• 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]

Fisher said:
Perhaps it has more to do with their products being twice as expensive for consumers than competitor products during a period when the consumers are more price conscious. Walmart has their knockoffs of the Hostess snackcakes; Little Debbie has some comparable cakes at a cheaper price, etc. They may not have tasted 100% the same, but a two minute sugar and cinnamon fix isn't an upscale experience worthy of an upscale price.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however, their flagship products were superior in taste and they failed to advertise that effectively. There are plenty of Twinkie knock-offs and they all taste like crap, a carload of sugar mixed together. The Twinkie, the Ding Dong, whatever, they were all "treats", as in one in a while snack. They're not meant to be lived on (though some apparently try).
 
Excon said:
Let?
Because the Name, property, and equipment belongs to the Company/Share holders.

Let the Union and the employees buy it if they can afford it.

What's really messed up about this is basically you have one Union screwing over it own members and another Union just to make a point.
And some people think Unions actually care about them. Doh!
Click to expand...


Unions are businesses and big businesses in fact. That they actually care for 'the working man' is a myth that should have been dismissed as nonsense long ago.
 
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.

Get used to workers fighting for better wages - nationwide. Your beloved CEOs get better pay as time goes on. Workers are people, too.

Sorry, but reality isn't what Gina Rineheart says it is.
Click to expand...

Actually the reality is just what she says it is. Where did she go wrong?
 
AdamT said:
Isn't amazing that when businesses fail it's always the workers' fault -- never management's fault for being ****ty at managing the company.
Click to expand...

Well, no. I have not seen unions taking blame except when, as in this case, they deserve some of the blame. It's especially dramatic in this case: Union strikes --> Company goes out of business.

The fact is that Interstate Bakeries (Hostess' parent company) has been failing for a long time due to its inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. That's not to say that the union was right in digging in its heels, but let's not ignore management's share of the blame.
Click to expand...

Duely noted. However, the union has been especially stupid, going on strike when they did. And yes, that is their fault.
 
Grant said:
There are few businesses where the employees don't feel they are smarter than the boss.
Click to expand...

They can 'feel' whatever they want, but the reality is they are the employee, not the employer, thus a feeling such as above is obviously wrong.
 
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.

Get used to workers fighting for better wages - nationwide. Your beloved CEOs get better pay as time goes on. Workers are people, too.

Sorry, but reality isn't what Gina Rineheart says it is.
Click to expand...

Technically it is technology not work that is making them 300% more productive. They are not the ones who bought the technology so why should they reap all the marginal profits from it, or any of it for that matter if there is someone else who would be willing to do their job for less?
 
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.

Get used to workers fighting for better wages - nationwide. Your beloved CEOs get better pay as time goes on. Workers are people, too.

Sorry, but reality isn't what Gina Rineheart says it is.
Click to expand...

Average salary in the 1940's: $1300/year -- adjusted for inflation to 1995: $11,000
Average salary in the 1990's: $27,809/year

That's a real increase of 153%. So you're wrong.

That's not taking account that the reason workers are more productive today is because they're working on $2 million machines.

Workers only have one thing to sell to corporations: their 8-hour day. Same 8 hours they had in 1947 are still around today.

http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade40.html
 
Fisher said:
Perhaps it has more to do with their products being twice as expensive for consumers than competitor products during a period when the consumers are more price conscious. Walmart has their knockoffs of the Hostess snackcakes; Little Debbie has some comparable cakes at a cheaper price, etc. They may not have tasted 100% the same, but a two minute sugar and cinnamon fix isn't an upscale experience worthy of an upscale price.
Click to expand...

So some people are wont to blame management, pointing to the fact that Hostess products are more expensive than the competition. Is it management's fault if labor costs are high and can't be reduced because of union intransigence? Perhaps they should have moved their production to Mexico a long time ago; that would have been a smart management decision. :lol:

It looks like Hostess was beset by two problems, higher production costs, more competition, and, no make that three problems, higher production costs, more competition, and declining appeal for low end high carb snacks. A big part of the lack of flexibility in responding to those challenges is the lack of flexibility of the union.

I realize that many unions have shown flexibility and a willingness to work with the companies when market forces change, but apparently this union was not flexible.

In any case, the union movement richly deserves to have the death of the Twinkie hung around its neck.
 
LowDown said:
So some people are wont to blame management, pointing to the fact that Hostess products are more expensive than the competition. Is it management's fault if labor costs are high and can't be reduced because of union intransigence? Perhaps they should have moved their production to Mexico a long time ago; that would have been a smart management decision. :lol:

It looks like Hostess was beset by two problems, higher production costs, more competition, and, no make that three problems, higher production costs, more competition, and declining appeal for low end high carb snacks. A big part of the lack of flexibility in responding to those challenges is the lack of flexibility of the union.

I realize that many unions have shown flexibility and a willingness to work with the companies when market forces change, but apparently this union was not flexible.

In any case, the union movement richly deserves to have the death of the Twinkie hung around its neck.
Click to expand...

So you completely missed that they were in bankruptcy for being badly mismanaged? Of course you did...
 
AdamT said:
Okay, so can you explain how it's the union's fault that, over the past decade, the company lost market share, ran up mountains of debt, and produced declining sales? Is it the union's fault that the underlying business was poorly run?
Click to expand...

That does not say the company was poorly run, only that they were having difficulty competing in the marketplace. Knowing this everyone involved should have been more flexible and it seems almost everyone was.
 
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.

Get used to workers fighting for better wages - nationwide. Your beloved CEOs get better pay as time goes on. Workers are people, too.

Sorry, but reality isn't what Gina Rineheart says it is.
Click to expand...

Don't really care what Gina thinks, but that increase in productivity has very little to do with the worker. It's mechanization and efficiencies in supply.
 
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.

Get used to workers fighting for better wages - nationwide. Your beloved CEOs get better pay as time goes on. Workers are people, too.

Sorry, but reality isn't what Gina Rineheart says it is.
Click to expand...

Thats a joke post right? One: your productivity numbers are off---US productivity has risen 300% since 1970. Two---your salary numbers are way the hell off. US median wage in '47 was $2850. Im willing to bet median income isnt $5700 right now.

Btw, is THIS: Productivity and real median family income growth, 1947-2011 | State of Working America the source for your misguided nonsense? 2 things to say if it is, efficiency is linear and unaffected by inflation and monetary changes. Wages are affected by inflation and money changes and are not linear in growth. Comparing the two as a basis for income growth is unproductive. Secondly, if you dont allow for inflation, median income is right here: Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
knock yourself out. 32k or 39k depending on which measure you use. Looks like 1000% to me. shrug
 
OpportunityCost said:
Thats a joke post right? One: your productivity numbers are off---US productivity has risen 300% since 1970. Two---your salary numbers are way the hell off. US median wage in '47 was $2850. Im willing to bet median income isnt $5700 right now.

Btw, is THIS: Productivity and real median family income growth, 1947-2011 | State of Working America the source for your misguided nonsense? 2 things to say if it is, efficiency is linear and unaffected by inflation and monetary changes. Wages are affected by inflation and money changes and are not linear in growth. Comparing the two as a basis for income growth is unproductive. Secondly, if you dont allow for inflation, median income is right here: Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
knock yourself out. 32k or 39k depending on which measure you use. Looks like 1000% to me. shrug
Click to expand...

Whatever the percentages might be, I doubt people in the western democracies are working three times harder, or 10 times harder, than they were in 1947.
 
Grant said:
Whatever the percentages might be, I doubt people in the western democracies are working three times harder, or 10 times harder, than they were in 1947.
Click to expand...

I suspect much of the increase in productivity has its basis in technology.
 
AdamT said:
Isn't amazing that when businesses fail it's always the workers' fault -- never management's fault for being ****ty at managing the company. The fact is that Interstate Bakeries (Hostess' parent company) has been failing for a long time due to its inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. That's not to say that the union was right in digging in its heels, but let's not ignore management's share of the blame.

A 2003 article pointing to IBC's management problem: Interstate Half Baked

They went bankrupt in '04 and emerged as Hostess Brands, then nearly went bankrupt again last year, before finally failing this year.
Click to expand...

What your suggesting is that no company should ever go into bankruptcy. And if it does it's managements fault. That is as naive as it gets. One little example, you have one union shop competing with a nonunion shop with lower wages who's going to win? You have dumbass union workers that don't want to work with management so that company can compete, so the company is forced into bankruptcy. And how stupid is the union, they are now all out of work for good. And the new buyer picking up the pieces will not be union, that you can go to the bank with. Goodby more unions shops.
 
Harshaw said:
I suspect much of the increase in productivity has its basis in technology.
Click to expand...

Of COURSE it does. Thats why efficiency is a terrible measurement of wages over time. Which is my point.
 
CalGun said:
Looks like its over for the Twinkie? I'd laugh if Bain came in and saved the Twinkie. Think Michelle obama will promote a govt bail out?
Click to expand...

No, because Twinkies make kids fat.
 
Zalatix said:
Unions are fighting for better wages.
Click to expand...
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.


Zalatix said:
Should I point out how wages have failed to keep up with productivity growth?
Click to expand...
Give it a shot slick.
You will be wrong from the get.
But I do not expect a socialist to understand that.
 
AdamT said:
Isn't amazing that when businesses fail it's always the workers' fault -- never management's fault for being ****ty at managing the company. The fact is that Interstate Bakeries (Hostess' parent company) has been failing for a long time due to its inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. That's not to say that the union was right in digging in its heels, but let's not ignore management's share of the blame.

A 2003 article pointing to IBC's management problem: Interstate Half Baked

They went bankrupt in '04 and emerged as Hostess Brands, then nearly went bankrupt again last year, before finally failing this year.
Click to expand...

For Pete's sake!


tessaesque said:
This filing began in January, the CEO was replaced in March, and all signs indicate that Rayburn was on the right path. Four top executives took a 99.999% pay cut, and four others took 40-80% pay cuts in line with restructuring. Nearly half of the union workers had agreed to the new contract. The other half, approximately 4,000 employees out of 18,500 decided to hold out at the advice of their union. The result was what we have before us today. 4,000 greedy assholes led by a destructive, wholly inaccurate union have now successfully killed 18,500 jobs.

What else would you have had the CEO do? Cut the salaries of non-union employees by 50% during the shut down in hopes of keeping the company alive until the 4,000 came to their senses? Fire all non-union employees in hopes of keeping the company alive until the 4,000 came to their senses? Caved to the demands of 1/2 of the union workers, comprising less than 25% of the total work force, even knowing that such a cave would make the business less likely to acquire funding and security for a stable outlook?

The union was wrong here, and it should be made absolutely clear to them that they were wrong.

Comparing what is happening in this bankruptcy filing to what happened damn near 10 years ago is a dishonest means of trying to paint current management as the catalyst for this. Rayburn has been on the job since March of this year and by all appearances meant to save Hostess. Too bad the unions cared less for the company they "helped build" than the man who'd only been there 7 months.

But yeah, make management the villain here, in this situation, in this context, given the facts available. Whatever spin you have to come up with to make it happen is totally cool. What the hell does reality matter, anyway?
Click to expand...

What she said.
 
Excon said:
For Pete's sake!


​

What she said.
Click to expand...

So your position is that management bears NO responsibility for the failed business? :doh
 
AdamT said:
So your position is that management bears NO responsibility for the failed business? :doh
Click to expand...

The run up to failure, yes. Considering the current management has only been online since March this year and has been trying to save the business, also yes, this one is on the union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom