Twinkies:

[DeletedUser34]

Well I heard the most distressing news today.
When I am stressing, me and twinkies are great friends. And yet today I hear Hostess is shutting down.
Now, the blame is squarely on the bakers union, so with that being said, I have long argued unions are bad for the economy, but with this episode, and proof in the pudding, should unions have that much power?

Seems to me, unions have become bullies, and thanks to the bakers union 16K people are out of work. How is this a good thing?

 

[DeletedUser]

Lol wow. Never thought Hostess would be going out of business, and never even knew they were in so much financial trouble until now.

The question is, why were they in such a financial hole?

 

[DeletedUser34]

They weren't in financial trouble. They had made agreements with all the other unions involved, but the bakers union held out for more saying they wouldn't compromise. Hostess said there was nothing else to give, they had to accept the concessions or the brand would close and be sold to the highest bidder. Bakers union held their ground, Hostess closed.

Let me rephrase, they were strapped because of union demands, but not enough to close their doors.

 

[DeletedUser]

They actually were in financial trouble. They were prepared to file bankruptcy (announced back in January) and were trying to avoid that by asking their employees to accept a wage cut. In fact, Hostess had previously filed bankruptcy a few years ago. And the number of employees is 18,500.

And the hole was caused by increasing labour costs (irony), a more competitive snack market, and the fact that increasing numbers of people are trying to live healthier lifestyles and avoid snack "food".

It's a shame that so many workers will be out on the street. And I don't think we're privy to the details of the reasoning behind the baker's union's refusal to accept the conditions brought forth by Hostess. But I applaud the efforts of all unions to attempt to better the work environments for their members. If not for unions, companies would have free reign and no limits on what they could or couldn't do to their work force.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Indeed, my opinion is that the problem resides in allowing imports without tariffs. Many of the generic copycat pastries are produced in other countries (Mexico, China, etc), where people are paid pennies. U.S. based companies cannot effectively compete with that, and yet the solution is not to lower the income wages for the employed, that only hurts the nation as a whole. The solution is to impose tariffs, taxes on imported goods. We just can't keep allowing the U.S. to be "buyers" of imports without creating a stable environment for local producers. And while tariffs, taxes on imported goods will invariably raise the cost of living, assuring local businesses are able to thrive will ensure wages, earnings of individuals within the nation are not likewise compromised. Instead, we've been going the opposite direction. We've allowed borderless corporations to make incredible profits whilst buying things for pocket change overseas and importing into the U.S., jacking up the price substantially yet making sure the price is still much lower than what it would cost to make the product here in the U.S.

This kills jobs in the U.S., prevents the government from obtaining additional revenue (no/low tariffs), undermines local producers, still ends up increasing the cost of living, and forces local businesses to lower wages.

Things like NAFTA and the Asian trade agreements are what hurt the U.S. And, to be honest, it encourages those exploitative nations to continue to exploit their citizenry. It doesn't increase wage earnings in those nations, it merely fills the pockets of borderless corporations and the coffers of those exploitative governments.

In short, we're doing it wrong. Oh and you can thank Reagan & Bush Sr.

 

[DeletedUser34]

They were prepared to file, but they were going to be able to pull through if the unions would take a new agreement. I absolutely despise unions, and this is just another example of one unions greed has cost the food in other peoples mouths. All the other unions took the concessions...it was purely the bakers who refused...and look at what happened.

bah hell, you forgot dear ole Clinton

And you are right to a point Hell, but, and this is a big but, doesn't matter who you blame, the fact is it is what it is, and you have to be able to bounce around in the perimeters set. They would have been fine if they could have negotiated with the bakers. Is it better to have a job with a lower wage, or no job? Bakers Union chose. and 16K people will pay.

 

[DeletedUser]

My husband's a union guy, and we were talking about this tonight. We don't know what the unions have had to give up all along this downfall,or whether it's caused by economic factors, high costs, or bad management - probably a bit of all three. But sometimes, there's just not anything else to give, so they just put their foot down and let the chips fall where they may.

Luckily, my husband is in a company where both sides currently respect each other, which hasn't always been the case. When that happens, the sides can work together to make sure the company remains viable while workers are fairly treated and compensated. It's when one side declares war against the other that both the company and the welfare of the workers suffer.

Right now in history, American workers are at a distinct disadvantage. Anti-union rhetoric is at an all-time high, and even as management compensation and profits in some sectors has risen astronomically, wages have stagnated and working conditions are deteriorating, resulting in the retreat of the middle class. There are many reasons for it, but laying the blame solely at the feet of the unions is an unearned simplification of problem. Whenever one side has too much power over the other, America as a whole suffers. If the middle class is ever to rise again, unions are needed.

 

[DeletedUser34]

((((MEL))))
Nice of you to haunt my other home

I agree unions serve their purpose, but lately they have gotten to the point where many of them demand things that are not ever going to happen. Can't happen, won't happen, and any other happen you want to add. Now I realize not all unions are this way, but many are. Sadly, this seems to happen more and more, and I think that it is the behaviors of the unions that is ruining their reputation more so than "rhetoric". There was absolutely no reason for the Bakers union to risk all the other jobs the way they did. People are out of work, they should have been happy they had a job.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree unions serve their purpose, but lately they have gotten to the point where many of them demand things that are not ever going to happen. Can't happen, won't happen, and any other happen you want to add. Now I realize not all unions are this way, but many are. Sadly, this seems to happen more and more, and I think that it is the behaviors of the unions that is ruining their reputation more so than "rhetoric". There was absolutely no reason for the Bakers union to risk all the other jobs the way they did. People are out of work, they should have been happy they had a job.

I doubt putting thousands of workers, including themselves, out of work was a decision they made on a whim just to make an unreasonably stubborn point -- of course, I'm open to evidence on the contrary.

 

[DeletedUser34]

truly Diggo, I don't much care what you doubt, or "evidence" to prove otherwise...fact is, that IS what they did...and they were told by Hostess, there is nothing more to give, you guys except it like other unions did, or we will close the doors and sell the brand to the highest bidder. They called the Bakers bluff...

So whether they "Meant" to or not, they knew what they were doing and did it anyway.

 

[DeletedUser]

truly Diggo, I don't much care what you doubt, or "evidence" to prove otherwise...fact is, that IS what they did...and they were told by Hostess, there is nothing more to give, you guys except it like other unions did, or we will close the doors and sell the brand to the highest bidder. They called the Bakers bluff...

So whether they "Meant" to or not, they knew what they were doing and did it anyway.

What country do you think this is, China? It is the corporation's responsibility to provide adequate pay for their staff, should they be unable to do so then workers (and their collective unions) have the right to walk away, not vice versa. How does the free market go again…? Hostess couldn't pay their bills, and yes labor is as valid an expense as any other, so it'll be divided up and sold to the highest bidder who can make their investments profitable. Unions have been able to reject unsuitable pay and benefit cuts since their inception, at the high stakes cost of their own jobs/livelihoods, not sure what you think the difference is now.

What's more interesting is why Hostess couldn't remain profitable. (Spoiler: they've already cut labor costs significantly from 2004.) On that interesting topic, I couldn't agree more with HS. Businesses don't need lower taxes, less unions or a president picking a fight with China, they need lower personal taxes for lower/middle classes (increasing consumer wealth hence demand) and higher tariffs on competing foreign knockoffs.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Ok, Diggo, BUT the point still remains that while you and Hell are right, it is a bit late to change what was. The fact is because of the business practices that were in place, Hostess didn't have the money to cater to the bakers. It doesn't matter why they cut costs, what matters is that in order for them to remain in business concessions had to be made. Every other union made those decisions...the bakers did not.

In the here and now, in the environment that is what we currently have, the closing of Hostess falls squarely on the Bakers unions backs, and now how many people will be looking for work? I think it is ridiculous how unions don't look at the larger picture, but only how to better themselves and screw anyone and everyone else.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is hearsay, of course, but from my experience with what can go on between management and unions, this sounds about right.

There is no limit to the power of management when they choose to not care about a company and only care about their own compensation. In these circumstances, unlike those they employ, they can walk away and be more than fine.

Resubmitted from Gawker.com:

From the WSJ comments section - long, but worth the read:
12:10 am November 13, 2012
St Louis wrote :
Unions are not what is wrong with Hostess. Management is what is wrong. My husband has worked for WonderBread for 13 years. Explain to me how 4 mgrs for 5 employees makes sense? Tell me how the company goes into bankruptcy but can pay someone $1 million to "fix" the company. Those that are not involved with the company can say anything. It’s always the Unions fault. If you only knew what was really going on within that company.This statement is exactly what has happened. St Louis has been rumored to close for at least 3 yrs now. I would like to see you go to work tomorrow and say OK to any paycut. At some point you have to stick up for yourself.
I am a Hostess employee. Hostess stopped our pension contributions a yr & a half ago. Then they gave the top execs pay raises of 30-80%. They offered new contracts: no pension payments (no retirement plan at all for union employees, but company management still gets contributions to their retirement plans) for another 2 & 1/2 yrs, and then a 75% reduction in pension when they do start paying into it again; we have to pay an ADDITIONAL $200/ mo for health insurance; They took away our last cost of living raise; they gave us an 8% wage cut on top of that; they are outsourcing all of the office work to Manilla; they are closing 12 plants. THIS WAS ALL PART OF THE CONTRACT THAT WENT INTO EFFECT LAST MONTH!!
The 3 bakery closures were not due to the labor strike, they were locations on the closure list. Hostess used the opportunity provided by the strike to close them w/o having to pay severance or give notice. Hostess will be closing more plants whether the strike is resolved or not. We were told that if both major unions did not accept the new contracts, Hostess would IMMEDIATELY liquidate and we would all lose our jobs. Teamsters accepted (barely), Bakers did not. Hostess didn’t liquidate. We were told that if there was any kind of a strike, Hostess would IMMEDIATELY liquidate & we would lose our jobs. Bakers went on strike, Hostess didn’t liquidate. The Seattle bakery was literally 100 years old. They have been talking about closing it for years. Of the 3 plants closed- the only one on official strike was Seattle. St. Louis & Cincinnati were not on strike.
It’s frustrating for Hostess employees working their butts off and taking all these cuts, to still see Management driving luxury rental cars, flying all over the county at $1,000/ ticket, having meetings in Vegas, spending $200/ night on hotels, $75 on ONE meal for ONE person, golf tournaments at $1,000/ea, throwing away MASSIVE amounts of product because they don’t do their jobs right, the list goes on.
We keep taking cuts and they keep wasting money. We took cuts a few yrs ago (during the LAST bankruptcy) and the money was supposed to be used to update equipment, facilities, 50 yr old route trucks; new product development, etc. None of that ever happened. They wasted the money and then came back to us for more. Where are their cuts and sacrifices? I wish people out there would realize what’s going on. 6 CEOs in the past few yrs?? Doesn’t anyone see what’s wrong w/ this picture? There’s no one there anymore who truly cares about this company. It’s nobody’s ‘baby’. Nobody w/ the power to make decisions loves it. They just care about the money. It’s heartbreaking. I don’t blame any of the employees for finally saying they’ve had enough.

 

[DeletedUser34]

ok, so why didn't the people who were having issues just find new jobs? The other unions were happy with their lot, well not happy, but willing to make the deal. If the bakers were having issues, why not leave?
And secondly, I have watch the teachers union drain school districts. I don't know if I posted the open letter from Westgate lakes on here or if I just sent it to Diggo...

But the thing people don't get is the owners are owners, and don't want to take the risk with no reward. They had nothing to lose by closing the factory. In fact they gained. All the bakers did was chop the jewels from all the other blue collar workers. How is that right?

