycle Inc. now has two gigantic new burdens it never had before Bain Capital stepped into the picture: tens of millions in annual debt service, and millions more in "management fees." Since the initial acquisition of Tricycle Inc. was probably greased by promising the company's upper management lucrative bonuses, all that pain inevitably comes out of just one place: the benefits and payroll of the hourly workforce.

Once all that debt is added, one of two things can happen. The company can fire workers and slash benefits to pay off all its new obligations to Goldman Sachs and Bain, leaving it ripe to be resold by Bain at a huge profit. Or it can go bankrupt – this happens after about seven percent of all private equity buyouts – leaving behind one or more shuttered factory towns. Either way, Bain wins. By power-sucking cash value from even the most rapidly dying firms, private equity raiders like Bain almost always get their cash out before a target goes belly up.

I can't say I know enough about the Hostess situation to say whether this is the same, but now you know it does happen.
 
Last edited:
Instead of asking others, several times, to educate you on the topic of most every thread you post in, why don't you take a few minutes and look it up. I believe I've posted links in other threads you were a part of which answer this. But just for you I'll post them again.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...tory-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829



I can't say I know enough about the Hostess situation to say whether this is the same, but now you know it does happen.
You're going to educate me on a topic you admit you know nothing about?

Perhaps you should educate yourself, and read up on the actual case at hand.
 

Back
Top Bottom