• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think the people who work(ed) at Hostess...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
"We did everything we could to save the company," said Joseph Ortuso, a Teamster and sales route driver from New Jersey who'd been with Hostess or its acquisitions for more than two decades. "We never gave up during bankruptcy. We fought in the marketplace to retain our business. In the end, somebody else made the decision."

"They're losing [5,000] jobs," Ortuso said of the bakers' union, "but they're costing 18,900 people their jobs."
Click to expand...

Ken Hall, the Teamsters secretary-treasurer, said his union didn't doubt Hostess' claims after seeing its books.

"I think it's obvious there was no bluff," said Hall. "Our financial advisers had looked at their books, they had total access. We pushed them in negotiations to where we thought it was the absolute limit, that we would get the most for our members and [still] have a pathway back to prosperity for the company. The bakers' union disagreed with that."

"Frankly, I feel sick about what's going on here," Hall added. "It's a tragic day for 18,000 workers."
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/hostess-liquidation-teamsters-bakers-union_n_2145851.html
 
TechBoyJK said:
very. They are more at odds with the Baker's union than hostess as this point. I read an article earlier and the Teamster's rep was less than positive about the baker's union's actions.
Click to expand...

My friend work(ed) there at the Teamsters union and he's more pissed off with Hostess as the Baker's were just trying to help them out by going on strike. Hostess got the Teamsters to cut their workers pay saying the company needed to do this to avoid bankruptcy a year ago. Then the execs got raises and Hostess went in for another pay cut this week with the Teamsters and they either had to accept it or it was game over.

Now Hostess get's to blame the Baker's for going belly up 🙂
 
As I said in the other thread, this was caused by mismanagement by the company and greed of the union. Employees all to often get caught in the middle.
 
I have never worked in a union...I just don't see the point of paying someone so you can be employed there. Even when you go on strike, you are still required to pay dues...lol

Protect the lazy.
 
they arent going to liquidate hostess, all of that is just a ruse. and even if they did, someone else would buy it up and realize they have to pay a decent wage. those workers arent greedy, the management is
 
18,500 jobs lost, I wonder what Obamas reaction would be when he found out he won't have any more Twinkies and Wonder Bread. j/k. :whiste:
 
Last edited:
paperfist said:
Hostess got the Teamsters to cut their workers pay saying the company needed to do this to avoid bankruptcy a year ago. Then the execs got raises and Hostess went in for another pay cut this week with the Teamsters and they either had to accept it or it was game over.

Now Hostess get's to blame the Baker's for going belly up 🙂
Click to expand...

This is what I was wondering. I'm not sure what I'd do, but I'd be leaning towards refusing the contract also, and telling them to shove their job up their asses. I'm willing to make sacrifices to keep a company afloat, but not to be exploited by the executives. Regardless of whether the executive raises had a significant affect on the bottom line or not, you don't raise your own salary, while cutting that of the people who actually make the company work.

Executives aren't even needed. A bakery can run without them, but it can't run without bakers...
 
What they don't mention (in most articles) is that Hostess was already Chapter 11 once and did some heavy cuts less than 10 years ago, and that the current union agreed to an 8% pay cut, but not the enormous benefits cuts they were proposing.

Also you have to look at the competition. A few "copycat" brands have sprung up in Walmart in the last 15 years or so and slowly gobbled up market share on price.

Margins on what they sell are also terrible, so a company making products outside of the country would have an enormous competitive advantage due to the cost of labor.
 
Last edited:
DaTT said:
...regret going on strike? 18,000 jobs gonzo.
Click to expand...



Probably yes ... and no. The "company" had been acquired by capitalists who continually eroded the workers salaries and benefits ... until they could take it no more.

I am anti-union but if you do some basic research you might find that his end-state for the company was doomed to be. 18,000 people will lose their jobs while a handful will make millions for doing little-to-nothing.
 
It's not just the union's fault (although they didn't help things). Where does management get off giving themselves a series of raises as the company goes through bankruptcy multiple times? The unions were greedy? So were the executives who gave themselves massive raises as the company was being gutted. Asking the little guy to take one for the team so that executives of a failing company can take even bigger salaries is fucking ridiculous.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
It's not just the union's fault (although they didn't help things). Where does management get off giving themselves a series of raises as the company goes through bankruptcy multiple times? The unions were greedy? So were the executives who gave themselves massive raises as the company was being gutted. Asking the little guy to take one for the team so that executives of a failing company can take even bigger salaries is fucking ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Look at it from an executives point of view-

2 jobs, each paying 200k. One will not go out of business (notHostess) one might go out of business (Hostess). Which one do you pick?

I'm not saying it's right btw. it is what it is.
 
Ns1 said:
Look at it from an executives point of view-

2 jobs, each paying 200k. One will not go out of business (notHostess) one might go out of business (Hostess). Which one do you pick?

I'm not saying it's right btw. it is what it is.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with rewarding failure? It seems like this has been the dialogue at every major US company over the last thirty years:

Hey, you're doing great! Profits are up, business is booming. Have a raise!

Wow, things are really terrible. Profits way down, running huge deficits, layoffs... Better give you a raise to encourage you to stay.

What the fuck? Executive compensation is no longer tied to performance in any way, shape or form. It's just a series of raises and getting rid of redundancies (American jobs). And people have the gall to blame the unions.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
What does that have to do with rewarding failure?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's the current CEO or an incoming CEO, CEO compensation would have to be > than market rate in order for a CEO to want to come to a sinking ship.

and a million bucks is seriously a drop in the bucket when your yearly revenue is 2.5B (or w/e)
 
Ns1 said:
It doesn't matter if it's the current CEO or an incoming CEO, CEO compensation would have to be > than market rate in order for a CEO to want to come to a sinking ship.

and a million bucks is seriously a drop in the bucket when your yearly revenue is 2.5B (or w/e)
Click to expand...
Every job I've ever had has told me that if all I come to work for is a paycheck, I'm probably not worth hiring. Does no one take pride in their work anymore? Does no executive want to face the challenge of fixing a broken company? Are they seriously only in it to get hugely fuck-off rich? Do we expect only the bakers to care about the greater good of the company, because management can't be bothered? Why can they find good executives in Japan or Korea without offering the exorbitant salaries they offer in America to executives who do nothing but drive the company into the ground?

Fucking bakers, man. They should have cared more.
 
Acanthus said:
Margins on what they sell are also terrible, so a company making products outside of the country would have an enormous competitive advantage due to the cost of labor.
Click to expand...

There's no way in fucking hell I'd eat a hostess-like product that's made in China. Fuck no.
 
There is plenty of blame to go around. But for the (ex)workers, the time to point fingers is past...

Given my experience from when I carried a Teamsters card, many of those workers will go on to better jobs. Some will likely be hired back, at less pay, by whatever entity buys the old company's assets. And some, likely the older ones, will have a tough time.

Regrets? If it were me, I'd be in a bar tonight. And then tomorrow morning I'd be calling each of all of my friends and relatives, as well as the precinct captain. Monday morning I'd be going around applying for jobs.

Its just a job. Its not the end of the world...

Uno
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top