Say goodbye to Twinkies (4 Viewers)

[FLEA]

Why can't they just replace the union workers with non-union workers and keep the place open. I am sure there are people ready to step in and take their place. Is it / could it be that easy?

 

[DesertKajun]

Why can't they just replace the union workers with non-union workers and keep the place open. I am sure there are people ready to step in and take their place. Is it / could it be that easy?

Possible the training involved to get scabs up to speed might be expensive. Not sure if factory baking specialist is something so easy to replace. Terrible spot the union put themselves in. If they get welfare or unemployment taxpayers should protest.

 

[SWJJ]

Why can't they just replace the union workers with non-union workers and keep the place open. I am sure there are people ready to step in and take their place. Is it / could it be that easy?

No, they have mountains of debt.

The failure is due to mismanagement of a corporation over decades, not a recent union strike. They have been losing market share since the 80's, and instead of changing how they come to market, changing the product, or a host of other options, they blew their cash reserves attempting to gobble up competitors.

but hey, instead of talking about the truth, lets parrot conservative talking points, blame the unions, and take pop shots at liberals!

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

Sounds like the company was over extended and not as profitable as it once was. 2 bankruptcies in less than a decade? Not good.

Cant really blame that on the unions. Workers execerised their right not to sell their labor for that price, company couldnt pay anymore so they go out of business.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

Why can't they just replace the union workers with non-union workers and keep the place open. I am sure there are people ready to step in and take their place. Is it / could it be that easy?

You talking about 18,000 skilled workers,.....it aint that easy.

 

[SWJJ]

while I admire your committment to threadjack, This thread is about Hostess folding. You (and other posters) incorrectly attempted to blame unions (thanks to republican propaganda) but the truth is the company has been mismanaged for decades. Thats what caused thier demise, not the unions you seek to blame.

 

[Saint Sarah]

this thread is full of ignorance. The hostess Brand has been troubled for years. They filed banruptcy back in '04. Hostess paid 330 mm to acquire Continental Baking Company, and gobbled up a couple of other smaller competetors in the mid 90's.

This exausted their cash reserves at a time when the Atkins Diet was gaining popularity, and Krispy Kreme was expanding.

Ultimately business decisions made in the 90's caused the 2004 bankruptcy and this eventual fire sale.

Blaming the 1/3 of the workers that are union for the door closing is short sighted and ignorant.

and also not surprising from the posters doing it.

For sake of placing overall blame the past is useful, but don't you think that the Union is to blame at this point? Regardless of what lead to the bankruptcy, Hostess was at a point where they needed union workers to stop striking and work (for less pay and benefits) or liquidate. They refused and now everyone lost their job.

I don't see that as a hard concept to grasp. As stated before, I'd much rather work for less than have no job at all. The marketplace will determine if you're being underpaid or not. If you are, surely someone else out there will scoop you up.

 

[St.Fury]

I just deleted quite a few posts that were politically oriented. Please keep the political banter isolated to the Political Discussion Board. I'd hate to have to move this thread to the PDB.

Thanks
-St.Fury

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

For sake of placing overall blame the past is useful, but don't you think that the Union is to blame at this point? Regardless of what lead to the bankruptcy, Hostess was at a point where they needed union workers to stop striking and work (for less pay and benefits) or liquidate. They refused and now everyone lost their job.

I don't see that as a hard concept to grasp. As stated before, I'd much rather work for less than have no job at all. The marketplace will determine if you're being underpaid or not. If you are, surely someone else out there will scoop you up.

Everyone is assuming that only Hostess is going to be able to fill that market space and once the company folds, there won't be that market demand anymore or no one else can fill that demand.

If the union did it's job, by that I mean a careful analysis of the balance sheets, it probably came to the conclusion that Hostess was just a poorly run company and all the workers are better off if the company folded and then try to get a job with whatever entity will buy up the assets to fill the market void left by Hostess leaving.

People act like a company/business owner/whatever is the only entity that can possibly fill some market void, and if you don't give them what they want no one else can possibly do it so there will be no more jobs or yummy goodies.

I don't know the particulars here, so I'm not really going to comment on if the union overstepped its bounds or not... but it can be perfectly rational for a union to hold its position firm and accept a company folding rather than taking a bad deal.

 

[DesertKajun]

Sounds like the company was over extended and not as profitable as it once was. 2 bankruptcies in less than a decade? Not good.

Cant really blame that on the unions. Workers execerised their right not to sell their labor for that price, company couldnt pay anymore so they go out of business.

