• 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]

May I ask what the job market is like at the moment in the US? I know I can get facts and figures from the net, but it would be good to hear from real Americans on that.

In the UK, jobs are still hard to come by. Austerity measures are not working, causing the double dip recession. Manufacturing still being outsourced to China etc. Construction industry is not moving. Looks like more of the same for 2013. We should be in recovery by now.

Although I have not seen Hostess products in the UK, I am aware of some of the brands from US TV. Whatever the real reasons behind bankruptcy of that company, it's always alarming to see that amount of people lose their jobs.
 
I really don't think the union acted in the best interests of those members.
That depends on whether or not you believe the Union line of hoping the new owners, after liquidation, would provide better contracts/benefits. As that is why they say they would not agree to the current proposal.
The Union forced it into liquidation. Period.
 
T

Your sad little tirade is quite typical of you, so full of fury and so lacking in substance. Its borderline baiting with the stereotyping and the trained animal reference. Your mistake is thinking you are being rational, you are rationalizing your behavior and can't find the difference.

What is sad is your personal attack upon me.
 
Oh, I'm not saying management didn't do totally unethical things. But for the union to recommend that their members strike the company out of business (if that is, in fact, what happens....and they aren't given another opportunity to change their minds), I just don't think that was the right advice. Do you?

It's my understanding they'd seen the books. They knew the bankruptcy judge had agreed with the imposition of an altered contract. They'd been offered the same as the Teamster's -- a 25% interest in the company -- and, if I recall, the company was willing to sign a promissary note for $X millions.

I really don't think the union acted in the best interests of those members. If they should get another chance (which, I think, could happen), and they turn it down -- no sympathy from me. But I think the union convinced them the company was bluffing. And I don't think that was in their best interests at all.

You could be totally right Maggie. Your view of the total landscape could be the accurate and wise one.

I do think that the union wants to protect its members and makes their decisions as to what they think is the best. And they do so with local input. So I will not second guess the local union which has tons more information at their fingertips - not to mention the input of the actual members - than you or I or any media outlet could have.
 
What is sad is your personal attack upon me.

You are new here. Allow me to illuminate the darkness for you: Pavlov's bell has rung and the creatures of the right which hate unions as a matter of knee jerk reflex have salivated and attacked as a matter of course. The details do not matter. the facts do not matter. Reality does not matter.

The only thing that matters is that is is a chance for the warriors of the right to bash unions.

In a week or two or three it will be something else that fuels the rabid anti-union fires. The people defending Hostess here do NOT give a damn about the company, their employees or their products. It is merely an excuse to continue their war on unions.

Dont launch broadside personal attacks against union critics then whine when you are called irrational.

This passive agressive crap you keep playing is really getting old.
 
Dont launch broadside personal attacks against union critics then whine when you are called irrational.

This passive agressive crap you keep playing is really getting old.

How does making a personal attack against me negate the vitriolic attacks made against unions in this thread?
 
Just playing the devil's advocate here because I think that most modern unions blow, but from the labor perspective -- big picture -- you don't have much bargaining power if you demonstrate 100% of the time that you will cave in and accept management's demands.

true

when I was a young attorney we had to deal with about 15 grievances in a three week period after going almost 2 years with almost none. So i show up at the Union hall to meet with the steward over what was clearly BS grievances-one involved a guy running a forklift into the wall, another guy didn't set a brake on a lift and it went into a stack of pallets full of forgings, and in another case a guy got into a fight with a supervisor.

so I go in to the arbitration expecting to kick some but when the Local's President pulls me aside and said

hey kid, we aren't gonna fight these things. I looked at him and said what? he said elections are a few weeks out, we gotta look like we are doing something. so some of our stewards are a bit overzealous OK I said. so we pretended to make a big deal out of things, and we won all the grievances. if unions want to justify their dues they have to look like they are fighting for their members. the effective ones were like this local that was upfront with management though. because they would tell us when a grievance had real merit.
 
That's what's gone today, I think. Adversarial 125% of the time. And that's why most people think they're ***holes.

yeah that is true. I'd talk to the head of the local and get his perspective, go talk to the supervisor who refused to settle the grievance and generally it would be worked out. Not so much anymore.
 
How does making a personal attack against me negate the vitriolic attacks made against unions in this thread?

Dont post highly irrational diatribes stereotyping those politically opposite you and I wont call your posts irrational, hate filled diatribes. You want to debate, fine, debate. Launching stereotype broadsides across a bunch of people then pissing and moaning when you get called on it is not a personal attack---its calling you out for ****ty, whiny, hypocritical behavior.

Someone needs to start calling you out for this passive agressive whinefest you keep playing.

Before you cry your little head off about a personal attack, go back and examine everything I said--I am attacking your behavior and posting habits. YOU can end the criticism by being a better poster---stop doing stupid **** and Ill stop calling you out for it.
 
Before you cry your little head off about a personal attack, go back and examine everything I said--I am attacking your behavior and posting habits. YOU can end the criticism by being a better poster---stop doing stupid **** and Ill stop calling you out for it.

How does you making repeated personal attacks upon me provide any intelligent substitute for a lack of any evidence or foundation for you failing to refute the actual views I presented in my posts?
 
And employees dont work for free either.

that is not always correct. however, neither is a company in competition with others going to pay employees more than their labor is worth for long and survive.
 
How does you making repeated personal attacks upon me provide any intelligent substitute for a lack of any evidence or foundation for you failing to refute the actual views I presented in my posts?

Maybe because your view, is in fact, a wide based personal attack. You begin providing an intelligent rejoinder and Ill provide you with an intilligent response.

Dont launch your own attacks and then call the waaaahmbulance when I put on a helmet and start playing hardball.

