No more Twinkies

[VinBucFan]

The decision makers who were running that company let down it's employees by not making the right decisions to make the company solvent for the long haul.

"It's them"

Isn't that kind of what you're doing by blaming the workers, hypocrite? Since neither of us work for the company, we are both blaming a "them", it just so happens to be a different "them", smart one.

No, because of your political views you are trying to turn the subject into a debate about the management -- "its them"

it is a fact that the unions are to blame for the business shutting down NOW.  You dont like that fact because of your political views so you cannot help yourself from saying "its them" as a response on nearly every post you make:

You can say it was a bad decision, but to blame the unions for the doors closing is ridiculous. The decision makers who were running that company let down it's employees by not making the right decisions to make the company solvent for the long haul. 

As I have said repeatedly, left to your own devices you make people's points for them.

[CBWx2]

CBW you should read this:  http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/hostess-files-for-bankruptcy/


To say the labor unions were the primary fault of the company's demise is asinine.

Why haven't all unionized snack cake makers went down a similar path? When a company fails, CEO's often offer every excuse except for the right one. Their own errors.

[CBWx2]

The decision makers who were running that company let down it's employees by not making the right decisions to make the company solvent for the long haul.

"It's them"

Isn't that kind of what you're doing by blaming the workers, hypocrite? Since neither of us work for the company, we are both blaming a "them", it just so happens to be a different "them", smart one.

No, because of your political views you are trying to turn the subject into a debate about the management -- "its them"

it is a fact that the unions are to blame for the business shutting down NOW.

"It's them"

[VinBucFan]

The decision makers who were running that company let down it's employees by not making the right decisions to make the company solvent for the long haul.

"It's them"

Isn't that kind of what you're doing by blaming the workers, hypocrite? Since neither of us work for the company, we are both blaming a "them", it just so happens to be a different "them", smart one.

No, because of your political views you are trying to turn the subject into a debate about the management -- "its them"

it is a fact that the unions are to blame for the business shutting down NOW.

"It's them"

 BUT ONLY while voicing your OPINION that the management is really to BLAME.   

Keep making my point for me

[CBWx2]

If the union hadn't have made large concessions during the first round of bankruptcy, Hostess would have shut down 7 years ago. At what point is it not the union's fault anymore? Who am I kidding. Vinny Peanuts is incapable of an honest debate.

And a hypocritical charge of intellectual dishonesty without actually acknowledging the content of my post to come in 3...2...1...

[dbucfan]

Let's see - the management is not going to continue - the owners are not going to continue and are in bankruptcy again.  And the union employees are not going to continue.  Maybe no one could do anything else.  Maybe no wages are better than reduced wages.  Maybe no job is better than one where you feel underpaid and under appreciated.  And then on the other hand - if you know the place where you work is having a tough go and a tough economy - maybe you don't quit on them, and you continue to work to survive. I don't know the answer - but having 18500 folks lose their job in this economy is crazy.

Union representatives go back to the office - with their jobs - and the knowledge their advice might have been wrong. 

You want to name someone at fault - pick - plenty of targets. 

[VinBucFan]

If the union hadn't have made large concessions during the first round of bankruptcy, Hostess would have shut down 7 years ago. At what point is it not the union's fault anymore? Who am I kidding. Vinny Peanuts is incapable of an honest debate.

And a hypocritical charge of intellectual dishonesty without actually acknowledging the content of my post to come in 3...2...1...

I acknowledge the content of your post as illustrating my comments about you perfectly.  The funny things is that you actually seem to think everyone but you is an idiot.  I say that because of the games you try to play like the one above. "Incapable of an honest debate."  You wouldnt know an honest debate if it came an knocked you off your imaginary perch.

[spartan]

The first time Hostess filed for bankruptcy back in 2004, the workers agreed to a pay cut to keep the doors open. How dare they refuse to take yet another pay cut to save a business that has had to file for bankruptcy twice in a decade. I'd bet if they chose to all work for minimum wage, that would have kept Hostess running for at least another decade until they had to file for bankruptcy again. Damn greedy workers.

Having less pay beats the crap out of having no pay.

Even if you are correct about mismanagement, so what? It doesn't alter the fact that Hostess were in bankruptcy and did not have enough money to stay open. It is not a case of the workers being greedy but incredibly stupid. Any smart person would have taken the pay cut once it was obvious there was no alternative, then used the bought time to seek employment elsewhere. If I don't physically have the money, what good is it if you insist that I pay you your entire salary?

Point well taken. No doubt, this very thing was what divided the unions in this case. The Teamsters apparently agreed to the concessions, but the Bakers Union refused to make concessions. You can say it was a bad decision, but to blame the unions for the doors closing is ridiculous. The decision makers who were running that company let down it's employees by not making the right decisions to make the company solvent for the long haul.  Hostess is not the only unionized snack-cake maker. They are just the only one who filed for bankruptcy twice in 7 years.

It really does not matter how they got their CBW, all parties concerned had to deal with the situation as it was. The post-mortem could have come later. Neither one of us knows if the company was badly run or not. It could be that Twinkies simply ran their course and were no longer relevant to today's society. You and I, don't really know. Of course the Unions would say they were mismanaged, but they say that with every company facing problems. The Teamsters however, as you point out saw the writing on the wall, the bakers did not. You cannot blame them for the bankruptcy (without knowing working conditions, contracts etc), but you can blame them for expediting the collapse and preventing the company from at least trying to work their way out of it.

[VinBucFan]

CBW, orginal thoughts or repackaged knowledge by website?

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Organizing-Bargaining/Hostess-Pattern-of-Mismanagement-and-Debt-Caused-Its-Collapse

Sounds incredibly familiar  . .  .

[tripblood]

Im speaking with limited info on this subject but it seems Hostess as a whole was in dissaray leading to the strikes to begin with

[CBWx2]

Interesting...

But while headlines have been quick to blame unions for the downfall of the company there’s actually more to the story: While the company was filing for bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled its CEO’s pay, and increased other executives’ compensation by as much as 80 percent.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/16/1203151/why-unions-dont-shoulder-the-blame-for-hostesss-downfall/

[JavaRay]

Pretty sure we work/worked for the same company and yes the pensions is awful. But I plan to have at least 6 figures of 401k before I retire at 55.

If you don't have at least 7 figures in your 401k by the time you retire, you are screwed.   

[Skull and Bones]

A judge has ordered the union and company management to try mediation so something could be worked out.  If not liquidation will proceed.

[dbucfan]

It would be great if they could come to terms.

Ummm - better add - for the employees, the managers, and the owners - along with debt holders.  But particularly the employees.

[VinBucFan]

Not that most would care, but the pro-union blogosphere (where some on here get their talking points) is loaded with talk about how  "unfair" it is to ask union members to take paycuts while executives got raises.  You see a lot of this on the pro-union blogs:

"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."

Good red meat for the pro-union types, but think about it. Why would a company give substantial raises to executives as it entered bankruptcy?  (hint: even a bankrupt company needs what?). Who might want a company to BOTH cut costs but also maintain experienced leadership? (hint: it takes what to survive bankruptcy? c-a-p-i. . . ). 

So query which is a greater problem in America, the 24 hour news cycle or the 2 second attention span?  If you spend 2 seconds it is an easy sell - executive raises v. employee cuts =BAD. But, it makes complete sense that a company entering backruptcy would have to give substantial raises to executives to keep them from abandoning ship (not to mention the ability to give them $ will be restricted in bankruptcy). It make complete sense (although it will anger some) that a management team is MUCH MORE important to the company's survival upon entering bankruptcy than low level employees. Struggling companies like Hostess need CAPITAL to get through bankruptcy. Investors of all shapes -- banks, hedge funds etc -- are not putting a penny into the company without a managment team that is perceived to be strong and committed. (It takes money to keep people that fit that mold). Conversely, those same investors could care less about a $20 per hour employee who bakes loaves of bread. In fact, the investor wants that person cut if possible. By the way, that is not different than the rest of the world where the weakest or least signifiant are routinely culled from the herd. Harsh reality, but I guess easy fodder for blogs too.

The company needs capital to survive. Tell the source of capital you cut $100 million in expenses (including payroll/benefits) = GOOD.  Tell the source of capital you just lost the CEO because we cut his $750,000 salary to $500,000 (instead of raising it to $2million) and he/she jumped off our potentially sinking ship = NOT GOOD

So which is it, which is a greater problem in America, the 24 hour news cycle or the 2 second attention span?