• 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

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
17,282
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This isn't good... I guess the question for the union workers is:

Is a job with a cut in pay, better than no job at all?


Hostess threatens to lay off 18,000 employees unless strike ends


TULSA - Hostess Brands, Inc. is telling its 18,000 workers to either get back to work by 5 p.m. Thursday or face unemployment.

In a statement found on the company's website , Hostess threatened to "liquidate the entire company if enough striking employees do not return to work" by the given time.

“We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike,” said Gregory F. Rayburn, the Company’s Chairman and CEO.

Read more: Hostess announces possible liquidation
 
"Suck it, Big Boss Man, Obama won!!!"....oops

On the plus side, whoever buys Hostess will likely make them cheaper to reinsert the brand into the market......I better stock up on Ding Dongs though......
 
And this is why unions exist. So that those who have money and power cannot exercise that power over everyone else with impunity.
 
This isn't good... I guess the question for the union workers is:

Is a job with a cut in pay, better than no job at all?




Read more: Hostess announces possible liquidation

I think if you went out and asked individuals who have lost their jobs and are still unemployed that many of them would say a pay cut would be better than no job at all.....I don't know what kind of wages these people have but I'm sure if they are union it is more than minimum wage or an unemployment check.
 
It'd be interesting to see how this unfolds. There should come a point where a business simply can't survive by giving into a union's demands.
 
"Suck it, Big Boss Man, Obama won!!!"....oops

On the plus side, whoever buys Hostess will likely make them cheaper to reinsert the brand into the market......I better stock up on Ding Dongs though......

The company has made it clear, that there is nobody waiting in the wings to buy them, nor anyone even offering to do so.
 
I think if you went out and asked individuals who have lost their jobs and are still unemployed that many of them would say a pay cut would be better than no job at all.....I don't know what kind of wages these people have but I'm sure if they are union it is more than minimum wage or an unemployment check.

The workers did average $20 per hour, and average over $18 an hour now with the pay cut.
 
And this is why unions exist. So that those who have money and power cannot exercise that power over everyone else with impunity.

Hostess is in CH 11 right now and these cuts are part of that agreement. If they don't get these cuts then they can't complete the reorganization which only leaves the option of liquidation. The union is cutting off their nose despite their face but, frankly, it's the free market at work and I'm all for letting them reap the results of what they have sown.
 
And this is why unions exist. So that those who have money and power cannot exercise that power over everyone else with impunity.

Going on strike when the company they work for is going bankrupt is the dumbest thing they could be doing right now.
 
Hostess is in CH 11 right now and these cuts are part of that agreement. If they don't get these cuts then they can't complete the reorganization which only leaves the option of liquidation. The union is cutting off their nose despite their face but, frankly, it's the free market at work and I'm all for letting them reap the results of what they have sown.

Which I predict, is exactly what is going to happen... Our economy will shed another 18,000 jobs thanks to their BS.
 
The company has made it clear, that there is nobody waiting in the wings to buy them, nor anyone even offering to do so.

But market analyst believe there will be several people interested in buying their brands. I don't care who makes them, just as long as their goodness returns to the marketplace. The employees get what they deserve trying to hold an already bankrupt company Hostage.
 
But market analyst believe there will be several people interested in buying their brands. I don't care who makes them, just as long as their goodness returns to the marketplace. The employees get what they deserve trying to hold an already bankrupt company Hostage.

It's not just that 18,000 jobs will be lost, but that 18,000 more people will be going on the government dole and collecting up to 99 weeks of public money to support them, when these people voluntarily pissed away a decent paying job.
 
It's not just that 18,000 jobs will be lost, but that 18,000 more people will be going on the government dole and collecting up to 99 weeks of public money to support them, when these people voluntarily pissed away a decent paying job.

The people who will be making twinkies under a new company will wash out some of the loss. But, if someone pisses away a job in today's world, maybe others will see that unions are not always the answer they think they are, because my guess is whoever buys the brands will not be reopening those factories. They will move into other facilities in places where people are a little less willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
But market analyst believe there will be several people interested in buying their brands. I don't care who makes them, just as long as their goodness returns to the marketplace. The employees get what they deserve trying to hold an already bankrupt company Hostage.

Who's going to buy them? The "Twinkie" may well be an American icon but it's also a relic of the days when sugary globs of fat were all the rage. In today's market you have to have something "healthy" in your lineup or you're done. Besides, as we move more and more toward a single payer health care system the likelihood of the product simply being banned becomes more and more realistic.

If anything, the dissolution of Hostess will open up some C-Store shelf space for regionally produced treats.
 
This isn't good... I guess the question for the union workers is:

Is a job with a cut in pay, better than no job at all?

Read more: Hostess announces possible liquidation

From their website:

Hostess to Liquidate if Strikes Impede Normal Operations Past 5 p.m., EST, Thursday
November 14, 2012

Irving, TX – November 14, 2012 – Hostess Brands Inc. announced today that it will file a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on Friday to liquidate the entire Company if enough striking employees do not return to work by 5 p.m., EST, Thursday to enable the Company to resume normal operations. The strikes were called on November 9 by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union (BCTGM).

