Originally Posted by SynGamer No, I'm angry that they "stuck it to the man", cost 18,500 jobs, and then had the balls to complain and act like they had no choice/it wasn't their fault. Very large difference.

But why are you angry at the working folks?

Management is suing for their bonuses and they'll probably get them.

The working folks and are now poor and unemployed, and the pension system that they paid into has been borrowed, except in this case it will never be returned. Back in grade school we had another name for borrowing without returning - stealing.

So the worker has been pick-pocketed, pilloried in the press, and kicked to the curb. And that still doesn't slake your anger? For the sake of argument let's say they were short-sighted, my god man, how badly do these folks have to get screwed before you show an ounce of compassion?

Originally Posted by Regian I'll try and perhaps break through the flame wars with this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,2355592.story In a nutshell, Hostess and the union are going into mediation starting tomorrow.

To be more accurate, the bankruptcy judge basically said that the company couldn't begin liquidation because the executives gave themselves huge payoffs in it.

Originally Posted by detectiveconan16 Horray? But will this actually solve the problems that plagued the company in the first place? From terrible management, executives not funding pensions yet taking money from it, unions demanding more pay etc. etc?

We'll have to see. I believe the union has two board members, right? Surely there will be quite a few voting sessions regarding compensation on both ends. A company that brings in $2.5 billion annually surely must want to continue...

Hostess snacks were really not very good. Tastycake is way better, as far as packaged snack cakes and such go.

Originally Posted by camoor But why are you angry at the working folks? Management is suing for their bonuses and they'll probably get them. The working folks and are now poor and unemployed, and the pension system that they paid into has been borrowed, except in this case it will never be returned. Back in grade school we had another name for borrowing without returning - stealing. So the worker has been pick-pocketed, pilloried in the press, and kicked to the curb. And that still doesn't slake your anger? For the sake of argument let's say they were short-sighted, my god man, how badly do these folks have to get screwed before you show an ounce of compassion?

I guess I need to break it down a bit further. Yes, management has been terrible in this case, but not all the blame can be put on them. A LOT of companies have been negotiating to reduce wages and benefits after the economy collapsed in 2008. Hostess is no different. Management ran the company so poorly that when the union said they would strike, the company flatout replied that they would have to close if the union proceeds with said strike. So when it was first announced Hostess was closing up shop, the union only had themselves to look at. There's no way around it. Last I check Hostess was asking for an 8% wage cut, BUT would be giving that back over the next 5 years. All the wage bickering aside, all 18,500 employees would have still had jobs and would have started getting their pages back over the course of the next 5 years.

If they don't want to work for a struggling company, they can leave. But the fact still remains they were making well above minimum wage and would be making a short-term, temporary concession...the only compassion I have is for the people who had no choice regarding the strike and who showed up one day to work only to be greeted by picket lines.

Originally Posted by SynGamer Last I check Hostess was asking for an 8% wage cut, BUT would be giving that back over the next 5 years.

Just like they gave back the pension money right?

I can see you like your working man to be poor AND stupid.

Originally Posted by dohdough To be more accurate, the bankruptcy judge basically said that the company couldn't begin liquidation because the executives gave themselves huge payoffs in it.

Good for that judge, someone should buy him a box of devil dogs.

Originally Posted by crunchewy Hostess snacks were really not very good. Tastycake is way better, as far as packaged snack cakes and such go.

This is also true.

Originally Posted by dohdough To be more accurate, the bankruptcy judge basically said that the company couldn't begin liquidation because the executives gave themselves huge payoffs in it.

right. it's a court-enforced mediation, not a sudden change of heart for any involved party.

Originally Posted by crunchewy Hostess snacks were really not very good. Tastycake is way better, as far as packaged snack cakes and such go.

True. Maybe it was inevitable, maybe Americans are just getting tired of so much sugary junk.

Originally Posted by camoor True. Maybe it was inevitable, maybe Americans are just getting tired of so much sugary junk.

Have you taken a walk outside in the last 20 years? I don't think that is the case...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8AL06U20121122
Hostess workers say they'd rather lose their jobs rather than take another paycut. Keep in mind that they've already had paycuts, and for some who worked already a quarter of a century, they earn about $35K. If you tried raising a family with that much money, you already know that's kinda tough, especially with so many expenses. You really can't expect them to go down to $23K can you? That's the poverty line.

Originally Posted by detectiveconan16 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8AL06U20121122You really can't expect them to go down to $23K can you?

Sadly, there are many here in this thread who express nothing but utter disdain for the working poor. Halve that to $11/k per year (~$5.50 per hour) or quarter it to $5500 per year (~$2.75 per hour) and their arguments won't change. They don't care about the numbers in the end - unless they get too high, of course (which $34K appears to be "too high" for at least one poster here).

So pay them a third of the minimum wage, eliminate the safety net of the welfare state (for the working poor, mind - billions to war profiteers and industry is a-okay), and then express outrage if they dare complain.

We're living in a re-run of Dickens' "Oliver." You want *mooooooooooore*?

They hate the idea that someone who puts in 40 a week can afford a decent livelihood for themselves and their family because it might take away from their $1/box shit snacks. Externalities? They have no idea what that means. Only instant gratification and shameless hedonism.

We live in an era that has nothing but contempt for the working class. They would love for all factories to be run like Foxconn. Go whole hog and bring back the truck system.

What's even more hilarious is the crap that because people deserve below minimum wages, they are still the "soon-to-haves."

Originally Posted by mykevermin Sadly, there are many here in this thread who express nothing but utter disdain for the working poor. Halve that to $11/k per year (~$5.50 per hour) or quarter it to $5500 per year (~$2.75 per hour) and their arguments won't change. They don't care about the numbers in the end - unless they get too high, of course (which $34K appears to be "too high" for at least one poster here). So pay them a third of the minimum wage, eliminate the safety net of the welfare state (for the working poor, mind - billions to war profiteers and industry is a-okay), and then express outrage if they dare complain. We're living in a re-run of Dickens' "Oliver." You want *mooooooooooore*? They hate the idea that someone who puts in 40 a week can afford a decent livelihood for themselves and their family because it might take away from their $1/box shit snacks. Externalities? They have no idea what that means. Only instant gratification and shameless hedonism. We live in an era that has nothing but contempt for the working class. They would love for all factories to be run like Foxconn. Go whole hog and bring back the truck system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I15_KUsOzs

I was actually thinking of that while reading this the other day, although I was thinking of the Tennessee Ernie Ford version...;P

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,1027676.story

Hostess Brands Inc., in the midst of winding down its business, won approval Thursday from a federal bankruptcy judge to give as much as $1.75 million in bonuses to its executives. The money is intended as an incentive for 19 top-level managers to remain with the Twinkies and Ding Dongs maker to oversee its liquidation. The payouts will be granted only if managers "achieve a set of specific tasks and goals within a specified time frame that are designed to speed and lower the cost of the wind-down," Hostess spokesman Lance Ignon said.

The same management that ruined the company gets nearly $2 million in bonuses.

Keep pointing fingers at the unions folks. That pain in the back of your head? It's called cognitive dissonance.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

To be fair, any company that goes out of business and sold off has to be dismantled and you pay the people doing it. That has nothing to do with what happened before the company goes bankrupt.

Though it sucks that the current guys are the ones who are doing it. Maybe hire a third party firm to handle it? Guess it depends on what that would've cost.

Good for them for milking the last bit of cash out of it that they could, do bad the company couldn't have continued on (and then none of the bonuses would have been needed).

The current guys that are doing this did it because that's what venture capital firms do. A company is sold to those firms, and it's their prerogative to gut the profit out of it for their own purposes. Never mind the stakeholders.