• 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]

winston53660 said:
The article you posted doesn't mention ten other unions. So can you list these ten other unions?
Click to expand...

From the link:

The company spent the summer and fall negotiating with all of the 12 unions trying to find a common path to reorganization, and did gain certain agreements with the Teamsters and many of the other unions, though not the bakers’ union. At the same time, the company started putting together a liquidation plan.
Click to expand...
 
Let Hostess sell the brand name "Hostess" and let them liquidate their assets.

I think it's funny how morons are paying 20 bucks a box for twinkies on ebay when they will be back on the shelves in a month.

You better believe there are many venture capitalists lining up to buy the rights to the brand.

It really shows how little people know when it comes to business when they're paying 20 bucks a box of twinkies because they believe the brand will go defunct.
 
MaggieD said:
I have no idea. Look it up yourself.
Click to expand...

I have and it looks the reporter for the sake of impact is counting locals of the same union as individual unions. It is very dishonest to do that on the reporters part.

Oh and BTW you made the post about ten unions you should be able to support it.
 
winston53660 said:
I have and it looks the reporter for the sake of impact is counting locals of the same union as individual unions. It is very dishonest to do that on the reporters part.

Oh and BTW you made the post about ten unions you should be able to support it.
Click to expand...

Hey, Winston. I did support it. That's a credible link. If you want to parse it and infer that it means something other than what it says? That's on you, buddy.

Just admit you didn't read the article all the way to the end and be done with it. Or. Prove that link wrong.
 
winston53660 said:
What product was that?

I remember New Coke BTW
Click to expand...
Not to get off topic but New Coke actually was a management and labor shared **** up. A batch was off and management decided to rebrand it as "New Coke" rather than waste product and when consumers hated it the company saved face by reissuing "Coke Classic". It was actually a good and bad move in the same decision.
 
MaggieD said:
Hey, Winston. I did support it. That's a credible link. If you want to parse it and infer that it means something other than what it says? That's on you, buddy.

Just admit you didn't read the article all the way to the end and be done with it. Or. Prove that link wrong.
Click to expand...


I did read the article and no where in the article are the 12 unions listed. Now what are the 12 unions the reporter were referring unless they were locals of the same union counted individually?

It is bad reportage and very misleading.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not to get off topic but New Coke actually was a management and labor shared **** up. A batch was off and management decided to rebrand it as "New Coke" rather than waste product and when consumers hated it the company saved face by reissuing "Coke Classic". It was actually a good and bad move in the same decision.
Click to expand...

A production f up caused a multi million dollar ad campaign...yeah right
 
winston53660 said:
I did read the article and no where in the article are the 12 unions listed. Now what are the 12 unions the reporter were referring unless they were locals of the same union counted individually?

It is bad reportage and very misleading.
Click to expand...

I'm done here, Winston. You've obviously Googled nowhere else for the information. It's repeated by both the Chicago Tribune and USA Today and who knows how many others. Don't be blamin' me if credible links are incorrect -- which we have no reason to believe, other than WINSTON, that they are.

Twinkies maker Hostess, union head to mediation
Hostess mediation: Judge delays hearing to allow Hostess, unions to work out issues - chicagotribune.com
 
winston53660 said:
A production f up caused a multi million dollar ad campaign...yeah right
Click to expand...
It's absolutely true my man. The official story is that Coca-Cola wanted to go in a new formula direction, I was listening to something years back when one of the former executives flat out admitted it was a company wide ****up starting at the production end and later being fumbled by marketing.

EDIT - I wish I could remember what the program was, it escapes me ATM.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm done here, Winston. You've obviously Googled nowhere else for the information. It's repeated by both the Chicago Tribune and USA Today and who knows how many others. Don't be blamin' me if credible links are incorrect -- which we have no reason to believe, other than WINSTON, that they are.

Twinkies maker Hostess, union head to mediation
Hostess mediation: Judge delays hearing to allow Hostess, unions to work out issues - chicagotribune.com
Click to expand...

Neither of those articles list a dozen unions. You made the claim now what are they?

BTW from the CNBC article:

Corporate missteps include "years of underinvestment in products, facilities and equipment, long-term neglect of once-dominant brands and hollowing-out of a distribution system that once provided a competitive advantage," wrote Henry Wilson, a financial executive who analyzed Hostess for a provisional labor management committee created by the company and the Teamsters union.

Wilson's conclusions, filed with the bankruptcy court in March, also cited failure to develop newer, higher-growth products, an overly compliant corporate board and a "grossly overleveraged" debt structure with Wall Street lenders that was imposed during the company's prior bankruptcy.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually, in consumer taste tests, people liked new coke better than original.
Click to expand...
Yes and no, Coke never released the raw numbers but issued percentages. There's no way of knowing what the methodology was and the sample, but reports from HQ had 1,000 plus complaint calls a day registered.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not to get off topic but New Coke actually was a management and labor shared **** up. A batch was off and management decided to rebrand it as "New Coke" rather than waste product and when consumers hated it the company saved face by reissuing "Coke Classic". It was actually a good and bad move in the same decision.
Click to expand...

At the time 'New" Coke came out Pepsi was drawing up even. The New Coke versus Classic Coke controversy was a well designed, and brilliant, piece of publicity and Pepsi never recovered.

I'd be very surprised if the same thing was at work here.
 
Hostess web site
;

The offer to the BCTGM included wage, benefit and work rule concessions but also gave Hostess Brands’ 12 unions a 25 percent ownership stake in the company, representation on its Board of Directors and $100 million in reorganized Hostess Brands’ debt.
Click to expand...

1. what 12 unions?

2. 25% spread amongst 12 unions of a bankrupt company? Not a good deal for labor.

Hostess Brands is Closed
 
Grant said:
At the time 'New" Coke came out Pepsi was drawing up even. The New Coke versus Classic Coke controversy was a well designed, and brilliant, piece of publicity and Pepsi never recovered.

I'd be very surprised if the same thing was at work here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, "New Coke" was the among the most brilliant mistakes in corporate history. Hostess on the other hand will probably come back outsourced, if at all.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yeah, "New Coke" was the among the most brilliant mistakes in corporate history. Hostess on the other hand will probably come back outsourced, if at all.
Click to expand...

Naw, there are companies in the US that do nothing but buy name brands then continue selling their products.

Besides, you usually cant outsource whole food products.

What will happen is one of these venture capitalists who do nothing but buy brands will buy the "Hostess" brand name and will continue to make the cakes, bread etc.... In short Hostess will be selling their business.

The buyers of the brand will probably (I assume) use temp labor (temp agencies) to make their products...
 
Mr.Nick said:
Naw, there are companies in the US that do nothing but buy name brands then continue selling their products.

Besides, you usually cant outsource whole food products.

What will happen is one of these venture capitalists who do nothing but buy brands will buy the "Hostess" brand name and will continue to make the cakes, bread etc.... In short Hostess will be selling their business.

The buyers of the brand will probably (I assume) use temp labor (temp agencies) to make their products...
Click to expand...
Either temp labor, or they will relocate to a right to work state that would be more than happy to have the jobs lost by the union workers. The old contract is dead, so there is nothing holding the Hostess name responsible for anything.......I suspect they can freeze the pension contributions as well, the union ****ed themselves.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Naw, there are companies in the US that do nothing but buy name brands then continue selling their products.

Besides, you usually cant outsource whole food products.

What will happen is one of these venture capitalists who do nothing but buy brands will buy the "Hostess" brand name and will continue to make the cakes, bread etc.... In short Hostess will be selling their business.

The buyers of the brand will probably (I assume) use temp labor (temp agencies) to make their products...
Click to expand...

talks fell through today-bankruptcy court will conduct a hearing tomorrow-liquidiation is imminent but the brand name and item names probably will be sold (ie Twinkies, HO HOs etc)
 
LaMidRighter said:
Either temp labor, or they will relocate to a right to work state that would be more than happy to have the jobs lost by the union workers. The old contract is dead, so there is nothing holding the Hostess name responsible for anything.......I suspect they can freeze the pension contributions as well, the union ****ed themselves.
Click to expand...

Yeah the labor unions screwed themselves out of 18,500 jobs.... "Hostess" is a trademark name, the brand isn't going anywhere it will certainly be sold given the demand for the product.

Those who acquire the brand name certainly won't be employing labor unions to bake and ship their products.

I wish every state was a "right to work" state but when you're in a state that isn't you can get around the union BS by employing temp labor...

The bad thing about temp labor is that these temp jobs go to illegals, however that is a totally different thread within itself.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Either temp labor, or they will relocate to a right to work state that would be more than happy to have the jobs lost by the union workers. The old contract is dead, so there is nothing holding the Hostess name responsible for anything.......I suspect they can freeze the pension contributions as well, the union ****ed themselves.
Click to expand...

They are already based out of Irving Texas. For some reason they don't have any bakeries here though.
 
winston53660 said:
They are already based out of Irving Texas. For some reason they don't have any bakeries here though.
Click to expand...
That's one I don't get, Texas is a right to work state iirc. The only thing I can figure is that they wanted to shorten distribution routes and traded that off against labor costs. However liquidation and the desired union contract could change that for any company that buys the brand.
 
TurtleDude said:
talks fell through today-bankruptcy court will conduct a hearing tomorrow-liquidiation is imminent but the brand name and item names probably will be sold (ie Twinkies, HO HOs etc)
Click to expand...

All the cakes and bread will go as a lot to the highest bidder under the name "Hostess."

In short they'll just be selling "Hostess" and the product will just be baked in different plants.

You would figure it would make more sense to sell of the company as a whole? but that isn't the way it works. I wouldn't be shocked to see their plant assets end up in the new owners bakeries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom