Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Hostess files for bankruptcy again.


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#31 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:26 PM

Honestly, both parties are to blame here. The unions were absolutely stupid to think they had a leg to stand on when Hostess was shutting down striking plants. The corporate raiders are also equally to blame as they've had misstep after misstep in managing the company itself.

Ultimately the management does win here, because they just released themselves from a 2 billion dollar pension liability.

Bull-fucking-shit they are both to blame. The plan to liquidate the company was already in the works and the executives already wrote themselves a golden parachute. All they needed was an excuse. Disaster capitalism at it's finest.

#32 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:28 PM

I eat fast food, and I'm nowhere near fat.

#33 mtxbass1

mtxbass1

    This space for rent.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:44 PM

Bull-fucking-shit they are both to blame. The plan to liquidate the company was already in the works and the executives already wrote themselves a golden parachute. All they needed was an excuse. Disaster capitalism at it's finest.


So Unions aren't to blame for not willing to negotiate AT ALL? Do you honest to God believe that these executives had such grand plans to liquidate the entire company? Why not do this months ago when the first signs of troubles existed? Why even attempt to negotiate with the unions at all?

The unions themselves decided to tank the entire company. They could have easily accepted terms and kept people employed while longer term agreements were ironed out. They didn't negotiate and hostess called their bluff.

From WSJ:

Hostess ultimately was brought to its knees by a national strike orchestrated by its second-largest union.
The work stoppage, launched Nov. 9 by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union to protest a fresh labor contract, affected about two-thirds of Hostess's 36 plants. The strike was making it impossible for the Irving, Tex., company to continue producing its baked goods, Chief Executive Gregory Rayburn said.

The long of this is that a shitty company is going out of business. BOTH sides are to blame here.



#34 lokizz

lokizz

    Go $$$$ Yourself

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:45 PM

guess life's little twinkie gauge is gonna bottom out before the zombies show up.

#35 Snake2715

Snake2715

    Gotta Have Your Toys...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:56 PM

Yes all fast food companies in the US getting shut down would be amazing :roll:. Let us, of course, completely ignore the fact that millions of jobs would be lost. Who cares if people are fat? That is their problem, not yours. If they want to be fat let them. Its a free country. I personally enjoy being in shape, but that doesn't go for everyone. Lazy people will continue to be lazy regardless of what they eat. If KaneRobot wants to drunkly stumble into 7-11 at 3 am and get himself a snack, then by god, let him.


I care because I pay for them. Through health Insurance, lost wages due to more sickness, etc. I pay more at Buffets to offset the cost of the guys that eat more than me... what about pants? I mean my size 34 cost the same as the next guys 46+, you know there is more material there, so am I being surcharged for their pants as well? Ridiculous.


guess life's little twinkie gauge is gonna bottom out before the zombies show up.


Wow however the appocolypse is close.. remember the hostess truck with twinkies in zombieland.. I now realize how valuable that truck was.
-Josh

Posted Image
-courtesy of onetrackmind-

TRADE LIST

#36 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:03 PM

So Unions aren't to blame for not willing to negotiate AT ALL? Do you honest to God believe that these executives had such grand plans to liquidate the entire company? Why not do this months ago when the first signs of troubles existed? Why even attempt to negotiate with the unions at all?

The unions themselves decided to tank the entire company. They could have easily accepted terms and kept people employed while longer term agreements were ironed out. They didn't negotiate and hostess called their bluff.

From WSJ:

Hostess ultimately was brought to its knees by a national strike orchestrated by its second-largest union.
The work stoppage, launched Nov. 9 by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union to protest a fresh labor contract, affected about two-thirds of Hostess's 36 plants. The strike was making it impossible for the Irving, Tex., company to continue producing its baked goods, Chief Executive Gregory Rayburn said.

The long of this is that a shitty company is going out of business. BOTH sides are to blame here.

ORLY?

"Hostess announced those closings in response to the strike, but the reorganization plan filed in October indicated the company’s intent to close five plants.

Union officials said bankruptcy filings months ago indicated that the company intended to shutter nine plants.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was quoted in an interview Tuesday that he was “told months ago they were planning on closing the site in St. Louis … and there was no indication at that time it had anything to do with the strike the workers were waging.”

http://www.kansascit...ns-twinkie.html

Not to mention that there's a history of the unions giving big concessions and corporate leadership using the extra liquidity to pay themselves an 80% increase in salary after one of the filings. But no, unions are equally to blame for not taking an 8% pay cut and 33% reduction in benefits while the corporate raiders are bleeding the company dry.

edit: And since you like the WSJ so much...

"Creditors of Hostess Brands Inc. said in court papers the company may have "manipulated" its executives' salaries higher in the months leading up to its Chapter 11 filing, in what the creditors called a possible effort by Hostess to "sidestep" Bankruptcy Code compensation provisions. The committee representing Hostess's unsecured creditors alleges that information it has gathered suggests "the possibility" that the company converted a chunk of its top executives' pay from performance-based bonuses to salary, "at least in part to sidestep" rules designed to ensure that companies in bankruptcy aren't enticing their employees to stay on board with the promise ..."


http://online.wsj.co...3512506050.html


#37 mtxbass1

mtxbass1

    This space for rent.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:10 PM

ORLY?

"Hostess announced those closings in response to the strike, but the reorganization plan filed in October indicated the company’s intent to close five plants.

Union officials said bankruptcy filings months ago indicated that the company intended to shutter nine plants.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was quoted in an interview Tuesday that he was “told months ago they were planning on closing the site in St. Louis … and there was no indication at that time it had anything to do with the strike the workers were waging.”

http://www.kansascit...ns-twinkie.html

Not to mention that there's a history of the unions giving big concessions and corporate leadership using the extra liquidity to pay themselves an 80% increase in salary after one of the filings. But no, unions are equally to blame for not taking an 8% pay cut and 33% reduction in benefits while the corporate raiders are bleeding the company dry.


Bud, I live in St Louis, so I'm aware of the local operations here. The company has been in dire straits for a long time now and has had failures across the board for years. Hostess had a plan back in October to stay in business through closing those plants. They knew back then that they had to do this in order to stay viable. This strike by the union completely crippled 2/3rds of the company.

It amazes me that you can sit here and say that the union has absolutely no blame in this. They chose to go on strike across the entire company. They chose not to negotiate further. BOTH parties are to blame here.

I know it's cool to hate on corporations, and in this case the fat cats are very much to blame. It's just completely naive to say that unions are completely innocent here when they were given options and chose not to negotiate. The union workers were told explicitly that they would be fired if they continued to strike. They knew the risks, they took the risks, and they lost.



#38 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:32 PM

Bud, I live in St Louis, so I'm aware of the local operations here. The company has been in dire straits for a long time now and has had failures across the board for years. Hostess had a plan back in October to stay in business through closing those plants. They knew back then that they had to do this in order to stay viable. This strike by the union completely crippled 2/3rds of the company.

So in other words, strikes had nothing to do with those plant closings.

It amazes me that you can sit here and say that the union has absolutely no blame in this. They chose to go on strike across the entire company. They chose not to negotiate further. BOTH parties are to blame here.

Sounds more like victim blaming to me. But no, let's put a disproportionate amount of blame on the unions for making concession after concession while management is still fucking everything up while making bank.

I know it's cool to hate on corporations, and in this case the fat cats are very much to blame. It's just completely naive to say that unions are completely innocent here when they were given options and chose not to negotiate. The union workers were told explicitly that they would be fired if they continued to strike.

And unions are the only ones that need to make concessions? Why is there no blame on management to further negotiate? Why is the onus on the unions?

They knew the risks, they took the risks, and they lost.

Workers are fucked and management walks away with millions. Or maybe I'd just rather be "cool" and hate on corporations because hating on unions is somehow more legit.

#39 SynGamer

SynGamer

    Welcome to Night Vale

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:35 PM

Honestly, both parties are to blame here. The unions were absolutely stupid to think they had a leg to stand on when Hostess was shutting down striking plants. The corporate raiders are also equally to blame as they've had misstep after misstep in managing the company itself.

Ultimately the management does win here, because they just released themselves from a 2 billion dollar pension liability.


Exactly. If there were ever an example of why unions are not needed, it's this. Teamster was smart enough to know that striking would result in what we are seeing now. There are other ways for unions to negotiate. I will never understand why unions think striking will get them what they want.

Now Hostess will be liquidated, things will be sold off and most likely purchased by a new investor and things will resume. But these employees just completely fucked themselves. If they thought their compensation was bad now...just wait and see what they have to concede if/when Hostess products/plants are brought back online.

g92sOMa.png4lNop7I.pngEwYfNFu.pngauyL8J9.pngszbgEtP.pngSoNL9s6.png


#40 SynGamer

SynGamer

    Welcome to Night Vale

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:39 PM

Sounds more like victim blaming to me. But no, let's put a disproportionate amount of blame on the unions for making concession after concession while management is still fucking everything up while making bank.


"making bank"? Seriously? Yes, management has clearly done a poor job with Hostess since it restructured a few years ago, but if they were "making bank" then the plants likely wouldn't have shut down. The issue here is that Hostess didn't have enough money to weather the strike...so yes, the union is absolutely at blame here. Management was terrible, yes, but the union can blame only themselves for being out of a job.

g92sOMa.png4lNop7I.pngEwYfNFu.pngauyL8J9.pngszbgEtP.pngSoNL9s6.png


#41 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:41 PM

Sucks that the unions couldn't make any concessions, striked, and then act shocked that the plants shut down (after being told they would be shut down if they didn't come back from work). Stupid hurts, and now the union striking not only lost all their union members their jobs but countless other non-union workers.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#42 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:53 PM

Exactly. If there were ever an example of why unions are not needed, it's this. Teamster was smart enough to know that striking would result in what we are seeing now. There are other ways for unions to negotiate. I will never understand why unions think striking will get them what they want.

Now Hostess will be liquidated, things will be sold off and most likely purchased by a new investor and things will resume. But these employees just completely fucked themselves. If they thought their compensation was bad now...just wait and see what they have to concede if/when Hostess products/plants are brought back online.

How the Fuck is it that the people that completely fucked the company are less responsible than unions for the ultimate outcome of this?

"making bank"? Seriously? Yes, management has clearly done a poor job with Hostess since it restructured a few years ago, but if they were "making bank" then the plants likely wouldn't have shut down. The issue here is that Hostess didn't have enough money to weather the strike...so yes, the union is absolutely at blame here. Management was terrible, yes, but the union can blame only themselves for being out of a job.

You think that making a shit load of money would some how satiate them enough into not trying to make more? Sorry, but I'm not looking to buy a bridge today and I can't do the mental loops to blame the unions for losing jobs that management already put on the chopping block.

Oh and management!=company.

#43 soulvengeance

soulvengeance

    Beating dead horses

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:58 PM

"making bank"? Seriously? Yes, management has clearly done a poor job with Hostess since it restructured a few years ago, but if they were "making bank" then the plants likely wouldn't have shut down. The issue here is that Hostess didn't have enough money to weather the strike...so yes, the union is absolutely at blame here. Management was terrible, yes, but the union can blame only themselves for being out of a job.


Well, I dunno about that. I think poor management is to blame for them being out of a job, they handle the high level stuff.
mytradelist:
http://www.cheapassg...864#post2614864

Calls this what you may, but I would say that Blacks actually benefited from the slavery. Comparing the current lives of many African Americans to Africans, one can see that the former live in much better conditions with greater freedoms and opportunities.


#44 mtxbass1

mtxbass1

    This space for rent.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:01 PM

So in other words, strikes had nothing to do with those plant closings.


Are you really this dense? The strikes had everything to do with the entire operation shutting down. Those plants were scheduled to close unless the company could get things together. The workers went on strike knowing this, and the management pulled the plug. The unions were warned, they chose to ignore these warnings, and they got fired.

Sounds more like victim blaming to me. But no, let's put a disproportionate amount of blame on the unions for making concession after concession while management is still fucking everything up while making bank.

No one is putting a disproportionate amount of blame on anyone here but yourself. BOTH parties are to blame here. FYI, the unions didn't make a single concession. There was no agreement met. They flat out didn't negotiate and went on strike. The end.

And unions are the only ones that need to make concessions? Why is there no blame on management to further negotiate? Why is the onus on the unions?


Who says there is no blame for the management? Do you not understand what the word BOTH means? BOTH. THE TWO PARTIES INVOLVED. Both are to blame.

Workers are fucked and management walks away with millions. Or maybe I'd just rather be "cool" and hate on corporations because hating on unions is somehow more legit.


Millions? Get your head out of your ass. Managers working at that company didn't walk away with anything but a pink slip. Currently the investors only stand to gain anything if they can find a buyer. The investors also put up their money initially and they should be entitled to the first cut of the profit of the sale of assets.

How the Fuck is it that the people that completely fucked the company are less responsible than unions for the ultimate outcome of this?

Calm down Betsy. No one is saying that anyone is less responsible here. BOTH parties are to blame. It really doesn't matter who is "more to blame" here. 18,500 people are out of a job now because of this.

