Is this the end of Twinkies?

[unokitty]

Growing up in Chicago, my Cub Scout Pack used to tour the Wonder Bread Factory.

Sad day for the 18,000 newly unemployed workers.

Twinkie maker Hostess to close; Illinois workers to lose jobs

Uno

 

[PokerGuy]

I'll never understand the mentality that these people have of holding their ground to the point of losing their jobs. There has to be some sort of balance. Sadly, there usually is none.

Simple, it's the "logic" some in this thread have shown, they feel it's better to have no job, sit on your butt and leach on society than to do a job you don't like or do a job that doesn't pay you what you think you're worth.

 

[Genx87]

The CEO just went on Today too.... something smells fishy though... why would a CEO be running around spreading the word of the companies demise? Is he still getting a pay check while he does this? I'm sure he is. I'm not saying the unions are doing the right thing... but something just seems... off.

Hostess is kind of an American icon dont you think? And this came on pretty quick. I had no idea they were in financial trouble. Twinkies is almost as American as Apple Pie. The thought Twinkies is going under is a compelling story. Especially when you toss in a union that decided it was not worth taking a temp pay cut to keep it alive.

 

[Dulanic]

Simple, it's the "logic" some in this thread have shown, they feel it's better to have no job, sit on your butt and leach on society than to do a job you don't like or do a job that doesn't pay you what you think you're worth.

The more I read about this the more I get their side... eventually you have to make a stand. The company looted their benefits, got them to make concessions twice before and all it did was go to executive pay raises. At what point do you say enough is enough, fuck you? I think I would too if I watched the CEO take a 300% pay RAISE as they looted my benefits to fund it. Hostess was a sinking ship and they knew another concession wouldn't help them in the long term.

What would you do if your boss took a 300% pay raise and you were working for a sinking company? I know what I would do... I'd quit and find another job, especially if I knew the company was sinking anyways.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yet at the same time... the top dogs were taking pay raises? That seems the right way to avoid it right? Who would grant pay raises when the company is on the edge of bankruptcy? Fat cat executives who think they have a RIGHT to make extra money as a company is failing, that's who.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577323993512506050.html

THAT cost I am sure as costly or more so than the pay cut they were asking the bakers to take... this story is not NEARLY as one sided as you think it is. The executive obviously KNEW it was a sinking ship and were trying to squeeze out as much money into their own pockets as they could as fast as they could.

"fat cat" executive pay is the same as the issue of raising taxes on the evil 1% is in politics -- it's a dog whistle to idiots who fail to understand that in the grand scheme it's meaningless. When you look at the total financials for the company, the pay of those top execs is a drop in the bucket, just like taxes on the top 1% is a drop in the budget bucket no matter how much they are raised. It's not going to sink the company, and in fact if they use that money to entice good execs it might save the company.

Yes, it's sometimes disgusting to see some exec taking millions in bonuses while workers are losing their jobs, but ultimately that doesn't impact the viability of the business.

Launching a strike against a company teetering on the edge of failing is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's stupid and now 18k people are paying the price.

 

[JoeyP]

Hostess is kind of an American icon dont you think? And this came on pretty quick. I had no idea they were in financial trouble. Twinkies is almost as American as Apple Pie. The thought Twinkies is going under is a compelling story. Especially when you toss in a union that decided it was not worth taking a temp pay cut to keep it alive.

I worked at a company that implemented a 10% pay cut (15% for managers, regardless of level). The intent was to reduce operating expenses, and when we reached a certain level of profitability, we'd return to normal levels again. If we exceeded the goal profitability, we'd get back more. The progress was updated monthly.

Some people were ok with the change, and stayed. Others were not ok, and left.

The point here is that individuals made the decisions for themselves, based upon their own personal situations. I am glad the unions at Hostess worked to get better pay and benefits and working rules, but at the same time, I am sad that it played out this way; I'm fairly certain some of those union workers would have stayed if given the ability to decide as individuals.

 

[PokerGuy]

The more I read about this the more I get their side... eventually you have to make a stand. The company looted their benefits, got them to make concessions twice before and all it did was go to executive pay raises. At what point do you say enough is enough

Whether you think it's fair or not, the bottom line is you're cutting of your nose to spite your face. Before you had a job and complained about the wages and benefits. Now you have no job and no benefits. Congratulations.

I think I would too if I watched the CEO take a 300% pay RAISE as they looted my benefits to fund it.

That's going back to the issue of perception and fairness and all that. I get it, it's not fair, but that doesn't change the core issues at hand.

What would you do if your boss took a 300% pay raise and you were working for a sinking company? I know what I would do... I'd quit and find another job, especially if I knew the company was sinking anyways.

Exactly, you'd quit and find another (hopefully better paying) job. That's what they should have done if they truly felt it was a sinking ship. Instead of doing that, they went on strike and now there is no company and you're out there looking for a new job along with the other thousands of people in your area at the same time. Brilliant.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yeah, so glad to be making $8 an hour when a haircut costs $15.


You must be a fucking genius Private Pyle!

Cool, and now they're making $0/hr. You're a goddamn genius, Gump!

 

[Nintendesert]

I worked at a company that implemented a 10% pay cut (15% for managers, regardless of level). The intent was to reduce operating expenses, and when we reached a certain level of profitability, we'd return to normal levels again. If we exceeded the goal profitability, we'd get back more. The progress was updated monthly.

Some people were ok with the change, and stayed. Others were not ok, and left.

The point here is that individuals made the decisions for themselves, based upon their own personal situations. I am glad the unions at Hostess worked to get better pay and benefits and working rules, but at the same time, I am sad that it played out this way; I'm fairly certain some of those union workers would have stayed if given the ability to decide as individuals.

Well considering the biggest union with Hostess did agree to the new terms to try and save the company and it was the smaller union that did not and has now ruined the company I think a vast majority of the workers at Hostess chose the temporary pay cut to keep the company in business.

So now everyone is out of work and everyone gets a big fat 100% pay cut. Thank goodness for funemployment, they are taken care of for the next 2 years on every other worker's back.

 

[Dulanic]

Whether you think it's fair or not, the bottom line is you're cutting of your nose to spite your face. Before you had a job and complained about the wages and benefits. Now you have no job and no benefits. Congratulations.

So how many times should someone make "concessions" before saying fuck you to a company? Should they keep working for the company as they stop funding their pension which is against the law. Should they keep making concessions as their bosses get raises? Should they keep taking even more concessions as their previous concessions were looted to provide raises at the top? When should they make a stand? When they hit $0 an hour? There has to be some point no?

I am simply trying to point out the blame doesn't lie with just one side of the coin. This was caused by both sides.

 

[randomrogue]

Unions were great 100 years ago. Today not so much. As far as the Union is concerned I feel that those Bakery employees should get no unemployment benefits.

The upper management taking pay raises though should be thrown in jail.

 

[spacejamz]

So how many times should someone make "concessions" before saying fuck you to a company? Should they keep working for the company as they stop funding their pension which is against the law. Should they keep making concessions as their bosses get raises? Should they keep taking even more concessions as their previous concessions were looted to provide raises at the top? When should they make a stand? When they hit $0 an hour? There has to be some point no?

I am simply trying to point out the blame doesn't lie with just one side of the coin. This was caused by both sides.

If someone felt that way, why would they not be free to leave on their own terms and find something else? This would allow those in varying situations to make their own choice if they want to continue working at the reduced rates or leave to find something better.

Now, all 18,000 workers had the choice made for them.

Also, if you are in a union, would there be any repercussions of leaving a union to find a better job elsewhere in the area?

 

[waggy]

So how many times should someone make "concessions" before saying fuck you to a company? Should they keep working for the company as they stop funding their pension which is against the law. Should they keep making concessions as their bosses get raises? Should they keep taking even more concessions as their previous concessions were looted to provide raises at the top? When should they make a stand? When they hit $0 an hour? There has to be some point no?

I am simply trying to point out the blame doesn't lie with just one side of the coin. This was caused by both sides.

nope they shouldn't keep working for teh company (lol now they aren't are they?). they should get another job.

 

[randomrogue]

The logic of the union fails when you look at the big picture. 18,000 people lost their job.

They were free to leave and find another job if conditions there were so terrible. However forcing 18,000 people out of their jobs is definitely a poor choice.

 

[PokerGuy]

So how many times should someone make "concessions" before saying f*ck you to a company? Should they keep working for the company as they stop funding their pension which is against the law. Should they keep making concessions as their bosses get raises? Should they keep taking even more concessions as their previous concessions were looted to provide raises at the top? When should they make a stand? When they hit $0 an hour? There has to be some point no?

