Conquer Club

Unions Shut Down Hostess

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby thegreekdog on Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:37 pm

spurgistan wrote:
oss spy wrote:Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would shut down when it can't sustain itself and its workers go on strike after it attempts to make necessary pay cuts.


Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would award its executives raises for a job horribly done, then try to leverage workers into lower wages citing said horrible job by executives. Oh, no, wait, that's how the economy works now.


Yeah, I don't really understand why people would take the side of the executives unless they are executives themselves.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:51 pm

What I'd like to know is if the dude who worked for a $1 salary gained compensatory benefits like company stocks? If so, he probably would've made out really well if the company held together, especially considering he'd pay less taxes on stock distribution income than salary income. And, even if the company does belly-up, when they sell assets, stockholders will usually get some of that revenue.

Basically I'm wondering if what this CEO did was designed to look good but really didn't cut him much; or whether he really was trying to "take one for the team."

Regardless, I think the employees' union should've agreed to the 5% salary cut but perhaps ask for some of that back in company stocks for the employees.
Last edited by stahrgazer on Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Nola_Lifer on Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:51 pm

spurgistan wrote:
oss spy wrote:Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would shut down when it can't sustain itself and its workers go on strike after it attempts to make necessary pay cuts.


Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would award its executives raises for a job horribly done, then try to leverage workers into lower wages citing said horrible job by executives. Oh, no, wait, that's how the economy works now.


Sounds like what our legislator do too.
Image
User avatar
Major Nola_Lifer
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: é›Ŗå±±

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:56 pm

Nola_Lifer wrote:Sounds like what our legislator do too.

Yup, they sure do.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby notyou2 on Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:00 pm

Is it possible that either the bank or an outside interest takes control and the employees are called back?
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Nola_Lifer on Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:10 pm

notyou2 wrote:Is it possible that either the bank or an outside interest takes control and the employees are called back?


PBR owners were reported to buy it but they didn't bite.
Image
User avatar
Major Nola_Lifer
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: é›Ŗå±±

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:27 pm

notyou2 wrote:Is it possible that either the bank or an outside interest takes control and the employees are called back?


According to the news yesterday, they've had at least 6 interested parties, some of whom would be willing to bring back union'd employees
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:12 am

Image

Killing the goose that lays the golden egg is one of those old fairy tales for children which has a heavy message that a lot of adults should listen to. The labor unions which have driven the makers of Twinkies into bankruptcy, potentially destroying 18,500 jobs, could have learned a lot from that old children's fairy tale.

Many people think of labor unions as organizations to benefit workers, and think of employers who are opposed to unions as just people who don't want to pay their employees more money. But some employers have made it a point to pay their employees more than the union wages, just to keep them from joining a union.

Why would they do that, if it is just a question of not wanting to pay union wages? The Twinkies bankruptcy is a classic example of costs created by labor unions that are not confined to paychecks.

The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.

All of this was obviously intended to create more jobs for the unions' members. But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy, which can cost 18,500 jobs. The union is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Not only are there reasons for employers to pay their workers enough to keep them from joining unions, there are reasons why workers in the private sector have increasingly voted against joining unions. They have seen unions driving jobs away to non-union competitors at home or driving them overseas, whether with costly work rules or in other ways.

The old-time legendary labor leader John L. Lewis called so many strikes in the coal mines that many people switched to using oil instead, because they couldn't depend on coal deliveries. A professor of labor economics at the University of Chicago called John L. Lewis "the world's greatest oil salesman."

There is no question that Lewis' United Mine Workers Union raised the pay and other benefits for coal miners. But the higher costs of producing coal not only led many consumers to switch to oil, these costs also led coal companies to substitute machinery for labor, reducing the number of miners.

By the 1960s, many coal-mining towns were almost ghost towns. But few people connected the dots back to the glory years of John L. Lewis. The United Mine Workers Union did not kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, but it created a situation where fewer of those golden eggs reached the miners.

It was much the same story in the automobile industry and the steel industry, where large pensions and costly work rules drove up the prices of finished products and drove down the number of jobs. There is a reason why there was a major decline in the proportion of private sector employees who joined unions. It was not just the number of union workers who ended up losing their jobs. Other workers saw the handwriting on the wall and refused to join unions.

There is also a reason why labor unions are flourishing among people who work for government. No matter how much these public sector unions drive up costs, government agencies do not go out of business. They simply go back to the taxpayers for more money.

Consumers in the private sector have the option of buying products and services from competing, non-union companies-- from Toyota instead of General Motors, for example, even though most Toyotas sold in America are made in America. Consumers of other products can buy things made in non-union factories overseas.

But government agencies are monopolies. You cannot get your Social Security checks from anywhere except the Social Security Administration or your driver's license from anywhere but the DMV.

Is it surprising that government employees have seen their pay go up, even during the downturn, and their pensions rise to levels undreamed of in the private sector? None of this will kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so long as there are both current taxpayers and future taxpayers to pay off debts passed on to them.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:02 pm

Evil Semp wrote:
spurgistan wrote:
oss spy wrote:Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would shut down when it can't sustain itself and its workers go on strike after it attempts to make necessary pay cuts.


Wow. It's hard to believe that a company would award its executives raises for a job horribly done, then try to leverage workers into lower wages citing said horrible job by executives. Oh, no, wait, that's how the economy works now.


+1

Yeah.. and not to mention that the product they sell is extremely unhealthy and never been truly updated to meet today's standards.

But.. the brand will be sold to satisfy the nitche market, meanwhile, the owners/executives have enough in their bank accounts to rest easy/retire for quite some time. The workers.. those poor slobs really should have gone to college. Totally their own fault. No reason they should expect anything more than whatever pittance the owners wish to provide.... just like most every other company in the US. But hey.. manufacturing isn't really dead. There are always robots.
sarcasm, in case anyone missed the point....
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:20 am

Obviously, the CEO is the problem here [sarcasm]

The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.


multiply the trucks (did you know it costs $8,000 to wrap/paint a truck with the Wonder or Hostess logo?), the fuel (diesel), the maintenance and constant upkeep of the trucks (oil changes, flat tires, head gaskets transmissions and engine replacements), the commercial insurance on the trucks, the permits required by cities to operate on their roads, the virtual double wages paid for 2 employees to do the same job that 1 employee can and should be doing, meaning double healthcare and double benefit packages (bereavement pay etc) by 6,500.....makes CEO pay look like chump change....

even when CEO pay is not 1$
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby MeDeFe on Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:30 am

Phatscotty wrote:
The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.


multiply the trucks, the fuel, the maintenance and constant upkeep of the trucks (oil changes, flat tires, head gaskets transmissions and engine replacements), the commercial insurance on the trucks, the permits required by cities to operate on their roads, the virtual double wages paid for 2 employees to do the same job that 1 employee can and should be doing, meaning double healthcare and double benefit packages (bereavement pay etc) by 6,500.....makes CEO pay chump change....

even when it's 1$

None of what you quoted necessarily leads to the conclusion you drew, namely that the company had to pay twice as much as strictly required. After all, one truck full of Twinkies and one truck full of Wonderbread is no different from two trucks loaded with a mix of the two products. The truck drivers can probably do something else while their trucks are being loaded. Finally, as with the trucks, 2 people handling the Twinkies and 2 people handling the Wonderbread is no different from 4 people handling either product.

I actually agree with you that it's a silly requirement, and I don't think it could be fulfilled perfectly without some additional cost. But I don't for a moment believe that it actually doubled the costs for the company as you say.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:40 am

MeDeFe wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.


multiply the trucks, the fuel, the maintenance and constant upkeep of the trucks (oil changes, flat tires, head gaskets transmissions and engine replacements), the commercial insurance on the trucks, the permits required by cities to operate on their roads, the virtual double wages paid for 2 employees to do the same job that 1 employee can and should be doing, meaning double healthcare and double benefit packages (bereavement pay etc) by 6,500.....makes CEO pay chump change....

even when it's 1$

None of what you quoted necessarily leads to the conclusion you drew, namely that the company had to pay twice as much as strictly required. After all, one truck full of Twinkies and one truck full of Wonderbread is no different from two trucks loaded with a mix of the two products. The truck drivers can probably do something else while their trucks are being loaded. Finally, as with the trucks, 2 people handling the Twinkies and 2 people handling the Wonderbread is no different from 4 people handling either product.

I actually agree with you that it's a silly requirement, and I don't think it could be fulfilled perfectly without some additional cost. But I don't for a moment believe that it actually doubled the costs for the company as you say.


I spent many years in a couple of unions, and I understand that language.