“We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike,” said Gregory F. Rayburn, the Company’s Chairman and CEO. “Therefore, if sufficient employees do not return to work by 5 p.m., EST, on Thursday to restore normal operations, we will be forced to immediately move to liquidate the entire Company, which will result in the loss of nearly 18,000 jobs. It is now up to Hostess’ BCTGM represented employees and Frank Hurt, their international president, to decide if they want to call off the strike and save this Company, or cause massive financial harm to thousands of employees and their families.”

What kind of union plays this kind of chicken with their employees' jobs? The article went on to say that they will file a motion tomorrow to liquidate, hopefully get it approved by Monday and shut down on Tuesday.

Whose interests are being served here? Whose? One might say "the union's." But they lose 7,000 dues-paying members.
 
Who's going to buy them? The "Twinkie" may well be an American icon but it's also a relic of the days when sugary globs of fat were all the rage. In today's market you have to have something "healthy" in your lineup or you're done. Besides, as we move more and more toward a single payer health care system the likelihood of the product simply being banned becomes more and more realistic.

If anything, the dissolution of Hostess will open up some C-Store shelf space for regionally produced treats.

It would be a good buy for Nestle that already has an extensive distribution network. While Coke is mainly beverage, you never know they may be willing to diversify their holdings. Pretty much anyone in food/beverage should take a look. They were dragged down by old debt and unions, not the lack of a market.
 
What I'd like to know is what kind of cuts the executives are facing. Is the idea of shared sacrifice dead in America, or is it all a "we win, you lose" mentality?

I'd certainly be suspect if there's still executives up the wazoo raking it in and asking the workers to take the cuts. For example, does the CEO's secretary have a secretary? You can laugh if you want, but trust me this sort of **** happens. Then they blame their own mismanagement on the employees. Union or not.
 
What I'd like to know is what kind of cuts the executives are facing. Is the idea of shared sacrifice dead in America, or is it all a "we win, you lose" mentality?

I'd certainly be suspect if there's still executives up the wazoo raking it in and asking the workers to take the cuts. For example, does the CEO's secretary have a secretary? You can laugh if you want, but trust me this sort of **** happens. Then they blame their own mismanagement on the employees. Union or not.


Why should the Hostess executives take pay cuts? You don't see other executives taking pay cuts.
 
What I'd like to know is what kind of cuts the executives are facing. Is the idea of shared sacrifice dead in America, or is it all a "we win, you lose" mentality?

I'd certainly be suspect if there's still executives up the wazoo raking it in and asking the workers to take the cuts. For example, does the CEO's secretary have a secretary? You can laugh if you want, but trust me this sort of **** happens. Then they blame their own mismanagement on the employees. Union or not.

Why is it always about what the other guy makes, rather than what you make?

My mother always taught me that what other people have is none of my business, and to just worry about myself.
 
From their website:



What kind of union plays this kind of chicken with their employees' jobs? The article went on to say that they will file a motion tomorrow to liquidate, hopefully get it approved by Monday and shut down on Tuesday.

Whose interests are being served here? Whose? One might say "the union's." But they lose 7,000 dues-paying members.

Why in the hell would they strike under those conditions, especially if they want to keep their jobs? It strikes me as insanity.
 
Why should the Hostess executives take pay cuts? You don't see other executives taking pay cuts.

It would make a whole lot of sense to me if the executives were taking the same pay cuts they were giving to their employees. If the executives don't like it? Let them find other jobs. Seems to me that's a sense of fairness that just makes sense.

And yet we have THIS:

Last July, the court documents said, the compensation committee of Hostess's board approved an increase in then-chief executive Brian Driscoll's salary from to $2.55 million from around $750,000. The company had hired restructuring lawyers in March 2011, the creditors said, and filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 11.

Mr. Driscoll is no longer with the company and wasn't reached for comment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577323993512506050.html
 
Why in the hell would they strike under those conditions, especially if they want to keep their jobs? It strikes me as insanity.

Well, the workers planning to strike at Walmart on Black Friday might be giving them a run for their money, but yeah. Maybe they all want to go deer hunting. It would make more sense than anything else I have seen.....
 
Last edited:
What I'd like to know is what kind of cuts the executives are facing. Is the idea of shared sacrifice dead in America, or is it all a "we win, you lose" mentality?

I'd certainly be suspect if there's still executives up the wazoo raking it in and asking the workers to take the cuts. For example, does the CEO's secretary have a secretary? You can laugh if you want, but trust me this sort of **** happens. Then they blame their own mismanagement on the employees. Union or not.

Let's say that the CEO is making $10 million a year cash (he isn't but let's just say). When you spread that across 18,000 employees that comes out to $555.56 dollars per year for a raise of just over 30 cents per hour for full time employees factored at 35 hours per week.

YIPPEE!!
:roll:
 
It is a shame they apparently did not have the foresight to put all their IP into a separate corporation and then license it to the manufacturing side so they could have just closed the company a year ago, sold the IP and walked away.
 
Why is it always about what the other guy makes, rather than what you make?

My mother always taught me that what other people have is none of my business, and to just worry about myself.

Why is it all the Union? Do the executives not get paid?

It's all part of the picture of what's going on. Do you think it's OK for them to have huge salaries and not take cuts but only asking for that from the Union? I'm not even saying that's happening, but it would help paint the full picture rather than just blaming the favorite right-wing bogeyman.
 
Back
Top Bottom