 

[DeletedUser]

ok, so why didn't the people who were having issues just find new jobs? The other unions were happy with their lot, well not happy, but willing to make the deal. If the bakers were having issues, why not leave?
And secondly, I have watch the teachers union drain school districts. I don't know if I posted the open letter from Westgate lakes on here or if I just sent it to Diggo...

Why not leave? Umm that's exactly what they did lol, the bakers said "bugger this" and walked away. And you know as well as the rest of us, just because unions can be unreasonable, doesn't mean every single union ever is and will be.

But the thing people don't get is the owners are owners, and don't want to take the risk with no reward. They had nothing to lose by closing the factory. In fact they gained. All the bakers did was chop the jewels from all the other blue collar workers. How is that right?

Omg, back to more emotionally appealing socialism! Anyway I disagree, you yourself said the result of this will likely be the company going belly up, so the owners better say bai bai to their extortionate profits as they come in one last time. Following that I would expect most of the workers to receive employment for better wages by whoever purchases the sold off assets, those getting the cut being the excessive managers.

 

[DeletedUser]

But the thing people don't get is the owners are owners, and don't want to take the risk with no reward. They had nothing to lose by closing the factory. In fact they gained.

I think you answered your own question here. It was a fait accomplis, the bakers union must have known this and realised they were on a hiding to nothing. The owners would obviously blame the Union, it's what happens in these cases.

 

[DeletedUser]

This game of running a company into the ground while looting it of whatever you can and blaming unions or labor costs for the company's demise is played out over and over again. It's a game only the rich and powerful can play, and while it's not the only cause, it's one of the causes of the decimation of the middle class - the virtual engine that runs the American economy. When ordinary Joes can't find employment that offers living wages and decent benefits because every company is trying to lower labor costs, everyone but the executives loses. In the meantime, executives collect bonuses because the stock market just LOVES it when management sticks it to labor, and when it doesn't work out so well, they just grab their golden parachutes and take off to destroy the next company.

Does this really sound like a good way to "grow the economy"? You can call the growing wealth gap a tribute to the Darwinian doctrine of "spoils to the victors," but it's NOT good for the general welfare of America. And as long as there is a continued degradation of labor laws and union power, the middle class will continue to shrink to insignificance.

Is it any wonder that people have to turn to gov't help thru our tax dollars rather than work for slave wages and zero benefits? WE ALL pay for greed at the top.

 

[DeletedUser34]

It is THEIR companies though. I don't see how people don't get that. Yes most unions are good...but the bad ones ruin it. Nothing any of you guys says changes the fact that in this case, most employees decided a job with a paycut was better than no job, but the bakers union decided to play god for everyone....

And the government is the one that did this...they are the ones that opened it up to foreign markets to move in and sell things at pennies on the dollar. This is a mess the government put us in. As to the raises and such. Same thing that happened with the banks and the automakers....contracts had to be lived up to. If it was in their contracts to receive a raise or bonus, legally they had to get one.

 

[DeletedUser]

It is THEIR companies though. I don't see how people don't get that.

I don't understand what you mean? People don't get what exactly? Yes, they own the means of production but nothing can be made without people willing to exchange their labour for a fair wage. If they don't get a fair wage they won't work. Are you advocating that because they own the company they should be able to pay what they like and expect labour to agree? They can try. I would imagine most owners would love to pay a pittance, that's how industrialisation started before Unions were formed to protect labour. Basic stuff.

 

[DeletedUser]

And the government is the one that did this...they are the ones that opened it up to foreign markets to move in and sell things at pennies on the dollar. This is a mess the government put us in. As to the raises and such. Same thing that happened with the banks and the automakers....contracts had to be lived up to. If it was in their contracts to receive a raise or bonus, legally they had to get one.

Ok, Diggo, BUT the point still remains that while you and Hell are right, it is a bit late to change what was... In the here and now, in the environment that is what we currently have, the closing of Hostess falls squarely on the Bakers unions backs, and now how many people will be looking for work? I think it is ridiculous how unions don't look at the larger picture, but only how to better themselves and screw anyone and everyone else.

Omg, make up yer mind, is it the government or is it the union!?!

[spoil]

[/spoil]