Sure, you are right. But it shows the overall picture quite well.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Dukasaur on Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:00 am

MeDeFe wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.


multiply the trucks, the fuel, the maintenance and constant upkeep of the trucks (oil changes, flat tires, head gaskets transmissions and engine replacements), the commercial insurance on the trucks, the permits required by cities to operate on their roads, the virtual double wages paid for 2 employees to do the same job that 1 employee can and should be doing, meaning double healthcare and double benefit packages (bereavement pay etc) by 6,500.....makes CEO pay chump change....

even when it's 1$

None of what you quoted necessarily leads to the conclusion you drew, namely that the company had to pay twice as much as strictly required. After all, one truck full of Twinkies and one truck full of Wonderbread is no different from two trucks loaded with a mix of the two products. The truck drivers can probably do something else while their trucks are being loaded. Finally, as with the trucks, 2 people handling the Twinkies and 2 people handling the Wonderbread is no different from 4 people handling either product.

I actually agree with you that it's a silly requirement, and I don't think it could be fulfilled perfectly without some additional cost. But I don't for a moment believe that it actually doubled the costs for the company as you say.

Wouldn't have doubled the costs, of course, but would have added to it substantially. A lot of retail outlets have very small orders, and of course they tend to be in urban areas, so the fuel wasted in traffic and the time required to drive to them is quite high. Overall, the cost of delivery relative to the value of the product is very high.

I know that when Hostess bought Frito-Lay, the savings in distribution costs was the top reason cited as motivating the merger. Why didn't they apply the same reasoning to other product lines?

Still, none of this excuses the management. If union work rules were the largest problem, why didn't they ask the union for work rules concessions instead of wage concessions?

Especially vis-a-vis the delivery situation. If I'm a business owner, and I have two delivery trucks running and I suspect one truck could do both routes, I'll think something like this: Each driver costs me $200/day, but each truck costs me $300/day, for a total of $1000/day. The drivers are going to be pissed off if I fire either one of them. (Obviously the one I fire, but even the other one will show a morale drop.) On the other hand, the trucks don't really care if I keep them or not. So, here's a plan. I'll combine the routes, sell one of the trucks, but keep both drivers. Each one can work half the week and spend the other half on standby at full pay. I'll be trimming my costs from $1000 to $700, which might not be as good as getting all the way to $500 but it's still a big savings. And the $200 is not pure loss; I'm getting an experienced fill-in if the other other calls in sick or quits unexpectedly, or in case business picks up. This kind of compromise is indeed possible and in some companies has been done successfully, but it requires a little bit of creative thinking. Oh, and it also requires thinking about your employees as being rational people instead of stereotyping them as "those union assholes."
Image
User avatar
Major Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26925
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby oVo on Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:05 pm

Unions didn't shut down Hostess,
Corporate greed did.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:08 pm

oVo wrote:Unions didn't shut down Hostess,
Corporate greed did.


I'm pretty sure it was corporate incompetence, unions, and a hostess of other factors. Not sure corporate greed was what did it. Plenty of successful companies pay their shareholders nice dividends and their officers high salaries and don't go out of business.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby oVo on Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:18 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Plenty of successful companies pay their shareholders nice dividends and their officers high salaries and don't go out of business.

True, Wal-Mart is a prime example.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:54 pm

oVo wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Plenty of successful companies pay their shareholders nice dividends and their officers high salaries and don't go out of business.

True, Wal-Mart is a prime example.


Right. You're probably trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby stahrgazer on Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:32 pm

Tom Sullivan did a show on the Twinkies and the Wal-Mart "Black Thursday Walkout" the other night. A woman called in comparing Unionized Macy's 5-20 years ago (she worked there 15 years but left them 5 years ago) to non-Unionized Wal-Mart. As late as 5 years ago, Unionized-Macy's was paying minimum wage (just over $7), no benefits, and and employee had to be there for 18 months to get a (small) raise. While non-unionized Wal-Mart in the same city was paying over $9 an hour.

Not all unions are bad, and not all companies are good.

I heard today, the Hostess management is wanting its bonuses - I think they said it totals over $1billion worth of bonuses - that the guys who mis-managed the company are putting in a claim for with the bankruptcy court.

Hearing that makes me think, nope, Unions didn't shut down Hostess, management greed did.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:31 pm

stahrgazer wrote:Tom Sullivan did a show on the Twinkies and the Wal-Mart "Black Thursday Walkout" the other night. A woman called in comparing Unionized Macy's 5-20 years ago (she worked there 15 years but left them 5 years ago) to non-Unionized Wal-Mart. As late as 5 years ago, Unionized-Macy's was paying minimum wage (just over $7), no benefits, and and employee had to be there for 18 months to get a (small) raise. While non-unionized Wal-Mart in the same city was paying over $9 an hour.

Not all unions are bad, and not all companies are good.

I heard today, the Hostess management is wanting its bonuses - I think they said it totals over $1billion worth of bonuses - that the guys who mis-managed the company are putting in a claim for with the bankruptcy court.

Hearing that makes me think, nope, Unions didn't shut down Hostess, management greed did.


The amount was $1.8 million.
http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/11/30/hos ... 8-million/

"Hostess claims that the bonuses for the top executives are needed in order to retain them as the liquidation process plays out for the company."

It's a shame the executives don't have the same frame of mind as scotty. They should be thankful that they have a job for another year but what they heck give them extra money.

Phatscotty wrote:Well, it's not very illogical for me. If my job wanted to cut me 5%, I wouldn't walk out. Maybe I would start looking around or something, but when I worked at a union job, we were taking cuts every year. Cuts in pay, cuts in benefits, giving up raises. the main reason it wasn't a big deal to me was because I was earning a damn good wage,
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:59 am

Evil Semp wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:Tom Sullivan did a show on the Twinkies and the Wal-Mart "Black Thursday Walkout" the other night. A woman called in comparing Unionized Macy's 5-20 years ago (she worked there 15 years but left them 5 years ago) to non-Unionized Wal-Mart. As late as 5 years ago, Unionized-Macy's was paying minimum wage (just over $7), no benefits, and and employee had to be there for 18 months to get a (small) raise. While non-unionized Wal-Mart in the same city was paying over $9 an hour.

Not all unions are bad, and not all companies are good.

I heard today, the Hostess management is wanting its bonuses - I think they said it totals over $1billion worth of bonuses - that the guys who mis-managed the company are putting in a claim for with the bankruptcy court.

Hearing that makes me think, nope, Unions didn't shut down Hostess, management greed did.


The amount was $1.8 million.
http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/11/30/hos ... 8-million/

"Hostess claims that the bonuses for the top executives are needed in order to retain them as the liquidation process plays out for the company."

It's a shame the executives don't have the same frame of mind as scotty. They should be thankful that they have a job for another year but what they heck give them extra money.

Phatscotty wrote:Well, it's not very illogical for me. If my job wanted to cut me 5%, I wouldn't walk out. Maybe I would start looking around or something, but when I worked at a union job, we were taking cuts every year. Cuts in pay, cuts in benefits, giving up raises. the main reason it wasn't a big deal to me was because I was earning a damn good wage,


Okay, 1.8million, it's still a lot of money for a company that's going under. I think the situation is worse even than, "be thankful to have a job for another year." The mindset of "get in, get mine, and frig everyone else," No company loyalty, no country loyalty - from guys at the top. Precisely why I'm no longer as conservative/pro-capitalism as I once was - seeing how "no morals, no ethics, no loyalty," is praised by far too many pro-capitalists.

With those types of guys in power as an example, can you really, really, blame "unions" or "union workers" for wanting to band together to be powerful to do what they can to "get in, get mine, and frig everyone else." ??? Aren't they just playing "follow the leader" when they do that?

I mean, really, why should the low level worker be more loyal, more willing to sacrifice, than the top dogs there? Is the exec who took a $1 "salary" in for some of that bonus, and if so, doesn't that change the supposed "sacrifice" he made? "No, no, don't worry about my salary, just give me a nice big bonus at the end of the year."

Hey, I'd work for a dollar "salary" if I'd get a million dollars (oh, excuse me, $1.8 million) even if I ran my company under the river, wouldn't you?

Also, if those execs were in for that "bonus" whether the company went under or not, how much did they really work at "bargaining" with the union? How much of that, "What do I care, I get a huge bonus whether we stay open or not," came to the bargaining table?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby aad0906 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:02 am

I think those bonuses are divided by hundreds of people and I assume it's because they need an incentive to stay around and manage the liquidation instead of finding a new job right away. Why else would a judge have approved them? But I could be wrong.
User avatar
Major aad0906
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:15 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby spurgistan on Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:51 pm

aad0906 wrote:I think those bonuses are divided by hundreds of people and I assume it's because they need an incentive to stay around and manage the liquidation instead of finding a new job right away. Why else would a judge have approved them? But I could be wrong.


The story says the $1.8 million is split among 19 senior execs.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Evil Semp on Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:04 pm

aad0906 wrote:I think those bonuses are divided by hundreds of people and I assume it's because they need an incentive to stay around and manage the liquidation instead of finding a new job right away. Why else would a judge have approved them? But I could be wrong.


I understand what the bonus is for but the union employees were expected to stay around and take a cut in pay and benefits. Just waiting for NS os PS to justify this.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby patches70 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:38 pm

Evil Semp wrote:
aad0906 wrote:I think those bonuses are divided by hundreds of people and I assume it's because they need an incentive to stay around and manage the liquidation instead of finding a new job right away. Why else would a judge have approved them? But I could be wrong.


I understand what the bonus is for but the union employees were expected to stay around and take a cut in pay and benefits. Just waiting for NS os PS to justify this.


What do they have to justify? Hostess wasn't run on taxpayer money, what they pay their people is no one's business. If they want to shell out $1.8 million, so what? It's their money, not yours (or PS, or NS).

You want to extend sympathy to the workers? That's fine, but irrelevant. Hostess was some $850 million in debt. Their stock price dropped over 90% from the highs it once had. The company was dead. You can assign blame, but the real blame is that Hostess made products that are not in very good standing in today's concern about eating health and all that stuff. Hostess fell victim to the PSM trap, which affects companies, unions and nations alike.
When a Previously Successful Model fails it leads to only one of two choices. You either double down and pray it turns around, or you abandon the model and lose all the capital you invested in building it in the first place.
This capital invested is the reason why it's so hard sometimes for companies to alter their business model, because their resources were designed for a model that was previously successful and to retask requires a new capital injection.
When the stock price falls to $2 a share, getting that capital injection becomes impossible. That's how companies borrow after all.


Don't you think it's the judge who should justify his decision to you? After all, he's the one who approved it, didn't he?
Do you think the judge would give you the time of day if you demanded he justify his decision to you?
Why do you think he approved this?

I'll tell you why-
Guess who is really paying those bonuses anyway? The creditors. Not you.
In the article posted, it's claimed that there are hundreds of offers on the company. Most likely for the brand name recognition I'd think, but I don't really care. Now, if the union came with that sale, at the price tag of an extra $850 million, how many offers do you think there'd be?

The very reason there are so many offers is because the potential buyers are not going to be on the hook for the company's debts. That's the only reason there are so many offers (if there really are that many offers, I have no way of knowing for sure).

You don't seem to consider the other party in all this, either. The shareholders. These are often times just regular people, pension plans, mutual funds (which are bulked in to lots of people's 401K's and such), who are taking a hair cut in the end. I don't give a crap about the investment firms or banks who might be out money (screw them), but the poor suckers who had money invested in Hostess, which includes things like Teacher's Pension funds and multiple other investment groups/vehicles, that's a completely different thing. That's what's done, all kinds of plans that affect all kinds of people. But you all have to understand, these investors interest is to get a return on their money, which is not inline at all with the worker's interest, namely keeping a job. A job which was continuing to suck the investors dry. And there is nothing wrong with the shareholders wanting to get at least a portion of their money back. You'd want the same thing in their shoes.

That's why Hostess needs the best people they can get to make sure they recover as much of these people's funds as possible in the liquidation process. The more money these executives can recover, the better. And it seem a bit of these bonuses are tied directly to this caveat. A job like this does not fall into the skill set of the average worker at Hostess (former worker actually). If you were in the shareholder's shoes you'd insist on the same thing.

And that's why the judge approved.

MeDeFe wrote:After all, one truck full of Twinkies and one truck full of Wonderbread is no different from two trucks loaded with a mix of the two products.


Not true. Say a store has an order for wonderbread and twinkies. Hostess would have to send two trucks. Two trips where it could be done in one.
No matter how you slice it (heh heh), it's woefully inefficient. But hey, if that's what Hostess does, then that's their decision I suppose. Probably why they are in the mess they are in now. Because they are woefully stupid.


The unions do what they do, the management does what they do, the shareholders do what they do and regardless of what their agendas are, all of them are at the whims and fickleness of the consumer. Guess who has the real power?
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Unions Shut Down Hostess

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:45 pm

great post. Just reminding that the separate truck regulation where hostess and wonderbread cannot be mixed in the same truck is a union regulation (amongst other things). Sure, Hostess put up with it (no credit given) so in the end I agree that is how Hostess did it.

Stupidly
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users