If you feel you're getting screwed and not paid what you're worth, then go find another job. If you can't find another job, then striking is even dumber because now the job you had is also gone and you still can't find a new one. Just plain stupid.

I am simply trying to point out the blame doesn't lie with just one side of the coin. This was caused by both sides.

No, the blame for the place closing now DOES lie with one side. Long term problems were probably caused by a bunch of things, (unions, management, the economy, marketplace etc etc), but the fact is that if it wasn't for the union the place would not be closing today. It would still have been in trouble, but those 18k workers would not be looking for work next week.

 

[Genx87]

When is Obama going to bail out Hostess? Think of the ripple effect through the baking industry!

 

[Engineer]

When is Obama going to bail out Hostess? Think of the ripple effect through the baking industry!

It will be the GOP this time as "baking" sounds too much like "banking"...to delicious to fail comes to mind. Easy to get that confused! :biggrin:

 

[Jaskalas]

At this point, I would consider hiring people who WANT to work. Last time I checked, Texas has some unemployed people, many of whom would love the opportunity to earn a paycheck again.

I think that's illegal unless you're in a 'right to work' state.

 

[halik]

Eh I think this is the case of the company asking for below market wages and union responding rationally.

Hypothetically if my employer approaches me with a xx% pay cut, I'd be gone as fast as possible (quitting isn't an option due to having to forgo unemployment). In the case of a union, their response will be the same, but collective (ie no we won't take xx% less, pay us more), but in reality its just them all quitting. Union's upshot in quitting via striking is that a) they give an option to avoid quitting b)still get to collect unemployment afterwards.

I think the free market will handle this well. If it's the case that
a) The company was asking for below market wages, they'll liquidate as their business is unviable
b) The company wasn't asking for below market wages, they'll restructure with better labor structure.

 

[CitizenKain]

Yes, it's sometimes disgusting to see some exec taking millions in bonuses while workers are losing their jobs, but ultimately that doesn't impact the viability of the business.

Complete bullshit. Once again, the failure of Hostess is because of their management team, not the workers. Typical anti-union garbage from ignorant people.

 

[PokerGuy]

Complete bullsh*t. Once again, the failure of Hostess is because of their management team, not the workers.

I don't know what drove the long term problems of the company (management failure, unions, marketplace), and neither do you. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that by striking at this time the union effectively destroyed the company and put all those people out of work.

Typical anti-union garbage from ignorant people.

Typical garbage from pro-union idiots. Congratulations, other idiots with the same mentality just destroyed another company.

 

[Druidx]

The company has been circling the drain for years, the union is a convenient scapegoat.
The company was in trouble late last year or early this year for paying out huge executive bonus which violated the terms of their bankruptcy agreement. Just before the last bankruptcy filing some executive were advanced large portions of their salary, up to 75%-80%, so they could falsely under reported their expected 2012 salary.
The union didn't help the matter but they certainly weren't the only problem.

 

[feralkid]

The company has been circling the drain for years, the union is a convenient scapegoat.
The company was in trouble late last year or early this year for paying out huge executive bonus which violated the terms of their bankruptcy agreement. Just before the last bankruptcy filing some executive were advanced large portions of their salary, up to 75%-80%, so they could falsely under reported their expected 2012 salary.
The union didn't help the matter but they certainly weren't the only problem.

That's the bain of many former companies.

 

[Genx87]

That's the bain of many former companies.

I see what you did there.

 

[TechBoyJK]

The company has been circling the drain for years, the union is a convenient scapegoat.
The company was in trouble late last year or early this year for paying out huge executive bonus which violated the terms of their bankruptcy agreement. Just before the last bankruptcy filing some executive were advanced large portions of their salary, up to 75%-80%, so they could falsely under reported their expected 2012 salary.
The union didn't help the matter but they certainly weren't the only problem.

taken from another thread

Hey pro-union guys -

The court had already given permission to unilaterally void the union contracts. One union decided to say "screw the court", and imposed a walk-out. This destroyed the company's revenue stream.

With no revenue, the company cannot meet the covenants of their DIP financing, and are forced into liquidation.

I don't know if they bankruptcy's restructuring would have saved the company or not. But this liquidation is absolutely the unions fault.