Your right as far as business model goes. But in the attempt to correct it they asked for an 8% cut and some temp benny changes it seems. As a father 8% less is better then 100% less. Seems like a no brainer. Are you assured that will fix it...No but at least you have a job while you look for a new one.

 

[SWJJ]

For sake of placing overall blame the past is useful, but don't you think that the Union is to blame at this point? Regardless of what lead to the bankruptcy, Hostess was at a point where they needed union workers to stop striking and work (for less pay and benefits) or liquidate. They refused and now everyone lost their job.

I don't see that as a hard concept to grasp. As stated before, I'd much rather work for less than have no job at all. The marketplace will determine if you're being underpaid or not. If you are, surely someone else out there will scoop you up.

To blame? No.

While it may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, they are hardly to blame.

We can debate labor forces and the impact an 8% decrease can have on a $12.00 an hour worker all day long; but the company was in financial shambles because of mismanagement, not because of extorting unions.

What has not been discussed in this thread is that while they were cutting the employees salaries and pensions, they were giving executive large bonuses.

The CEO's compensation tripled, from $750,000 to $2.25 mm, another executive went from $500k to $900K and a third from $375k to $650K.

That was the reason the union cited in the first place for the strike, but has gotten lost in the shuffle.

 

[dtc]

You talking about 18,000 skilled workers,.....it aint that easy.

It sure as hell isn't going to be easy to do at $12 per hour when everyone within 500 miles knows they're likely to never get paid or a raise.

Isn't it ironic that the "conservatives" who were so up in arms about bailouts and blame the unions seem to be incapable to accept that management and ownership have failed this company? Isn't it sad that so many here and around the country feel as if everything in business can be fixed if only those greedy employees would just work a little harder, a little smarter and for a little less money?

Why not let's blame the idiots who bankrupted the place.

Twice.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

Everyone is assuming that only Hostess is going to be able to fill that market space and once the company folds, there won't be that market demand anymore or no one else can fill that demand.

If the union did it's job, by that I mean a careful analysis of the balance sheets, it probably came to the conclusion that Hostess was just a poorly run company and all the workers are better off if the company folded and then try to get a job with whatever entity will buy up the assets to fill the market void left by Hostess leaving.

People act like a company/business owner/whatever is the only entity that can possibly fill some market void, and if you don't give them what they want no one else can possibly do it so there will be no more jobs or yummy goodies.

I don't know the particulars here, so I'm not really going to comment on if the union overstepped its bounds or not... but it can be perfectly rational for a union to hold its position firm and accept a company folding rather than taking a bad deal.

This.

Maybe Hostess time has just run out? Maybe they were just mismannaged. I see they ran by a Hedge fund and investment group, could be possible no one was in place that really brought forth ideas to keep the company profitable. Too many factors go into a company folding, my guess is the union strike was just the final nail in an already made up coffin.

As you said, the market will compensate for the loss of this company.

Anyway, I stopped eating twinkies once I found out what they really put in them.

Castoreum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

If the union did it's job, by that I mean a careful analysis of the balance sheets, it probably came to the conclusion that Hostess was just a poorly run company and all the workers are better off if the company folded and then try to get a job with whatever entity will buy up the assets to fill the market void left by Hostess leaving.

What's interesting is that the Teamsters (who cut their own deal with Hostess) apparently told the Bakers Union to re-think the strike:

The Teamsters union is urging the bakers union to hold a secret ballot on whether to continue striking. Citing its financial experts who had access to the company's books, the Teamsters say that Hostess' warning of liquidation is "not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic" but a certain outcome if workers keep striking.

No more Twinkies? Hostess asks to liquidate

Seems to me that if the TEAMSTERS think that your union has gone too far, maybe you really should back down.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

It sure as hell isn't going to be easy to do at $12 per hour when everyone within 500 miles knows they're likely to never get paid or a raise.

Isn't it ironic that the "conservatives" who were so up in arms about bailouts and blame the unions seem to be incapable to accept that management and ownership have failed this company? Isn't it sad that so many here and around the country feel as if everything in business can be fixed if only those greedy employees would just work a little harder, a little smarter and for a little less money?

Why not let's blame the idiots who bankrupted the place.

Twice.

Pretty much. Im as pro-free market as they come. But if you are a true free market capitialist you understand unions are a part of it. You cant produce and earn a profit with out workers. If workers do not want to sell their labor for what you can afford, then you simply cannot afford to produce your product.

If so called conservative truly believes in capitalism that they understand that his survival of the fittest. If the company cant produce and remain profitable, then it is simply a failure and should go out of business (as the big banks should have). Sure people will say they miss twinkies but seriously how many of them actually go out and spend money on that product?