• 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]

g
If you want to know what the Union was thinking when they decided to go on strike... just read their own words... I'm sure this had something to do with it:


BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

link...


During the bankruptcy the CEO gets a 300% pay raise and other execs as well getting massive raises while negating employee pensions. The executives have destroyed this company and they are using their failure to blame it all on the union. These execs can go **** themselves. Uttlerly pathetic leadership and looky here, no shortage of people willing to line up and suck the toes of the executive failures simply becuse they are told to hate unions by all means. Go figure.

Those salaries are definitely why the company is $860 million dollars in debt.

All the lamenting! Oh gosh how awful those rich people are. The reason people put money into companies isn't because they wanted to make charitable contributions. Nor were the employees working charity. All in it for themselves. No exceptions.

For whatever reasons, the employees' union and company management both made take-it-or-bust offers. Both refused. End of company, end of story. That's how it went.

Here's the simple fact - for which everyone is trying to be moral judges - when it all just about money. Not one of the employees was required to work for $18 per hour. That was the offer. Because they are union, they voted on it and said no, they want $20 an hour. The board voted on that, and a majority said no.

So the company closed down. The end then is: No managers. No employees. No board.

^ See how simple it is.
 
Nice... Can't say I fully agree being that unions are and have been extremely handicapped for decades now. Had they actually had any power, income inequality wouldn't be at a high in our country since the great depression.

The above is immensely funny.

Yeah, if unions had their way, most businesses would be out of business as they would be running in the red constantly to meet over inflated salaries and benefits. Those that remained in business would have to charge so much for their stuff most people (including the union workers) wouldn't be able to afford that stuff.
 
Hostess threatens to lay off 18,000 employees unless strike ends

Interesting the things the Teamsters had to do to cross the bakers picket lines.
 
During the bankruptcy the CEO gets a 300% pay raise

While trying to understand your underlying point I am confused. Employees unite and collectively bargain for the BEST wage/benefits they can get and that’s acceptable. An individual employee negotiates for HIS BEST wage/benefits HE can get and that is wrong…seems hypocritical. Ultimately the DIP’s presumably felt the CEO had value to justify the 300% raise.

And to be clear, I have NO issue with private sector unions. If a workforce wants to organize we live in America and it is your right to do so! If this organization ultimately has SOME influence that causes the company to go out of business that’s the way it goes. Non-union companies go out of business all the time so unionization is not the ‘boogie man’ always. But you can’t argue that it has NO effect on the climate of businesses.
 
Nice... Can't say I fully agree being that unions are and have been extremely handicapped for decades now. Had they actually had any power, income inequality wouldn't be at a high in our country since the great depression.

You might ask yourself why the auto workers for Toyota and other foreign manufacturers grow their workforces in the states. These are non-union and pay a similar rate to GM and Ford. When you think of unions, the mistake people like you make is to think of higher wages. Wages are a small part a modern factory's cost. Try work rules that make productivity the real problem in union shops.
 
g

Those salaries are definitely why the company is $860 million dollars in debt.

All the lamenting! Oh gosh how awful those rich people are. The reason people put money into companies isn't because they wanted to make charitable contributions. Nor were the employees working charity. All in it for themselves. No exceptions.

For whatever reasons, the employees' union and company management both made take-it-or-bust offers. Both refused. End of company, end of story. That's how it went.

Here's the simple fact - for which everyone is trying to be moral judges - when it all just about money. Not one of the employees was required to work for $18 per hour. That was the offer. Because they are union, they voted on it and said no, they want $20 an hour. The board voted on that, and a majority said no.

So the company closed down. The end then is: No managers. No employees. No board.

^ See how simple it is.

High executive salary, increasing competition from similar products, an aging line of products that haven't really done anything in decades to keep the marketing fresh, an increasing concern with health and obesity, especially among children, going into bankruptcy and them coming out of bankruptcy even further into debt...

But no. It was all the union, right?
 
High executive salary, increasing competition from similar products, an aging line of products that haven't really done anything in decades to keep the marketing fresh, an increasing concern with health and obesity, especially among children...

But no. It was all the union, right?

The union was the final nail in the coffin. No one can argue with that fact.
 
The union was the final nail in the coffin. No one can argue with that fact.

I, in fact, argue that fact. I think the final nail happened years ago. The rest was just a corpse flopping around a bit longer.
 
I, in fact, argue that fact. I think the final nail happened years ago. The rest was just a corpse flopping around a bit longer.

Your argument requires massive assumptions. Mine does not.
 
Your argument requires massive assumptions. Mine does not.

No, my argument requires reading up on the company's history. They've been in trouble for nearly a decade. This was a fundamentally flawed organization.
 
No, my argument requires reading up on the company's history. They've been in trouble for nearly a decade. This was a fundamentally flawed organization.

I've read up on the company's history. There is no information available on line that would indicate this company was doomed. Again, one must make massive assumptions to arrive at that conclusion. From the information we have available to us (the general public), the union drove in the final nail. No assumptions required.
 
The union was the final nail in the coffin. No one can argue with that fact.
Why should the union accept pay cuts for employees when management & execs were giving themselves raises so their salaries wouldn't change after going into bankruptcy?

Management drives the company into bankruptcy (again) , gives themselves raises ... but then demands the rank and file employees all take pay cuts.

How'd that work out?
 
Why should the union accept pay cuts for employees when management & execs were giving themselves raises so their salaries wouldn't change after going into bankruptcy?

Management drives the company into bankruptcy (again) , gives themselves raises ... but then demands the rank and file employees all take pay cuts.

How'd that work out?

You're late to the party. Senior management had agreed to work for $1 a year until the company emerged from bankruptcy.
 
I've read up on the company's history. There is no information available on line that would indicate this company was doomed. Again, one must make massive assumptions to arrive at that conclusion. From the information we have available to us (the general public), the union drove in the final nail. No assumptions required.

Did you see the part where they went into bankruptcy in 2004 and came out years later further into debt? (by an amount very close to the nine figure "consulting fees" they paid?)

Reducing worker salary by $2/hr wasn't going to save this company.
 
You're late to the party. Senior management had agreed to work for $1 a year until the company emerged from bankruptcy.

For $1/year until it came out of bankruptcy, or December 31st. They agreed to a salary cut for less than one year.
 
You're late to the party. Senior management had agreed to work for $1 a year until the company emerged from bankruptcy.
They only did that because it became public that they had already given themselves raises to offset the pay cuts of filing for bankruptcy. They thought [wrongly] that they could placate their employees.

And even then, it wasn't a $1 per year salary since at most, that salary would have lasted no more than 8 months. And that was after giving themselves raises while insisting their employs take pay cuts.
 
I don't think the dollars the company kept from the employees contributing $3.40 per hour or $136 per week times 8,000 employees gets enough attention. And then there was the $10 dollar a week deal. My guess is that this stuck in the craw of the Union members and poisoned the final vote.
 
They only did that because it became public that they had already given themselves raises to offset the pay cuts of filing for bankruptcy. They thought [wrongly] that they could placate their employees.

And even then, it wasn't a $1 per year salary since at most, that salary would have lasted no more than 8 months. And that was after giving themselves raises while insisting their employs take pay cuts.

Nevertheless, the bakers' union rejected this contract:

In October, the company filed a plan with the federal bankruptcy court in New York. It called for an 8 percent cut to employees’ wages, a reduction in health benefits, and a freeze in pension plan payments for over two years. In return, unionized employees would get a 25 percent equity stake in the company, two seats on its board of directors, and an interest-bearing note worth $100 million. The 8 percent wage cut was part of a five-year deal that included a 3 percent wage increase in the next three years and a 1 percent raise in the final year.

Hostess Brands on the Brink

And now? It would appear they're all unemployed. All 18,000 of them.
 
Nevertheless, the bakers' union rejected this contract:



Hostess Brands on the Brink

And now? It would appear they're all unemployed. All 18,000 of them.

Perhaps they are planning on living off the dividends they get from their 25% stake in the company :lamo
 
Nevertheless, the bakers' union rejected this contract:

In October, the company filed a plan with the federal bankruptcy court in New York. It called for an 8 percent cut to employees’ wages, a reduction in health benefits, and a freeze in pension plan payments for over two years. In return, unionized employees would get a 25 percent equity stake in the company, two seats on its board of directors, and an interest-bearing note worth $100 million. The 8 percent wage cut was part of a five-year deal that included a 3 percent wage increase in the next three years and a 1 percent raise in the final year.

Hostess Brands on the Brink

And now? It would appear they're all unemployed. All 18,000 of them.
Who can blame them for rejecting that deal???

It takes years for them to get back to their $42K wages while the execs (who ran the company into backruptcy) go back to their inflated salaries on January 1st, 2013. And you can be sure that during those years while the workers are stuck in a wage freeze -- the execs would still be giving themselves annual increases and huge bonuses.
 
Who can blame them for rejecting that deal???

It takes years for them to get back to their $42K wages while the execs (who ran the company into backruptcy) go back to their inflated salaries on January 1st, 2013. And you can be sure that during those years while the workers are stuck in a wage freeze -- the execs would still be giving themselves annual increases and huge bonuses.

Well, it's likely to take them years anyway. Nose gone. Face spited.
 
You might ask yourself why the auto workers for Toyota and other foreign manufacturers grow their workforces in the states. These are non-union and pay a similar rate to GM and Ford. When you think of unions, the mistake people like you make is to think of higher wages. Wages are a small part a modern factory's cost. Try work rules that make productivity the real problem in union shops.

Perhaps. But consider that unions don't just stabalize wages in their own company. For non union companies to lure good employment they often have to be competetive with union benefits to get good draw. I'm not going to say unions are perfect but the knee-jerk union bashers are so far off base with their assessments that they don't even know why they stand where they stand or what the hell they are saying except the pre-written GOP talking points they like to vomit out there.
 
They only did that because it became public that they had already given themselves raises to offset the pay cuts of filing for bankruptcy. They thought [wrongly] that they could placate their employees.

And even then, it wasn't a $1 per year salary since at most, that salary would have lasted no more than 8 months. And that was after giving themselves raises while insisting their employs take pay cuts.

This is overly simplistic. First, they could not give themselves raises WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT! Secondly, how would the company assure that management would STAY employed without some enticement? Considering that the ongoing operation required capital infusion what would motivate these PE firms to invest without some form of stable management in place? Or is it you opinion that a 'ship can captain its self'? I'm sure the PE firms would be comfortable with that...;)
 
The company could have continued had management done their job in the first place.

Well, no, not if you have a union that constantly makes unrealistic demands and won't pay attention to what is going on in the market place. Maybe the previous management screwed up, but here at the end two things are plain: 1) if the union had gone along the company could have survived at least for the present, 2) the union dug in it's heels.
 
Back
Top Bottom