• 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]

quit and work for a non-vampire. If your description is correct, then the vampire will soon be out of business, and you will help that by working for its' competitors.

Good call! It seems to me this is exactly what happened here....
 
Good call! It seems to me this is exactly what happened here....

...except that when you do so en masse you can destroy the business - which is what seems to have happened here. If the workers claims were correct, they will be snapped up by competitors in the industry at the compensation packages they demanded. If the workers claims are not correct, then they will either go on unemployment or take positions with lower compensation.
 
...except that when you do so en masse you can destroy the business - which is what seems to have happened here. If the workers claims were correct, they will be snapped up by competitors in the industry at the compensation packages they demanded. If the workers claims are not correct, then they will either go on unemployment or take positions with lower compensation.

If Hostess were a viable business with good management, this would have been worked out. But it wasn't; so it is no more.
 
If Hostess were a viable business with good management, this would have been worked out. But it wasn't; so it is no more.
Show us how it's done then. Go buy the brand, talk to the union with a contract that will get them back to work and keep the company profitable.
 
Go buy the brand, talk to the union with a contract that will get them back to work and keep the company profitable.

If I had the money or the ability to get backed for that money I would.
 
If I had the money or the ability to get backed for that money I would.
So go find investors. I didn't ask for excuses from you OR the person it was addressed to. People saying "bad management" caused the company to fail need to step up, pay up, and show the rest of us how it's done. My money isn't going to be put on those claiming it was management getting any better result than the pros had.
 
So go find investors. I didn't ask for excuses from you OR the person it was addressed to. People saying "bad management" caused the company to fail need to step up, pay up, and show the rest of us how it's done. My money isn't going to be put on those claiming it was management getting any better result than the pros had.

You act like investors are something that you just go out and find like a rock. Sorry, but I am unable to get the backing to so. Some people are not able to get backing to do what they would like.
 
You act like investors are something that you just go out and find like a rock. Sorry, but I am unable to get the backing to so. Some people are not able to get backing to do what they would like.
Ah, but you KNOW that management was bad, and the employees suffered because of their decisions. If you are such a great economist and your management style is superior you should have no problem formulating a business plan to present to the investors who are there right? I mean, it's "nut up or shut up" time is it not? Twinkies and other products are national name brands, why not convince an investor to partner with you and show management "how it's done"?
 
Ah, but you KNOW that management was bad, and the employees suffered because of their decisions.

Point to where I said the management was bad. I simply said if I could buy the brand if I could. I do have ideas that I think could make the company more profitable, however, I don't think the fault is solely with the management.


If you are such a great economist and your management style is superior you should have no problem formulating a business plan to present to the investors who are there right? I mean, it's "nut up or shut up" time is it not? Twinkies and other products are national name brands, why not convince an investor to partner with you and show management "how it's done"?

Again, not sure where your hostility is coming from but your snarky comments are not related to anything I said.
 
Point to where I said the management was bad. I simply said if I could buy the brand if I could. I do have ideas that I think could make the company more profitable, however, I don't think the fault is solely with the management.
The person I issued the challenge to blamed management. I assume you agree with him if you take up the challenge. So the options are prove us wrong or don't. Really simple.




Again, not sure where your hostility is coming from but your snarky comments are not related to anything I said.
You think I'm being snarky. I'm being efficient, instead of going through the motions of a long point I'm just slapping down the reality, lot's of people think they can be upper management, most of them are wrong.
 
Show us how it's done then. Go buy the brand, talk to the union with a contract that will get them back to work and keep the company profitable.

Actually, I used to buy/sell companies as a job, which is somewhat relevant as I understand a bit about buyer/seller motive. That not withstanding, I can tell you that if the business were truly healthy, this would not have happened. Do not forget this is the second bankruptcy to befall the company in the last 10 years. It filed in 2004 and did not exit bankruptcy until 2009.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I used to buy/sell companies as a job, which is somewhat relevant as I understand a bit about buyer/seller motive. That not withstanding, I can tell you that if the business were truly healthy, this would not have happened. Do not forget this is the second bankruptcy to befall the company in the last 10 years. It filed in 2004 and did not exit bankruptcy until 2009.
Yeah, I don't buy it. The reason I don't buy it is because people who flipped that kind of equity wouldn't be excusing liabilities the way you are.
 
Yeah, I don't buy it. The reason I don't buy it is because people who flipped that kind of equity wouldn't be excusing liabilities the way you are.

You don't buy that I used to do that for a living... well, I posted my bio on the visitor message page of my site almost two years ago (see Career Part II).... you are free to see.

View Profile: upsideguy - Debate Politics Forums

You are also free to review the troubled history of Hostess. Again, if there was a viable business, this could have been worked out. Unfortunately, the business was a train wreck and the restructuring plan was a non-starter, hence they close. Blaming it solely on the unions is a nice package for gullible people that want to believe such things.

Hiltzik: Poor management, not union intransigence, killed Hostess - Los Angeles Times

The fact is this is another fine example of private equity (Bain Capital business model) at work. Three private equity companies, including Silver Point Partners, loaded this company up with debt.... and in the Bain model, "fee'd" this thing up with excessive management fees and dividends and left a weak balance sheet for the company to tackle its marketing and labor woes.

Private Equity and Hostess Stumbling Together - NYTimes.com

Management was trying to squeeze concessions out of the unions to make their likely weak business plan work. They already told the unions there would be massive layoffs and major restructuring of retirement benefits. The unions were left to pick their poison. The fact that one union decide to shoot themselves rather than get shot is indicative of what a poor business plan or prospect that business had.

Hostess was a train-wreck as evidenced by the fact this was its second bankruptcy of a decade and that last bankruptcy took so long to work through. Anyone that is trying to sell this as those stupid unions took down a great company is ignorant of the many issues at play here.
 
You don't buy that I used to do that for a living... well, I posted my bio on the visitor message page of my site almost two years ago (see Career Part II).... you are free to see.

View Profile: upsideguy - Debate Politics Forums

You are also free to review the troubled history of Hostess. Again, if there was a viable business, this could have been worked out. Unfortunately, the business was a train wreck and the restructuring plan was a non-starter, hence they close. Blaming it solely on the unions is a nice package for gullible people that want to believe such things.

Hiltzik: Poor management, not union intransigence, killed Hostess - Los Angeles Times

The fact is this is another fine example of private equity (Bain Capital business model) at work. Three private equity companies, including Silver Point Partners, loaded this company up with debt.... and in the Bain model, "fee'd" this thing up with excessive management fees and dividends and left a weak balance sheet for the company to tackle its marketing and labor woes.

Private Equity and Hostess Stumbling Together - NYTimes.com

Management was trying to squeeze concessions out of the unions to make their likely weak business plan work. They already told the unions there would be massive layoffs and major restructuring of retirement benefits. The unions were left to pick their poison. The fact that one union decide to shoot themselves rather than get shot is indicative of what a poor business plan or prospect that business had.

Hostess was a train-wreck as evidenced by the fact this was its second bankruptcy of a decade and that last bankruptcy took so long to work through. Anyone that is trying to sell this as those stupid unions took down a great company is ignorant of the many issues at play here.
The reason I don't buy your line is because you are making too many assumptions. The LA Times is not a business magazine, they aren't even unbiased, and frankly I couldn't give two ****s about their opinion on a business matter, sorry, but I wouldn't use them as an example, people who made investing and flipping into a business should know that.
 
You don't buy that I used to do that for a living... well, I posted my bio on the visitor message page of my site almost two years ago (see Career Part II).... you are free to see.

View Profile: upsideguy - Debate Politics Forums

You are also free to review the troubled history of Hostess. Again, if there was a viable business, this could have been worked out. Unfortunately, the business was a train wreck and the restructuring plan was a non-starter, hence they close. Blaming it solely on the unions is a nice package for gullible people that want to believe such things.

Hiltzik: Poor management, not union intransigence, killed Hostess - Los Angeles Times

The fact is this is another fine example of private equity (Bain Capital business model) at work. Three private equity companies, including Silver Point Partners, loaded this company up with debt.... and in the Bain model, "fee'd" this thing up with excessive management fees and dividends and left a weak balance sheet for the company to tackle its marketing and labor woes.

Private Equity and Hostess Stumbling Together - NYTimes.com

Management was trying to squeeze concessions out of the unions to make their likely weak business plan work. They already told the unions there would be massive layoffs and major restructuring of retirement benefits. The unions were left to pick their poison. The fact that one union decide to shoot themselves rather than get shot is indicative of what a poor business plan or prospect that business had.

Hostess was a train-wreck as evidenced by the fact this was its second bankruptcy of a decade and that last bankruptcy took so long to work through. Anyone that is trying to sell this as those stupid unions took down a great company is ignorant of the many issues at play here.

An OP by the LA times and the NY Times, is a reliable unbiased source of anything, I don't think so.
 
An OP by the LA times and the NY Times, is a reliable unbiased source of anything, I don't think so.
But, but, but. It "confirmed" what he wanted to be true about the situation.
 
An OP by the LA times and the NY Times, is a reliable unbiased source of anything, I don't think so.

But, but, but. It "confirmed" what he wanted to be true about the situation.

The NY Times and LA Times remain amongst the most respectable newspapers in the world. They have no axe to grind on matters of business. They are not forms of Political Porn like Media Matters or World Net Daily.... or imbalanced reporters such as Fox or MSNBC.

People that ridicule the NY Times or LA Times and can not post evidence from a comparable source that would counter the argument live in an odd-space in life and not sufficiently grown-up enough to have an adult political conversation.

Feel free to actually rebut the argument (with equivalent support for your argument) instead of showing cowardice by offering such shallow distractions as to suggest that the NY Times or LA Times are not credible to mask the fact you have no intelligent rebuttal.

Again, the proposition on the table is that Hostess failed because it was a weak company.. and there are numerous parties at fault for that failure, including private equity, which layered tons of debt on the company, weakening its balance sheet to effect a proper turnaround.

But, I will indulge you, as the proponderance of evidence on this matter supports my assertion, so let's try another source....

How Workers And Management Both Caused The Demise Of Hostess - Business Insider

The idea that this healthy company failed because of the unions is an argument set forth by persons with an anti-union agenda and perpetuated by similar parties and the ignorant.
 
Last edited:
The NY Times and LA Times remain amongst the most respectable newspapers in the world. They have no axe to grind on matters of business. They are not forms of Political Porn like Media Matters or World Net Daily.... or imbalanced reporters such as Fox or MSNBC.
Bull****. The only people who actually put faith in the NYT and L.A. Times have a pre determined bias. They are typical biased rags. The New York Times and the New York Post are polar opposites of each other, they say what their side wants to hear, the L.A. Times is the west coast version of the NYT.
 
The idea that this healthy company failed because of the unions is an argument set forth by persons with an anti-union agenda and perpetuated by similar parties and the ignorant.

Here you go showing your lack of understanding of economics. You first say "this healthy company" by what standard is this company healthy, it's in bankruptcy, meaning it's liabilities exceeds it's net worth and cannot pay it's bills. The union leadership shut the company down by not working with a bankrupt company to help it survive. Now if a company is so healthy as you suggest then why in the hell is it liquidating and will be leaving it's creditors holding the bag. The sell of it's assets will not cover it's liabilities, leaving creditors losing a lot of money. And the stupid union just lost 18,000 jobs. And you wonder why unions have been losing membership for decades. Because of idiot union managers.
 
Here you go showing your lack of understanding of economics. You first say "this healthy company" by what standard is this company healthy, it's in bankruptcy, meaning it's liabilities exceeds it's net worth and cannot pay it's bills. The union leadership shut the company down by not working with a bankrupt company to help it survive. Now if a company is so healthy as you suggest then why in the hell is it liquidating and will be leaving it's creditors holding the bag. The sell of it's assets will not cover it's liabilities, leaving creditors losing a lot of money. And the stupid union just lost 18,000 jobs. And you wonder why unions have been losing membership for decades. Because of idiot union managers.

The "Vulture Capitalists" will profit handsomely from the sale of Corporate assetts. They're comparable to loan sharks when they make their Investments/loans and get excessive collateral for the money lent. Just good business. Why do you think they are referred to as Vulture (picks the bones) Capitalists?
 
The "Vulture Capitalists" will profit handsomely from the sale of Corporate assetts. They're comparable to loan sharks when they make their Investments/loans and get excessive collateral for the money lent. Just good business. Why do you think they are referred to as Vulture (picks the bones) Capitalists?

Do I really care what their called, I could care less, it's "just good business"
 
The "Vulture Capitalists" will profit handsomely from the sale of Corporate assetts. They're comparable to loan sharks when they make their Investments/loans and get excessive collateral for the money lent. Just good business. Why do you think they are referred to as Vulture (picks the bones) Capitalists?

If you think that the assets of the company will sell below market, put together a group to buy it and run it your own way. Our country allows that. For that matter, if the unions think that they could run it profitably and in the process retain those 18 K union jobs, I would guess that the courts and present management would view the offer favorably. This will not happen. Instead, some other entity, either a venture capital operation like Bain, or a foreign company will buy the assets at the highest bid.
 
If you think that the assets of the company will sell below market, put together a group to buy it and run it your own way. Our country allows that. For that matter, if the unions think that they could run it profitably and in the process retain those 18 K union jobs, I would guess that the courts and present management would view the offer favorably. This will not happen. Instead, some other entity, either a venture capital operation like Bain, or a foreign company will buy the assets at the highest bid.
Hell, if I had the assets right now I'd buy the entire Hostess name immediately. The name has a built in sales mechanism, it's a national brand and popular, all I would need is to sew up the labor end and tweak a few things. However, people would not like what I would do, it would locate to a right to work state, retirement plans and benefits would be in house, and there would be an efficient model, no more "targeted" responsibilities, the truckers can load, the bakers can put product on pallets, or the packagers can do it. No unnecessary positions, no union contracts, but the employees would have considerations.
 
The NY Times and LA Times remain amongst the most respectable newspapers in the world. They have no axe to grind on matters of business. They are not forms of Political Porn like Media Matters or World Net Daily.... or imbalanced reporters such as Fox or MSNBC.

People that ridicule the NY Times or LA Times and can not post evidence from a comparable source that would counter the argument live in an odd-space in life and not sufficiently grown-up enough to have an adult political conversation.

Feel free to actually rebut the argument (with equivalent support for your argument) instead of showing cowardice by offering such shallow distractions as to suggest that the NY Times or LA Times are not credible to mask the fact you have no intelligent rebuttal.

Again, the proposition on the table is that Hostess failed because it was a weak company.. and there are numerous parties at fault for that failure, including private equity, which layered tons of debt on the company, weakening its balance sheet to effect a proper turnaround.

But, I will indulge you, as the proponderance of evidence on this matter supports my assertion, so let's try another source....

How Workers And Management Both Caused The Demise Of Hostess - Business Insider

The idea that this healthy company failed because of the unions is an argument set forth by persons with an anti-union agenda and perpetuated by similar parties and the ignorant.

The same NYT that illegally leaked classified information and the same LA Times that came up with "Barack The Magic Negro"?
 
Hell, if I had the assets right now I'd buy the entire Hostess name immediately. The name has a built in sales mechanism, it's a national brand and popular, all I would need is to sew up the labor end and tweak a few things. However, people would not like what I would do, it would locate to a right to work state, retirement plans and benefits would be in house, and there would be an efficient model, no more "targeted" responsibilities, the truckers can load, the bakers can put product on pallets, or the packagers can do it. No unnecessary positions, no union contracts, but the employees would have considerations.

I would agree with you. The problem you would have is that as soon as you tried to do those things, and they are exactly what is needed to bring the company around, you would be facing endless lawsuits, which you would most likely lose. Boeing, tried to build a plant in a right to work state, and the union members in Seattle were able to stop it from doing so, the the union got the backing of the government. Most likely the trademarks will go to Bimba in Mexico, the plants will close, and 18,000 union members will lose their jobs. That's the part that doesn't bother me. They did it to themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom