NYCGOBEARS;842008100 said:
When was the last time anyone has eaten any of those things except deep fried at the Texas State Fair?
NVBear78;842008098 said:
No, not the terrorists, the unions have "won" and fired themselves at the same time.
GB54;842008114 said:
Does this mean Dan White no longer has a defense?
GB54;842008104 said:
I put one away in 1956. It's still good.
bearister;842008125 said:
You touch on an important yet little known fact: The shelf life of a Twinkie is 750 years.
GB54;842008092 said:
No, not the coaching staff.
59bear;842008137 said:
Cognizant of the troubles that Twinkies brought upon Dan White, I have restricted my intake of Hostess products to Zingers, HoHos and the occasional Ding Dong. Clearly my robust support was insufficient to keep them afloat. I'm hopeful that some White Knight will rise to their rescue and allow me to maintain my calorie count at an acceptable level.
GB54;842008114 said:
Does this mean Dan White no longer has a defense?
CalBearz02;842008119 said:
Yes, all workers should follow the race to the bottom and accept near minimum wage pay after working a lifetime.
Hostess going out of business is another illustration of the paradox of capitalism. It's a vicious cycle, with the workers, of course, usually getting the shaft.
All wages should be a "living" wage, yet many companies can't turn a "desirable" profit doing so. Thus, laborers are forced to comply to lesser wages/benefits or lose their job and collect unemployment. There is no way around this paradox.
Scottski51;842008149 said:
Ah, yes.... the continuous battering of unions as the root of All Evil. Lousy, ungrateful, employees. Where do they come off...."I just want to earn a living wage."
Pu-leeese!!!
Here's a link detailing a little more information about the poor little corporation that makes our delicious treats:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/16/fox-ignores-hostess-array-of-troubles-to-scapeg/191440
Pardon US, union employees for desiring a decent wage, some (not ALL) help w/health care, and a CHANCE to retire NOT into poverty. Shame on us!
Scottski51;842008149 said:
Ah, yes.... the continuous battering of unions as the root of All Evil.
sycasey;842008164 said:
That seems to be the default knee-jerk reaction on this board, which always puzzles me as we are supposed to come from a school that produces nothing but left-wing commies.
I'm sure unions can be blamed in some cases, but perhaps a deeper examination is called for here? Based on the history, it looks to me like Hostess has been a company on the way to failure for some time now; this was just the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. Not sure that can all be laid at the feet of the union.
Scottski51;842008149 said:
Ah, yes.... the continuous battering of unions as the root of All Evil. Lousy, ungrateful, employees. Where do they come off...."I just want to earn a living wage."
Pu-leeese!!!
Here's a link detailing a little more information about the poor little corporation that makes our delicious treats:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/16/fox-ignores-hostess-array-of-troubles-to-scapeg/191440
Pardon US, union employees for desiring a decent wage, some (not ALL) help w/health care, and a CHANCE to retire NOT into poverty. Shame on us!
Phantomfan;842008172 said:
So striking somehow helped their members? Explain who was helped and how.
mvargus;842008174 said:
Ah yes, Media Matters, the website that publishes the union line on any labor dispute.
Now, I'm not going to say that Hostess didn't have problems outside the union. However, one site I visited while reading about this noted that the biggest part of the problem was that Hostess had less than $100 million cash and liabilities of over $2 billion. A lot of that was unfunded pensions. (something that has brought down quite a few companies.)
but Hostess was also having trouble because the recent shift in eating habits that has people eating more carrot and fewer twinkies for snacks lowered their sales quite a bit. They ended up caught in a trap where they had to drop labor costs if they were going to stay in business.
And anyone with college level courses in business understand that. Hostess is not much unlike any other company that produces a product. They have fixed costs (building, executives, loans, capital equipment, maintenaince) that don't vary much no matter how many Ho-Ho's they are selling each month. Then they have variable costs (Fuel, flour, sugar, union labor hours.) that will rise and fall to some extent with the amount of product that is being sold.
when sales drop there is a limit on what can be done. Yes, Hostess should streamline management and stop raising executive compensation, but overall this is a very small part of the cost. The best areas to save money are going to be in the variable costs, and it's clear that Hostess tried to negotiate with the unions to lower their labor costs and allow the company to keep the doors open.
Unfortunately, the unions decided to stop production in protest. In this case, the company looked at the financial numbers and decided that they would be unable to continue doing business.
Interestingly, the bankruptcy judge who approved the new union contract that the strike was over told all the unions involved that in his judgement, the contract was the only chance Hostess had for staying in business.
Reports say that the Baker's Union decided that Hostess was bluffing.
This time, is wasn't a bluff and the union's decision to strike lead to managements decision to throw in the towel and shut down.
Both sides made their decision. My only questions are:
Do you think management will regret its decision?
DO you think the union regrets its decision?
what about in 2 years?
sycasey;842008164 said:
That seems to be the default knee-jerk reaction on this board, which always puzzles me as we are supposed to come from a school that produces nothing but left-wing commies.
I'm sure unions can be blamed in some cases, but perhaps a deeper examination is called for here? Based on the history, it looks to me like Hostess has been a company on the way to failure for some time now; this was just the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. Not sure that can all be laid at the feet of the union.
Quote:
Today, the Teamsters Union announced its recommendation to the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) that a vote of its Hostess members by secret ballot should be held to determine if the workers want to continue their strike of the company and force it into liquidation.
On Wednesday, Nov. 14, Hostess Brands indicated that if it couldn't resume normal operations by 5 p.m. EST on Thursday, Nov. 15 that it would have to begin the liquidation process. Teamster Hostess members and all Hostess employees should know this is not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic, but the certain outcome if members of the BCTGM continue to strike.This is based on conversations with our financial experts, who, because the Teamsters were involved in the legal process, had access to financial information about the company.
As stated previously, Teamster Hostess members have been frustrated by numerous missteps by a variety of Hostess management teams, but the union has tried to engage constructively to find a solution to preserve jobs. That comprehensive engagement has spanned 18 months.
The Teamsters chose to challenge the company's path of a worker-only solution, engage constructively so other constituents would be sacrificing and require management changes and oversight so that the same missteps would not be repeated.
In fact, when Hostess attempted to throw out its collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters in court, the Teamsters fought back and won, ensuring that Hostess could not unilaterally make changes to working conditions during the several months' long legal process that recently ended. Teamster Hostess members were allowed to decide their fate by voting on the final offer conducted by a secret mail ballot. More than two-thirds of Hostess Teamsters members voted with 53 percent voting to approve the final offer.
The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist. Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.
sycasey;842008180 said:
It probably didn't, but the way things were going everyone was going to be out of a job sooner or later. They made a gamble that maybe the company was better off than they claimed and lost.
bearister;842008125 said:
You touch on an important yet little known fact: The shelf life of a Twinkie is 750 years.
mvargus;842008186 said:
Perhaps because in this case, even the Teamster's union has charged a union with causing the harm. This comes from the teamsters website link:Teamster's Statement Regarding Hostess Strike and Liquidation
mvargus;842008191 said:
They didn't have to "gamble" Read the link I posted to the statement from the Teamster's Union. The Teamsters had been intimiately involved in the negotiations and state ourright that management WAS NOT IN A POSITOIN WHERE THEY COULD BLUFF!
The union that was on strike had access to all the information they needed to know that Hostess was going out of business if the strike continued. I tend to be anti-union on a general basis, but in this case no one should even attempt to defend the union. t's true Hostess might not have survived, but it's equally true that this strike was the killing blow to the wounded company.
Phantomfan;842008109 said:
This. Everyone who went on strike just took it the ass from their Union.
I doubt many will realize how bad the unions screwed them.
