Unions Shut Down Hostess

[PLAYER57832]

Excuse me, but I was under the impression there was a vote held by union members. What was that result?

Your point?

What was the result of the union employee vote?

They turned down the management offer, of course. But why do you consider that significant?

[Phatscotty]

Excuse me, but I was under the impression there was a vote held by union members. What was that result?

Your point?

What was the result of the union employee vote?

They turned down the offer

so who's choice was it to shut the company down?

[Nola_Lifer]

I don't see how you can blame the workers for the shut down. Hostess filed Chapter 11 twice and lets say workers did take the pay cut, how would it be before management ask them to take another pay cut? 1 or 2 years? It was a failing company due to increase in price of materials and the fact that their products have no nutritional value.

[Timminz]

Point of order: shareholders are actually quite low on the list of those who will get anything back from a liquidated company. They are entitled to any residual equity after debts and other contractual obligations have been settled.

Once a company goes bankrupt, yes. However, they get "theirs" in the company operation overall. Also, if a company is disbanded quickly and while still productive, then there should be enough left over after paying employees and other debtees for shareholders to gain something.

Further, in my point.. it is like saying that the middle manager won't get an income after he/she is fired or quits. Some managers do their best to follow upper management dictates. Others take what they can for themselves... and run. Not necessarily talking embezzling here, but more just getting what they can, not worrying about any problems they leave, and quickly and secretly getting another job, leaving problems for the successor to fix.

I wasn't responding to anything you wrote. I was correcting a point patches made about shareholders getting paid before creditors.

[Lootifer]

Excuse me, but I was under the impression there was a vote held by union members. What was that result?

Your point?

What was the result of the union employee vote?

They turned down the offer

so who's choice was it to shut the company down?

Im not really a union kind of guy, theyre a pretty outdated concept now that we have many other, more appropriate, forms of employee protection. However the union turning down managements' offer is hardly equatable with them being the catalyst for the hostess failure.

You can just as easily say that managements low ball offer was what broke the company (however this is utter BS too).

What fucked hostess was good old fashioned shithouse management; sure the union didnt help, but no amount of employees sucking it up were likely to get them out of the hole they were in.

[Funkyterrance]

Excuse me, but I was under the impression there was a vote held by union members. What was that result?

Your point?

What was the result of the union employee vote?

They turned down the offer

so who's choice was it to shut the company down?

Im not really a union kind of guy, theyre a pretty outdated concept now that we have many other, more appropriate, forms of employee protection. However the union turning down managements' offer is hardly equatable with them being the catalyst for the hostess failure.

You can just as easily say that managements low ball offer was what broke the company (however this is utter BS too).

What fucked hostess was good old fashioned shithouse management; sure the union didnt help, but no amount of employees sucking it up were likely to get them out of the hole they were in.

So if the company was struggling due to decrease in demand combined with increase in costs(generally accepted explanation), why would this be the fault of management? If there is less profits to go around, everyone has to take a pay cut. The union employees went on strike as though they were somehow detached from the company as a whole so I would say that they are to blame for not being "team players".

[thegreekdog]

A local Philadelphia bakery (in the vein of Hostess - Tastycake) was having similar problems a couple of years ago. I wonder if they are related.

[crispybits]

So if the company was struggling due to decrease in demand combined with increase in costs(generally accepted explanation), why would this be the fault of management? If there is less profits to go around, everyone has to take a pay cut. The union employees went on strike as though they were somehow detached from the company as a whole so I would say that they are to blame for not being "team players".

You're right there, and perhaps the union employees were viewing the pay rises the management were giving themselves and wondering where their pay rises were seeing as they were all part of the same team?

The "team player" argument is pure BS in this case beause it was management who were happy to award themselves rises and expected the workers to reduce their pay at the same time.

[Phatscotty]

I don't see how you can blame the workers for the shut down. Hostess filed Chapter 11 twice and lets say workers did take the pay cut, how would it be before management ask them to take another pay cut? 1 or 2 years? It was a failing company due to increase in price of materials and the fact that their products have no nutritional value.

the workers gave up

[Phatscotty]

Excuse me, but I was under the impression there was a vote held by union members. What was that result?

Your point?

What was the result of the union employee vote?

They turned down the offer

so who's choice was it to shut the company down?

Im not really a union kind of guy, theyre a pretty outdated concept now that we have many other, more appropriate, forms of employee protection. However the union turning down managements' offer is hardly equatable with them being the catalyst for the hostess failure.

Was there a different result from the union members turning down the offer that we are not aware of?

[Lootifer]

So if the company was struggling due to decrease in demand combined with increase in costs(generally accepted explanation), why would this be the fault of management? If there is less profits to go around, everyone has to take a pay cut. The union employees went on strike as though they were somehow detached from the company as a whole so I would say that they are to blame for not being "team players".

You know what management do right? Its not simply telling people when to turn up and go home, and whipping them when they do bad. Strategic decisions are high level managements most important responsibility. It would appear that Hostess is failing because they did not evolve with the market; as you say, demand is dropping and costs are rising. In a very evolved market such as foodstuffs there is no excuse for losing demand to substitutes other than weak management. Look at the fast food chains for example; they quickly adjusted their menus in light of people - at least on the surface - becoming more health conscious.

Was there a different result from the union members turning down the offer that we are not aware of?

You seem to be mistaking the effect (pay cuts - which were refused) for the cause (drop in demand, debt loading, and rise in costs) in this case.

@Both of you:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/ ... ad-to-die/

[thegreekdog]

So if the company was struggling due to decrease in demand combined with increase in costs(generally accepted explanation), why would this be the fault of management? If there is less profits to go around, everyone has to take a pay cut. The union employees went on strike as though they were somehow detached from the company as a whole so I would say that they are to blame for not being "team players".

You know what management do right? Its not simply telling people when to turn up and go home, and whipping them when they do bad. Strategic decisions are high level managements most important responsibility. It would appear that Hostess is failing because they did not evolve with the market; as you say, demand is dropping and costs are rising. In a very evolved market such as foodstuffs there is no excuse for losing demand to substitutes other than weak management. Look at the fast food chains for example; they quickly adjusted their menus in light of people - at least on the surface - becoming more health conscious.

Was there a different result from the union members turning down the offer that we are not aware of?

You seem to be mistaking the effect (pay cuts - which were refused) for the cause (drop in demand, debt loading, and rise in costs) in this case.

@Both of you:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/ ... ad-to-die/

The article you posted also refers to rising labor costs as one of the problems.

I thought I said this earlier in the thread (apparently not), but, as most things, it was a combination of factors. I blame two things: rising costs (including labor) and poor management. I don't blame overloading debt; these guys can go get more loans if they want to; but they didn't want to because the ship was sinking.

Ironically, one union did not concede on various items because the money would just go to a different union. Free market union competition!

[Phatscotty]

I understand the drop in demand, debt loading, and rise in costs. The response is to make cuts where you can, even in wages.

I'm really not trying to take the side of the management, I'm trying to take the side of the JOBS.

[Lootifer]

I understand the drop in demand, debt loading, and rise in costs. The response is to make cuts where you can, even in wages.

I'm really not trying to take the side of the management, I'm trying to take the side of the JOBS.

Fair enough; I would say though, a good portion of those jobs, from an economic/financial pov, needed to go even if Hostess were to survive. Just a sad consequence of a big business struggling.

[Phatscotty]

I understand the drop in demand, debt loading, and rise in costs. The response is to make cuts where you can, even in wages.

I'm really not trying to take the side of the management, I'm trying to take the side of the JOBS.

Fair enough; I would say though, a good portion of those jobs, from an economic/financial pov, needed to go even if Hostess were to survive. Just a sad consequence of a big business struggling.

Whatever it takes to keep them here, for however as long as possible.

Either we want a better economy with more workers and taxpayers and wealth creation, or we don't.