jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
How do union work rules that require separate trucks for Twinkies and Wonder Bread make any sense at all? Would someone care to explain that to me?
Hostess workers strike may kill company
- Thread starter StankApe
- Start date
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
This really is Business 101. The rest of the money went to servicing their huge debt, operating their company, paying their lawyers, etc...
No one said that they took the whole hundred-plus million for themselves. The point being made is that the management of the company got the unions to grant concessions on the wage and benefits side and accept a large number of layoffs and then cut its back office staff and farmed those jobs out to The Philippines, yet their pitch about "us all pulling together and all taking hits" turned out to be nonsense. They voted themselves raises and bonuses.
And now you have a pesky trustee who's noted what several of us have been saying all along. To coin your approach to this discussion, just how deep do you think this conspiracy goes? They even got to the officials in the case, obviously. Those evil unions will stop at nothing to preserve their cushy sixteen dollar an hour jobs.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
They don't. It's probably a legacy thing, though. I'd imagine that when Interstate bought Wonder Bread in 1995, there were probably separate teamster jobs from the Interstate(Hostess) facilities and the WB facilities. As is typical of any large union, if you try to consolidate those plants, I'm sure the Teamsters fought it and made them protect the jobs of the Wonder Bread deliverers.
(This is pure speculation, but I spent 45 years in shipping and am quite familiar with the Teamsters and ILA and their negotiating "skills".)
It does seem silly, but might be less silly than you imagine. Will the same racks hold both effectively?
But I have to say, it does sound like an example of stupid, really.
Beyond the fact that you disagree with me despite all of the evidence in human history, what ignorance is this you refer to? Please fully support your accusation with testable, verifiable evidence.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
I'm in logistics. No. It makes no sense in terms of efficient deliveries. The ideal model for store delivery is to build an aisle level planogram. From macro to micro you load your trucks....
Geographic - put the orders into the truck on the basis of being able to take the pallets off at each stop without moving any cargo around.
Aisle level - if you're delivering to a big store, you put together one pallet for aisle 3 - the bread aisle, and another for Aisle 4 - the wasted calories aisle. You then have any endcaps or stand alone displays (special offerings on those cardboard displays that jut out into the aisles).
Shelf level. For mom-and-pop stores, you combine a pallet of all products, but if you're good at it, like 7-11, you have the top tray include the items that go onto the first location from your entry point into the store, and each ensuing product loaded according to its proximity in the store to that starting point.
Fully loading the volume of the truck would be a nice thing, but if that means loading four thousand loaves a bread chock-a-block full and then 900 cartons of Twinkies and Ring Dings - and then having to pick the orders as you get to the stores, you lose massively on the driver's labor and waiting time.
ETA: Of course, from the bakery to the distribution center, you can maximize the loads by product. One distribution center probably needs a few trailer loads a day of Wonder Bread, for instance. The above refers to the route deliveries. These are under HB.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
So the plan was to drive the company into failure, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, just to pay the top management a bonus when it was over?
This translates into "profit!" how?
Profit for whom ?
The management have taken their profit in terms of the salaries they have received.
The hedge funds may have been paid enough over the years to represent a profit.
The private equity company may have received enough in interest payments and management fees to turn a profit.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Because then you need more trucks to deiver the same amount of product. More trucks means more union delivery drivers.
It's kind of like the Chicago city garbage trucks. They used to have a crew of 4 - a driver and 3 riders who would carry the garbage cans to the truck and dump them in the truck. Then 30 years or so ago the city started using plastic garbage carts on wheels, that had a bar in them that a machine mounted on the truck would grab and dump the contents in the truck.
This was a great labor-saving device. Now you didn't need a 4-man crew on every garbage truck to do the same route. You really only needed a one or 2 man crew, except of course reducing crew size and saving taxpayer money is anathema to union ideology. So after years of fighting with the union the city finally got the crew reduced to... 3 people. A driver (who never leaves the truck) and 2 people who roll the cart to the truck and empty it with the machine. It's still one person too many (and private trucks employing Teamster drivers manage with just a single person on the truck), but it's the best deal the city could reach. It doesn't help that on any given day a quarter of the garbage haulers don't show up for work, or that a few years ago a city watchdog found not a single garbage truck crew that put in a full days work. Just try disciplining them! That report was ignored, of course.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
In other words, into the comany. Thank you for agreeing that jj was wrong.
So the owners took a loss of hundreds of millions just to give raises and bonuses to the management team they hired totaling $5 million or so?
How does this translate into "profit"?
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
The unions will stop at nothing to keep their dues-paying membership high. With only so much productiuon per worker there's only so much money to pay them. You can automate or otherwise increase productivity and have fewer but higher-paid workers, or you can keep doing things the old way and have more lower-paid workers. In this case the union chose the latter.
If today's final round of mediation fails and Hostes does indeed liquidate, do you think the new company will be saddled by work rules mandating one product per truck? Do you think they'll use older ovens that require more people to operate? Do you think they'll have pensions instead of 401(k) type plans?
I never understood why unions are so enamored of pensions, given their dismal record in the last 100 years or so. A fully funded healthy pension program is about as rare as Sasquatch these days. Even in the government.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
The owners hired the management. The owners lost hundreds of millions of dollars. And the claim is they did this just to enrich the people they hired to run the company. Some people in this thread are even claiming they made the company fail on purpose, just so they could pay management bonuses while they lose hundreds of millions apparently.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
No, jj wasn't wrong. WildCat's Strawman of jj was wrong, but we're not surprised about that since NO ONE said that all the money they got from the infusion of new capital and the concessions of the unions "went to the management bonuses and increases".
What we have said, and you seem to be missing out on, is that it's a tad unseemly for them to have squeezed a hundred mil in concessions out of the union, stopped paying into the pension fund (which is their legal obligation under their own collective bargaining agreement), laid off thousands of hourly and salaried employees, and then write themselves fat bonuses and large increases in salary.
You disagree. We get it. But rather than inventing strawmen to tear down, you could just keep repeating that you think it's swell for them to earn all that money and take huge bonuses while convincing the peons to "take one for the team".
Same strawman. No one is claiming that they're making a profit, trying to make a profit or even capable of making a profit. What they seem to be very good at doing is remunerating themselves handsomely, wouldn't you say?
Apparently. I suspect that's been the problem throughout the thread. But just to refresh your memory, said trustee was cited in a link provided by jj and even quoted in his post. Here it is again...
quote...
The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders.
end quote (I can't embed quotes within quotes)
That trustee. The one who says he's not comfortable with the bonus and remuneration plan Hostess had to file with the court.
Start a thread on generic union gripes. This has nothing to do with the specific discussions in regards to HB.
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
The management are essentially "free agents." Do you really think they're beholden to the company in any way?
When Hostess fails, they'll just collect their enormous severance packages, blame the entire debacle on the unions and move along to their next 7-figure executive position. They're in charge of doling out the bonuses and salaries, so of course they pay themselves huge raises and millions of dollars in bonuses regardless of company profit or lack thereof.
When Hostess fails, they'll just collect their enormous severance packages, blame the entire debacle on the unions and move along to their next 7-figure executive position. They're in charge of doling out the bonuses and salaries, so of course they pay themselves huge raises and millions of dollars in bonuses regardless of company profit or lack thereof.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
In fact, I'd hazard a guess that there are a lot more gold watch candidates on the loading docks and on the bakery line than there are in the management suites. There's been a wholesale churning of management positions in Hostess over the past decade. The current CEO, who the anti union forces are inferring is a loyal company guy dedicated to turning Hostess around, was brought in as a consultant last Feb/Mar and was given the CEO job when Driscoll walked. I'm sure he's built up a lot of loyalty to a Missouri based company by sitting in the ivory tower in Dallas that the board occupies.
From this article linked by Foolmewunz:
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/
It's not entirely clear how much has been paid for the debt;
...and the company is paying comparatively high rates of interest:
The combination of buying debt at a considerable discount but getting paid a good return on all of it can quickly yield a profit even if the company does not recover and a good profit if it does and can pay back some of the loans.
The latest loans have an interest rate of 15%
I just skimmed, so sorry if it's been posted, but a judge ordered Hostess into mediation with the driver's union.
http://news.yahoo.com/bankruptcy-court-judge-says-hostess-try-mediation-2nd-202233692.html
http://news.yahoo.com/bankruptcy-court-judge-says-hostess-try-mediation-2nd-202233692.html
Regretfully, if you mean Hostess as a whole, I have to agree.
There are parts that should have been spun off, but the spite of management has worked to preclude that.
We shall see what the bankruptcy court decides.
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
When in doubt, blame the poor and middle classes.
No way a rich man could be to blame, they're too hard-working and responsible!
No way a rich man could be to blame, they're too hard-working and responsible!