You think that making a shit load of money would some how satiate them enough into not trying to make more? Sorry, but I'm not looking to buy a bridge today and I can't do the mental loops to blame the unions for losing jobs that management already put on the chopping block.

Oh and management!=company.


Where exactly do you think they are making a "shit load of money" in this? The company has been in trouble for years. Investors have lost a lot of capital over this time period. You're cynical as Fuck if you think investment managers went into this thing wanting it to fail, just so they could sell off the assets and make "shit tons of money" at the cost of union jobs.



#45 Stoneage

Stoneage

    Don't touch my stuff!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:21 PM

Ah....the Sugar Wars have begun....excellent...

That just seemed like the right thing to say. I haven't had a Hostess product in quite a while, but I love me some cupcakes. If there hasn't been a rush on them, I'll probably pick some up so I'll have something sweet to eat when the world comes crashing down in a month. Maybe the Hostess people have inside information and are all retreating to some world-seeding spaceship, closing down just before takeoff? Laugh, laugh all you want. Oh yeah....remember to buy cupcakes...
[IMG][IMG]http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/8568/mekonsmaskscopylo0.th.jpg[/IMG][/IMG]

#46 Ced

Ced

    Monster Hustler

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:52 PM

I eat fast food, and I'm nowhere near fat.


Hell yeah. 1/2 my meals are at McD's and I still shed 20 pounds simply watching my intake and exercising a bit each week.

Fuck the fast food is making you fat mantra. Not doing anything to counteract those calories is equally, if not more, to blame. And yes, I am going to be a bit sad if this means I can't feed my bi-annual Twinkie fix anymore.

#47 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:18 PM

It's time we started saying Fuck you to the little guy. Damn leeches always trying to grab for more pennies. Meanwhile our American institutions are going under because the help wants more money. Well I say Fuck them, support your corporations!

;)

edit- Just in case anyone was wondering...
http://www.ebay.com/...cat=0&_from=R40

#48 The Great Muta

The Great Muta

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:21 PM

Good, and good bye. Long overdue.

#49 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:08 PM

Are you really this dense? The strikes had everything to do with the entire operation shutting down. Those plants were scheduled to close unless the company could get things together. The workers went on strike knowing this, and the management pulled the plug. The unions were warned, they chose to ignore these warnings, and they got fired.

No one is putting a disproportionate amount of blame on anyone here but yourself. BOTH parties are to blame here. FYI, the unions didn't make a single concession. There was no agreement met. They flat out didn't negotiate and went on strike. The end.

This thread was started in the beginning of this year and the company filed for bankruptcy more than twice over the last few years. The state of the company isn't a result of this one event, but a long string of them. I'm not the one treating this event as if it occurred in a vacuum here. Pensions are gone and and they already took a pay cut.

Who says there is no blame for the management? Do you not understand what the word BOTH means? BOTH. THE TWO PARTIES INVOLVED. Both are to blame.

And are both parties equally responsible for the state of the company? I didn't realize that the average employee on the floor had any input on how to run the company.:roll:

Millions? Get your head out of your ass. Managers working at that company didn't walk away with anything but a pink slip. Currently the investors only stand to gain anything if they can find a buyer. The investors also put up their money initially and they should be entitled to the first cut of the profit of the sale of assets.

The only one giving themself a prostate exam is you. Management!=managers.

How fucked do you think the people that make the real decisions that sunk the company are? You think they give a Fuck about some guy on the assembly line? Liquidating the company obviously shows that they don't when these types of situations are already accounted for in becoming a corporate executive. Golden parachutes aren't a myth, but standard business practice.

Calm down Betsy. No one is saying that anyone is less responsible here. BOTH parties are to blame. It really doesn't matter who is "more to blame" here. 18,500 people are out of a job now because of this.

They're not even close to being equally responsible unless you think rape victims are responsible for being raped.

Where exactly do you think they are making a "shit load of money" in this? The company has been in trouble for years. Investors have lost a lot of capital over this time period. You're cynical as Fuck if you think investment managers went into this thing wanting it to fail, just so they could sell off the assets and make "shit tons of money" at the cost of union jobs.

This is a joke right?

I'm not going to cry about a company that made their money hocking shitty "food" to kids going under, but to blame unions for it as if they were anything remotely close to equal partners is completely bullshit and devoid of any serious thought.

Edited by dohdough, 16 November 2012 - 11:01 PM.


#50 Thekrakrabbit

Thekrakrabbit

    Is Making A Comeback!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:52 PM

Good, and good bye. Long overdue.


You obviously don't have a soul. Be gone to the underworld, demon!

Check out @RealKrakrabbit - Twitter Page Full of News, Tidbits, etc., etc.

 

Also looking to make trades/sells to anyone who is interested. Check out my tradelist! :grouphug:


#51 Kay_Faraday

Kay_Faraday

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:57 PM

their snacks are groce

#52 mtxbass1

mtxbass1

    This space for rent.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:14 PM

This thread was started in the beginning of this year and the company filed for bankruptcy more than twice over the last few years. The state of the company isn't a result of this one event, but a long string of them. I'm not the one treating this event as if it occurred in a vacuum here. Pensions are gone and and they already took a pay cut.

So you think they should have been paying these people the same rates, despite facing bankruptcy before? Just how would you expect the company to be profitable?

And are both parties equally responsible for the state of the company? I didn't realize that the average employee on the floor had any input on how to run the company.:roll:

That's right. The unions have no blame here at all right? There were several bakers making $35 an hour to bake bread. I know people with multiple degrees that don't make that amount of money. And yes, the average employee should have little to no input on how to run the company. Do you honestly expect a line worker or machine operator to understand best business practices? Give me a break.

The only one giving themself a prostate exam is you. Management!=managers.


Suspicion confirmed. I now realize I'm arguing with a child.

How fucked do you think the people that make the real decisions that sunk the company are? You think they give a Fuck about some guy on the assembly line? Liquidating the company obviously shows that they don't when these types of situations are already accounted for in becoming a corporate executive. Golden parachutes aren't a myth, but standard business practice.

Why would an investor care? Do you honestly think your boss genuinely cares about you? If so, you're naive as Fuck. Businesses exist to make money. You're replaceable, just like every one of these people were. You seriously are out of touch with what is happening here, and again, either young or stupid to think that the CEO's are the ones who are going to see a huge profit here. The original investors will see the profit. The management at the top will be out of a job. Is that not hard to see?

They're not even close to being equally responsible unless you think rape victims are responsible for being raped.

This is a joke right?

Did I say they were equally responsible? Nope. But they are still both responsible. I've said that repeatedly here.

I'm not going to cry about a company that made their money hocking shitty "food" to kids going under, but to blame unions for it as if they were anything remotely close to equal partners is completely bullshit and devoid of any serious thought.


For your information, since you're so woefully ignorant on this, the Teamsters union actually approved the cuts to get people back to work. The Bakers union didn't. The plan was to have an immediate 8% cut in pay, followed by a 3% pay raise over the next 3 years, along with a 1% raise in the last year. But nope. The unions aren't to blame here. Not one bit...:roll:



#53 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:42 PM

If a company goes out of business they have no one to blame but the folks running the company. Since unions do not run the company, I don't see how it's their fault. They did what they do, try to get the best deal for their members. The company decided to fold instead. Sucks for the folks who are going to lose their jobs, but that's what happens in negotiations sometimes, one side takes it's ball and goes home. Somehow we've turned into a society that defends companies and shits on the little guy, sad state to be in really.

#54 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:43 PM

If the "little guy" can hold a companies future over said companies head there is no longer a "little guy" in your equation. Just two juggernauts, and one said FU to the other.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#55 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:14 AM

If a company goes out of business they have no one to blame but the folks running the company. Since unions do not run the company, I don't see how it's their fault. They did what they do, try to get the best deal for their members. The company decided to fold instead. Sucks for the folks who are going to lose their jobs, but that's what happens in negotiations sometimes, one side takes it's ball and goes home. Somehow we've turned into a society that defends companies and shits on the little guy, sad state to be in really.

Yet the corporate management structure will float right on down with their golden parachute. The sooner Americans realize that there's power in numbers and the non-rich have a lot higher numbers than the rich, the sooner we'll stop the erosion of the middle class.

#56 SynGamer

SynGamer

    Welcome to Night Vale

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:35 AM

I just don't understand how people are missing the big picture:

Had the Bakery union NOT striked and instead continued to try and negotiate, 18,500 employees would still have a job. And as I like to say, "any job is better than no job". Instead, the union striked and only have themselves to blame. This is ONE union that striked when the other union, Teamster, didn't. They saw the logic in continuing to negotiate versus striking and losing their jobs.

g92sOMa.png4lNop7I.pngEwYfNFu.pngauyL8J9.pngszbgEtP.pngSoNL9s6.png


#57 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:44 AM

So you think they should have been paying these people the same rates, despite facing bankruptcy before? Just how would you expect the company to be profitable?

It depends on the reason as to how they went into the red. I already told you I'm not interested in buying a bridge if you're telling me that it was labor costs. I don't buy their line about being "under capacity" either when investment capital firms tend to load companies like this with debt to pay themselves.

That's right. The unions have no blame here at all right? There were several bakers making $35 an hour to bake bread. I know people with multiple degrees that don't make that amount of money. And yes, the average employee should have little to no input on how to run the company. Do you honestly expect a line worker or machine operator to understand best business practices? Give me a break.

Several!=every union employee. If your acquaintances can't get a job making that much in any given field, that's a problem with the industry they're trying to get into as well as the overall job market; not what a few bakers are paid.

And if you admit that the average worker has little(lolz) to no input on how a company functions, how the Fuck is their union responsible in any way?

Suspicion confirmed. I now realize I'm arguing with a child.

So you telling me that I have my head up my ass isn't childish, but me telling you that you're giving yourself a prostate exam is? Gotcha.:roll:

Why would an investor care? Do you honestly think your boss genuinely cares about you? If so, you're naive as Fuck. Businesses exist to make money. You're replaceable, just like every one of these people were. You seriously are out of touch with what is happening here, and again, either young or stupid to think that the CEO's are the ones who are going to see a huge profit here. The original investors will see the profit. The management at the top will be out of a job. Is that not hard to see?

The larger individual investors have already taken their profits by the time something like this goes down. Corporate executives/officers/assholes are no longer concerned about profits when they're already cashing in their chips. Even if those fuckers can't get another job, and they always do even if they sink a company, do you think they'll be in the same straits as the average worker? The only investors left are the smaller ones still affiliated with the groups that were left holding the bag.

The assholes don't give a shit about a pink slip, so obviously why would they give a Fuck about giving everyone else one? Their goal wasn't to turn Hostess into a profitable enterprise because if they were, they would've hired scabs like every other industry instead of closing up shop. And you have the nerve to call ME naive?

Did I say they were equally responsible? Nope. But they are still both responsible. I've said that repeatedly here.

Really? Cause I see a lot of union blaming and corporate apologism.

For your information, since you're so woefully ignorant on this, the Teamsters union actually approved the cuts to get people back to work. The Bakers union didn't. The plan was to have an immediate 8% cut in pay, followed by a 3% pay raise over the next 3 years, along with a 1% raise in the last year. But nope. The unions aren't to blame here. Not one bit...:roll:

Really? So this is the only time they were offered a pay cut and didn't take it? You might want to double check how much you think you know about the companies history. A time warp back to 2009 might help you with that hole in your memory.

I just don't understand how people are missing the big picture:

Had the Bakery union NOT striked and instead continued to try and negotiate, 18,500 employees would still have a job. And as I like to say, "any job is better than no job". Instead, the union striked and only have themselves to blame. This is ONE union that striked when the other union, Teamster, didn't. They saw the logic in continuing to negotiate versus striking and losing their jobs.

And if the company didn't load itself with debt over the course of several years, this wouldn't have been an issue at all. But thanks for filling us in on the "big" picture.

#58 Nogib

Nogib

    *squeezing* the *juice*

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:45 AM

Unions are a leftover from a bygone era. Their greed is boundless and unnecessary. Hostess may have been in trouble but they clearly warned the union what would happen and sure enough, the stubbornness of the union was the final nail in the coffin. What kind of mis-managed union is dumb enough to guarantee that every single person they "represent" loses their job? Fuck unions. Fuck them all.
End of line.

#59 Thekrakrabbit

Thekrakrabbit

    Is Making A Comeback!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:40 AM

This isn't the politics section, why are people debating these things like they are running for office!?

I thought the real point of this thread was for everybody to mourn the loss of some delicious - and perhaps equally important to taste - cakes that have been around for generations.

Check out @RealKrakrabbit - Twitter Page Full of News, Tidbits, etc., etc.

 

Also looking to make trades/sells to anyone who is interested. Check out my tradelist! :grouphug:


#60 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:08 AM

Unions are a leftover from a bygone era. Their greed is boundless and unnecessary. Hostess may have been in trouble but they clearly warned the union what would happen and sure enough, the stubbornness of the union was the final nail in the coffin. What kind of mis-managed union is dumb enough to guarantee that every single person they "represent" loses their job? Fuck unions. Fuck them all.


Greed, huh?

http://thinkprogress...tesss-downfall/

as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.


Greed indeed...