• 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]

The company could have continued had management done their job in the first place.

If by that you mean refuse to accept terms that would result in the death of the company, then the answer is that they did do their job.
 
BS plenty have blamed unions never the bad management.

Well in this case it is largely the unions' fault. Management didn't (as near as I can tell) decide to mass-invest in a new product that consumers hated, or try to expand production faster than the market would bear. That in no way whitewashes or absolves any screwups by management; and the notion of moral blame in a question of business viability is sort of.... off. It's the managements' job to see the best result for the company. Unions have a different focus of effort, and one that often clashes with what is best for the company. Except that in competition, when what is best for the company doesn't happen, the company dies. That's why unions shrink in the private sector over time - the businesses that they are attached to tend to die off.
 
If by that you mean refuse to accept terms that would result in the death of the company, then the answer is that they did do their job.

No that is not what I mean. I mean people did not take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously that were in charge of it.
 
The company could have continued had management done their job in the first place.

No, they couldn't have. This is a perfect example of greedy labor unions driving businesses out of business.

Also, Hostess will still be around they will just sell their rights to the brand name and assets to the highest bidder - which will more than likely in-turn staff the bakeries with temporary workers to avoid the union nonsense.

Quite frankly I'm more than satisfied with seeing a business telling the greedy labor unions to tell them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

Maybe those 18,500 collectivists out of work will think twice the next time they have a job and start making outrageous demands.
 
Well in this case it is largely the unions' fault. Management didn't (as near as I can tell) decide to mass-invest in a new product that consumers hated,

What product was that?

I remember New Coke BTW
 
Maybe those 18,500 collectivists out of work will think twice the next time they have a job and start making outrageous demands.

Nah. they'll just collect their Govvie Bennies and continue blaming others.
 
Well in this case it is largely the unions' fault. Management didn't (as near as I can tell) decide to mass-invest in a new product that consumers hated, or try to expand production faster than the market would bear. That in no way whitewashes or absolves any screwups by management; and the notion of moral blame in a question of business viability is sort of.... off. It's the managements' job to see the best result for the company. Unions have a different focus of effort, and one that often clashes with what is best for the company. Except that in competition, when what is best for the company doesn't happen, the company dies. That's why unions shrink in the private sector over time - the businesses that they are attached to tend to die off.

You're right it is the unions fault. Hostess had a deal in place with the teamsters union, however a much smaller union wouldn't budge.

Sometimes you have to say enough is enough and get out why you can.
 
Because Hostess did not recently sink massive sums of money in a "New Twinkie", or anything comparable.


Because venture capitalists sunk it all into debt. Hoping to make a buck off that.
 
Because venture capitalists sunk it all into debt. Hoping to make a buck off that.

No, the "venture capitalists" will be the ones buying the rights to the Hostess brand.
 
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.

You just realized this after you got done cheering the "holding companies" that own "Hostess" on? You just figured out that Vulture capital firms buying companies in trouble and breaking them up for profit cost the Govt. allot of money? Who do you thinks holding the bag on the pension obligations?. But all of this is moot because we all know a free market is the only way to go. God forbid we hold anybody responsible for anything they do to make a profit. Leaving the Govt. holding the bag is just gravy.
 
Because venture capitalists sunk it all into debt. Hoping to make a buck off that.

Venture Capital is generally start up firms, or small firms. That's why it's called Venture Capital. However, if you have any evidence of your interesting assertion, I would be happy in hearing it.

Interesting how you seem to have some kind of mirror image of the strawman you accused others of. It must be bad management because unions never make impossible demands :roll:
 
You just realized this after you got done cheering the "holding companies" that own "Hostess" on? You just figured out that Vulture capital firms buying companies in trouble and breaking them up for profit cost the Govt. allot of money? Who do you thinks holding the bag on the pension obligations?. But all of this is moot because we all know a free market is the only way to go. God forbid we hold anybody responsible for anything they do to make a profit. Leaving the Govt. holding the bag is just gravy.

I would love to know why progressives believe businesses are only in business to employ people???

I would also love to know why progressives believe making money is wrong?

Progressives work for money do they not? well guess what - those who have a stake in Hostess only have a stake for the same reason - to make money. What do you think? these people run the company to take losses?

When a company is no longer profitable to run - you shut it down and sell off what you can.

BTW, you're going to see a lot more of this..... Businesses selling off their brand names and assets to companies that will buy them and staff them with temp workers to avoid the union nonsense. But I suppose that will be the silver lining of this horrible economy - the destruction of the labor union.
 
Venture Capital is generally start up firms, or small firms. That's why it's called Venture Capital. However, if you have any evidence of your interesting assertion, I would be happy in hearing it.

Interesting how you seem to have some kind of mirror image of the strawman you accused others of. It must be bad management because unions never make impossible demands :roll:

The 8% pay cut that was offered by Silver Point Capital was too much for the membership to stomach. They voted overwhelmingly against it. Unions are people, please at least try to remember that.
There may be a glitch in Silver point's plan though. A bankruptcy judge will need to approve any liquidation. I hope those books are gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Meanwhile peruse their website, They are a " registered investment adviser focused on credit and special situations investments."

https://www.silverpointcapital.com/
 
Last edited:
The 8% pay cut that was offered by Silver Point Capital was too much for the membership to stomach. They voted overwhelmingly against it. Unions are people, please at least try to remember that.
There may be a glitch in Silver point's plan though. A bankruptcy judge will need to approve any liquidation. I hope those books are gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Meanwhile peruse their website, They are a " registered investment adviser focused on credit and special situations investments."

https://www.silverpointcapital.com/

I love how you believe the judicial system can prevent Hostess from liquidating their assets and selling their brand name.

They can go through as many books as they like - that won't stop Hostess from liquidating....

Besides, it was only a matter of time before this was bound to happen....

This is a perfect example of "who is John Galt?"
 
The employees are the union....

That was never my experience working under the union. The union is a leach that forces the workers to pay them with their hard earned money, while doing absolutely nothing in return to earn those "dues". The union is an obsolete construct, made worthless by the introduction of federal workers rights laws.
 
That was never my experience working under the union. The union is a leach that forces the workers to pay them with their hard earned money, while doing absolutely nothing in return to earn those "dues". The union is an obsolete construct, made worthless by the introduction of federal workers rights laws.

I worked as a machine operator under a labor union for a few years. I agree with you 100%, but I would also like to add that my fellow coworkers would get extremely pissed when people started working hard. In short if my quota was 120 pieces (I worked in steel fabrication) and I produced 150 they would continually tell me to slow down because they didn't want the part quotas to go up.... They were generally slackers. They had us on a point system which allowed us to get away with just about anything. Hell, if I really wanted to I could show up drunk and late and not get fired (many guys showed up drunk/high). If you wanted to you could just not show up at all or leave whenever you wanted. The rules were pretty simple - you get 20 points, if you miss a day it will cost you 2 points, if you're late or leave early it will cost you 1 point. Oh, then they would give you 2 points back every 60 days if you lost no points.
 
I worked as a machine operator under a labor union for a few years. I agree with you 100%, but I would also like to add that my fellow coworkers would get extremely pissed when people started working hard. In short if my quota was 120 pieces (I worked in steel fabrication) and I produced 150 they would continually tell me to slow down because they didn't want the part quotas to go up.... They were generally slackers. They had us on a point system which allowed us to get away with just about anything. Hell, if I really wanted to I could show up drunk and late and not get fired (many guys showed up drunk/high). If you wanted to you could just not show up at all or leave whenever you wanted. The rules were pretty simple - you get 20 points, if you miss a day it will cost you 2 points, if you're late or leave early it will cost you 1 point. Oh, then they would give you 2 points back every 60 days if you lost no points.

Sounds about right. I negotiated my own starting wages, brought issues and requests directly to my supervisors, and never had any problems because I did what was expected of me. If I didn't know what I was doing, I asked. Even if it made me look like a dummy, I still asked. I wanted to be the best I could at what I did. I'm just like that. If there's a low quota, I can fill it in no time and move on to the next task, I can work overtime, I can take on extra tasks. I can do whatever the hell my employer wants, when and how they want it done. Competitive non-unionized markets love workers like me, and unions ****ing hate me, which is just fine because non-union pays better, and offers greater benefits.
 
Back
Top Bottom