Reminder for everyone about the post that has Haymarket claiming Im attacking him:

Originally Posted by haymarket

You are new here. Allow me to illuminate the darkness for you: Pavlov's bell has rung and the creatures of the right which hate unions as a matter of knee jerk reflex have salivated and attacked as a matter of course. The details do not matter. the facts do not matter. Reality does not matter.

The only thing that matters is that is is a chance for the warriors of the right to bash unions.

In a week or two or three it will be something else that fuels the rabid anti-union fires. The people defending Hostess here do NOT give a damn about the company, their employees or their products. It is merely an excuse to continue their war on unions.

You just admit you were wrong to play stereotypes and Ill leave you alone. But if you keep persisting in whining about about personal attacks after making a retarded post like above, Im going to keep dogging you.

Short version: thats not a view its a smear. You think Im attacking you? Quit whining about it and hit the triangle.
 
Maybe because your view, is in fact, a wide based personal attack. You begin providing an intelligent rejoinder and Ill provide you with an intilligent response.

Dont launch your own attacks and then call the waaaahmbulance when I put on a helmet and start playing hardball.

Reminder for everyone about the post that has Haymarket claiming Im attacking him:

Here was the part of the post from Zalatix that I responded to

Hostess was going under, regardless. After all that has come out about the venture capitalists that Mafia-style busted-out that company, it's amazing to see any rational, well-informed person is still pushing the Union meme.

Zalatix has just recently become a member here. The poster clearly expresses wonder and amazement that people in this thread still continue to push an anti-union message despite the information coming out that undercuts their position. What I did was to inform the poster of an existing and very real dynamic that exists here.

You call this my own personal attack. It was not. I did not mention a single person by name or identify and specific persons. I dealt with the message rather than the messenger. Perhaps you saw this as a personal attack because you yourself recognized you as being part of what I described? if so, that is on you and not me.
 
Translation: They would have earned more than $1 for a years work.

While at the same time, demand that their employees take a pay cut and a wage freeze which would take years to get back to where they were.

How many years is it going to take the idiots now?

How many years is it going to take the large amount of individuals willing to accept the court suggested, to my understanding, cut thanks to the idiots who caused them to lose their jobs due to their stubbornness to take any cut?

Somehow, I think it'll take longer than it would've with the pay cut.
 
How many years is it going to take the idiots now?

How many years is it going to take the large amount of individuals willing to accept the court suggested, to my understanding, cut thanks to the idiots who caused them to lose their jobs due to their stubbornness to take any cut?

Somehow, I think it'll take longer than it would've with the pay cut.

The company was going to go bankrupt anyway. The problem is much more fundamental than employee wages.

Nobody eats twinkies anymore.
 
How many years is it going to take the idiots now?

How many years is it going to take the large amount of individuals willing to accept the court suggested, to my understanding, cut thanks to the idiots who caused them to lose their jobs due to their stubbornness to take any cut?

Somehow, I think it'll take longer than it would've with the pay cut.

Here is the answer from the horse's mouth, eloquently.
Daily Kos: Inside the Hostess Bankery

"What was this last/best/final offer? You'd never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go...
1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.

Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in 5 years if I took their offer.
It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.
That $3+ per hour they steal totaled $50 million last year that they never paid us. They sold $2.5 BILLION in product last year. If they can't make this profitable without stealing my money then good riddance."
 
The Hostess Liquidation: A Curious Cast Of Characters As The Twinkie Tumbles | ZeroHedge

A long but good read on how Hostess got to where it is today

Those fortuities aggravated Hostess's two root problems -- a highly leveraged capital structure that had little margin of safety, and high labor costs. Neither problem was adequately addressed in the first bankruptcy, and neither existed to the same degree in major competitors like Bimbo and Flowers Food (owner of such brands as Nature's Own and Tastykake). On exiting the first bankruptcy, Hostess's total debt load was nearly $670 million. That was well above what it went into bankruptcy with in the first place -- an unusual circumstance that the company justified on expectations of "growing" into its capital structure
 
Here is the answer from the horse's mouth, eloquently.
Daily Kos: Inside the Hostess Bankery

"What was this last/best/final offer? You'd never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go...
1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.

Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in 5 years if I took their offer.
It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.
That $3+ per hour they steal totaled $50 million last year that they never paid us. They sold $2.5 BILLION in product last year. If they can't make this profitable without stealing my money then good riddance."

Interesting that this guy didn't mention that they were also going to get a 25% stake in the company...just like the Teamster's got and two union representatives on the eight-member board of Directors.

Now, who's right here because this link says this employee's understanding of the wage agreement is totally incorrect:

The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.

I suspect the link is correct, and the employee is wrong.

Hostess Brands closing for good due to bakers strike - Nov. 16, 2012

Edit: Combine this information with the fact that the Teamsters negotiated their own contract down and recommended the bakers union accept the concessions, and I suspect the workers were poorly informed. Who is more supportive of unions than Teamsters?

Teamsters: Bakery Workers Should Hold Secret Ballot Vote at Hostess | International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
 
Interesting that this guy didn't mention that they were also going to get a 25% stake in the company...just like the Teamster's got and two union representatives on the eight-member board of Directors.

Now, who's right here because this link says this employee's understanding of the wage agreement is totally incorrect:



I suspect the link is correct, and the employee is wrong.

Hostess Brands closing for good due to bakers strike - Nov. 16, 2012

Edit: Combine this information with the fact that the Teamsters negotiated their own contract down and recommended the bakers union accept the concessions, and I suspect the workers were poorly informed. Who is more supportive of unions than Teamsters?

Teamsters: Bakery Workers Should Hold Secret Ballot Vote at Hostess | International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)

Nowhere have I actually seen where the Bakers Union was offered the 25% stake that Teamsters received.
 
Back
Top Bottom