Say goodbye to Twinkies (2 Viewers)

[DesertKajun]

 

[livefromDC]

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

Oh, but it is! Just listen to the Jesus-hates-unions posters in this thread. It's okay for a business to run itself in the ground and then turn to their skilled workers and say work for nothing. Nevermind the fact that Hostess could've just hired replacements, except for the fact that they're broke. Nevermind the fact that they would have had trouble finding a skilled workforce to replace the strikers at the rates they wanted to pay.

Half of this country has stepped back into 19th century England where factories could do no wrong. Work when they say you work and take what they say you take.

 

[livefromDC]

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.

Right. So should the workers sacrifice their market value to keep a terribly run business going in the hopes that the business will eventually not be so terrible?

According to this thread, there is still a high demand for Twinkies. I more solvent company will take advantage of that. All they have to do now is find 18,000 skilled workers. Hmmm....

The business is at fault. The business was run into the ground. The employees are getting blamed for not absorbing the business' mistakes. People on this thread are arguing that employees should put the poorly run business' interest above their own. The employess haven't lost their value level, the company has. A better company will replace Hostess, at least that's how capitalism is SUPPOSED to work. Nowadays though, companies get treated like royalty in this country and its acceptable practice to push the buck to the employees.

 

[Sun Wukong]

Half of this country has stepped back into 19th century England where factories could do no wrong. Work when they say you work and take what they say you take.

Pretty much. It's amazing to me to see people screaming about how the innocent corporations are being killed by the horrible workers. It's basically society moving backwards as far as worker's rights go. So much ignorance, so little actual thought.

 

[DesertKajun]

Pretty much. It's amazing to me to see people screaming about how the innocent corporations are being killed by the horrible workers. It's basically society moving backwards as far as worker's rights go. So much ignorance, so little actual thought.

How so, is having no job really better then taking a pay cut until the company can try to get back on its feet. I would expect deeper pay cuts for executives as well though. But again 8% less is better then 100% less. And taxpayers should pay no unemployment for a voluntary choice to stop working.

 

[Semper]

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!

The truth? You can't handle the truth! Ok, sorry had to do that. Honestly the truth is the union agreed on a concession, the union workers didn't agree so they are closing.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

How so, is having no job really better then taking a pay cut until the company can try to get back on its feet. I would expect deeper pay cuts for executives as well though. But again 8% less is better then 100% less. And taxpayers should pay no unemployment for a voluntary choice to stop working.

I do agree with this though.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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

It depends on what the overall market place is though... not just that single company. Maybe someone did an analysis of the market and determined that if Hostess folded, X number of assets will be bought, Y number of products will be sold, and the Z number of bakers will be re-employed by the new company(s).

I have no idea - but it's not unreasonable for a group of people to determine that their overall economic well being is better if the company folds.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

How so, is having no job really better then taking a pay cut until the company can try to get back on its feet. I would expect deeper pay cuts for executives as well though. But again 8% less is better then 100% less. And taxpayers should pay no unemployment for a voluntary choice to stop working.

As I alluded to earlier -- maybe they looked at the pay rates of bakers working for Hostess' competitors, and determined that htey would be better off if Hostess folded and then worked for the competitors who will expand to fill the void left by Hostess.

Or maybe they just overplayed their hand.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

As I alluded to earlier -- maybe they looked at the pay rates of bakers working for Hostess' competitors, and determined that htey would be better off if Hostess folded and then worked for the competitors who will expand to fill the void left by Hostess.

Or maybe they just overplayed their hand.

This could also be the case.

 

[Trey W.]

with the steadily and rapidly increasing rates of obesity and child obesity in this country the loss of these products is a good thing. While I'm sure someone else will pick up making these products again, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they didn't come back.

 

[livefromDC]

It depends on what the overall market place is though... not just that single company. Maybe someone did an analysis of the market and determined that if Hostess folded, X number of assets will be bought, Y number of products will be sold, and the Z number of bakers will be re-employed by the new company(s).

I have no idea - but it's not unreasonable for a group of people to determine that their overall economic well being is better if the company folds.

I have to think that the union workers gave profound thought to this. Most of us woke up to this news. These employees have been grappling with this for some time. They have watched the decisions the company has made for years. They have seen the writing on the wall. They have the best idea of any of us about whether or not Hostess was going to continue to be viable in the market place. They would know better than all of us, if the company had any chance of righting itself. This wasn't a haphazard decision by greedy employees. The decision to strike isn't reached easily. It isn't sought as a money grab, people. These were skilled Americans with families, much like you and me, deciding that going without for an unknown amount of time was better for their long term health versus working for this company another day. It's not a easy decision to make and no one makes it callously. These people know their worth to this company and to the market. The company could have 1.) hired replacements, 2.) met the employees demands, 3.) reached a compromise with the employees returning them back to work or 4.) closed its doors.

When the company chooses option #4, that tells us a lot. That they couldn't hire replacements, no one would agree to the terms they were offering or they didn't have the money on hand to do so, speaks volumes. This was a company that needed to go. Capitalism will prevail.

 

[Saint Sarah]

Right. So should the workers sacrifice their market value to keep a terribly run business going in the hopes that the business will eventually not be so terrible?

According to this thread, there is still a high demand for Twinkies. I more solvent company will take advantage of that. All they have to do now is find 18,000 skilled workers. Hmmm....

The business is at fault. The business was run into the ground. The employees are getting blamed for not absorbing the business' mistakes. People on this thread are arguing that employees should put the poorly run business' interest above their own. The employess haven't lost their value level, the company has. A better company will replace Hostess, at least that's how capitalism is SUPPOSED to work. Nowadays though, companies get treated like royalty in this country and its acceptable practice to push the buck to the employees.

You're missing my point. I wasn't talking about big picture, but rather how you handle things from this moment on. Hostess was at the position where either the union people get back to work or everyone loses their job. The union ignored that and now, from numbers thrown around in this thread, twice as many non-union employees are out of a job as union folks are.

And Jim is right, maybe the Union folks looked at the books and said screw it. Let's burn the house down and let someone else come pick up the pieces and we'll be better off. Maybe that plays out well maybe it doesn't. However it plays out is going to take a long time. Now instead of people simply taking a pay cut and trying to take their service to the open market at the same time, they're going to have to take their services to the open market while not bringing anything in.

My point is I'd rather have 92% of my salary and look for another job than have no salary and be desperate for a job.

 

[jumpingoff]

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?

Agreed. A corporation needs employees as much as employees need the corporation. They are all stakeholders in the system and if they are unable find a way to make it work (together) in a survivable format then the operation folds.

 

[SWJJ]

Still no one wants to address the CEOs 300% pay increase amid all of this.