• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hostess threatens to lay off 18,000 employees unless strike ends[W:521]

Grim17 said:
I have no issue with those workers trying to secure a better wage from the company, but that time had long since passed. They were left with a choice to either accept and 8% pay cut, or lose their jobs permanently. It was a no-brainer... Or you would have thought.
Click to expand...

We have reached the point of economic illiteracy in this nation where we think we can make ourselves wealthy by demanding it. It is unsurprising this would spill over from politics into the private market.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Executive management have already had their pay cut to $1 a year......
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that. Did you see that they'd increased their salaries by 80% the year prior? Takes some of the luster off that gesture.

position. Fortune reported that unions within the organization had been unhappy with Driscoll's proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million "long term compensation" package. Additionally, the court had discovered that Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year prior. In an effort to restore relations, Rayburn cut the salaries of the four top Hostess executives to $1, to be restored on January 1 the following year
Click to expand...

Hostess Brands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(I think the union was wrong to strike and put them out of business . . . cutting off their own noses. But management wasn't innocent . . . )
 
MaggieD said:
Yeah, I saw that. Did you see that they'd increased their salaries by 80% the year prior? Takes some of the luster off that gesture.



Hostess Brands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(I think the union was wrong to strike and put them out of business . . . cutting off their own noses. But management wasn't innocent . . . )
Click to expand...

The CEO was a new guy, replacing the less worth CEO who increased his pay.
The new guy was a "fixer" who was left with a mess.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Executive management have already had their pay cut to $1 a year......
Click to expand...
Good to know that it will be a case of "shared sacrifice" after all. Mind you, I'm not advocating for any cuts of any specificity, just refuting the notion that executive pay isn't relevant to a cost cutting effort by a corporation of any kind.
 
a351 said:
That's ultimately their judgement.
Click to expand...

It sure was, and it's now been proved beyond a shawdow of a doubt, that their judgement sucked.

Quite obviously costs had to be minimized in some manner, why wouldn't executive and managerial pay come into play at some point in the talks?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the issue... Are you kidding me?

This was between the bakers and the company... Nobody else. Besides, all the companies payroll issues had been settled with everyone execpt with the bakers union.
 
VanceMack said:
It seems like a win-win. Not sure what everyone is upset about. Hostess says it must cut costs due to a bankruptcy agreement and will in no uncertain terms shut down if the strike continues. Unions declare they refuse to work for the salaries offered. Shut it down. Win win. The world will live without Twinkies.
Click to expand...

bite your tounge. the end of the Twinkie is surely a sign of impending doom.
 
AdamT said:
That could be the case, sure.
Click to expand...

So management is at fault because they entered into union contracts they thought they could support. Then they find out to survive they need to cut back on those union packages and the union says "NO". So under that logic the union is at total fault for the closing of the company. And you wonder why people hate unions. Cities all across this country are taking on the unions or go bankrupt, and in many cases they go bankrupt. Then the unions are busted by the bankruptcy laws, unless you have Obama bail out the state or city and keep his beloved unions on the government payroll.
 
rocket88 said:
It makes a huge difference. If they'd been better managed 5 years ago, they'd still be in business.
Click to expand...

That's certainly true. Had they closed their American plants and moved production to Mexico they'd be fabulously profitable about now. THAT would have been good management. But for some reason they had to stay loyal to US workers, the doofs. Fat lot of good it did them.
 
LowDown said:
That's certainly true. Had they closed their American plants and moved production to Mexico they'd be fabulously profitable about now. THAT would have been good management. But for some reason they had to stay loyal to US workers, the doofs. Fat lot of good it did them.
Click to expand...

One of the speculative suitors is a Mexican company, who would most probably produce at least some of the product in Mexico and ship it here.
 
rocket88 said:
It makes a huge difference. If they'd been better managed 5 years ago, they'd still be in business.
Click to expand...
That seems like a HUGE overreach…
Twinkies maker Hostess Brands Inc., is again seeking protection from its creditors, filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as the company tries to cope with high debt and rising costs of labor and raw materials….

…In this most recent filing, Hostess lists the Bakery and Confectionary Union Pension fund as its largest creditor, with a debt of $994 million. Hostess is also behind in payments to a long list of suppliers, such as Cargill."
Click to expand...
Hostess, Maker Of Twinkies, Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection : The Two-Way : NPR

Given the lack of management’s control over union’s driven ‘rising costs of labor’ and the on rising ‘raw materials’ I’m not sure that ‘better managed 5 years ago, they'd still be in business’ can be asserted . Can you expound on this assertion with specificity?

…thx
 
rocket88 said:
It makes a huge difference. If they'd been better managed 5 years ago, they'd still be in business.
Click to expand...

If the bakers' union hadn't stayed on strike they'd still be in business. What the heck are you talking about?
 
Excon said:
The Union was being greedy in the sight of a failing company.
They screwed their members over as well as another's Unions members and the non-union workers as well.


Give it a shot slick.
You will be wrong from the get.
But I do not expect a socialist to understand that.
Click to expand...
Really?

productivity%2Band%2Bwages.gif


What is your counter argument? Or is this where you just nod like all Plutocrat sycophants do and say "my counter argument is top secret, you gotta be in the club to know"?
 
Zalatix said:
Really?

productivity%2Band%2Bwages.gif


What is your counter argument? Or is this where you just nod like all Plutocrat sycophants do and say "my counter argument is top secret, you gotta be in the club to know"?
Click to expand...
Do you even know what you claimed?

Let me help you out.

Zalatix said:
Unions are trying to get better wages for workers. You do realize, of course, that workers have become 300% as productive as they were in 1947, but have only received about a 100% wage increase since then? Workers are giving Corporations far more than they're getting in return.
Click to expand...

Because the above (a four year period :doh) doesn't support it at all.


And obviously the worker was getting paid too much. $20 dollars and hour to make ****ing Twinkies. That is too much.
 
Paschendale said:
And this is why unions exist. So that those who have money and power cannot exercise that power over everyone else with impunity.
Click to expand...
Unions drive companies into the ground. Let's take Hostess, for example....
 
LowDown said:
Speaking of potential buyers, I half seriously suggested that Hostess could have stayed in business by moving production to Mexico. I may have been more precient that I thought:

Next Twinkie Maker: Will A Mexican Billionaire Family Buy Hostess' Orphaned Brands? - Forbes

This will of course completely cut the union out. Those 18,000 jobs, mostly non-union, are dead and gone as far as US workers are concerned. All that's left for union supporters to do is point fingers.

And this leaves the senior managment without jobs, too. I don't know how much more sincere they can get about it.
Click to expand...

Yet these same people who want to "tax the rich" , or blame management when things go wrong, will be complaining the loudest while American companies go elsewhere to do their business.This should not shock anyone. That's been the trend and it's going to continue that way until some basic lessons are learned.

They are all killing that Golden Goose that made America great.
 
SgtRock said:
bite your tounge. the end of the Twinkie is surely a sign of impending doom.
Click to expand...
But one that has been before prophesied of...

 
rocket88 said:
It makes a huge difference. If they'd been better managed 5 years ago, they'd still be in business.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if they moved their business to Mexico they would be. How stupid were they?
 
:shrug: simple enough. Put under stress, management has found ways to increase productivity as much as possible, which allows them to keep on as many employees as possible.
 
LowDown said:
What difference does it make? The company could have continued if the union cooperated. The company had new management. But the union people dug their heels in. Ipso facto dead company.
Click to expand...


The company could have continued had management done their job in the first place.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: simple enough. Put under stress, management has found ways to increase productivity as much as possible, which allows them to keep on as many employees as possible.
Click to expand...

The white collar wet dream. Management is absolved of all wrongs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom