johnny_rebson
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,001
- Reaction score
- 544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It should be the employee's choice to sever ties and replace the job with something that pays what they demand. The sickening thing is that the union forced this, from what I've come to understand the union majority was against the strike but the smaller group won out. iirc only 7k of the 18k wanted the strike, this cost all 18,000 their jobs. Instead of a two dollar(9%) pay cut they now have a 100% pay cut.very dumb to allow the company to go out of business. with the recent exposure and free advertising, they would have been in the cat bird seat had they stayed in business, and their products would have sold like gangbusters around the holidays. a last minute rescue of the company would have paid off.
the strike was poorly timed, but i have to say that if my pay had been cut from $48k to $35k, and then they told me it would be cut to $25k with no pension contribution and higher premiums, i think i'd be furious, too. pretty much anyone would either quit or go on strike if they suffered similar reduction in compensation in under a decade.
anyway, i'm sorry to see the brand go down. hopefully another more rationally managed company will pick up the products.
...the strike was poorly timed, but i have to say that if my pay had been cut from $48k to $35k, and then they told me it would be cut to $25k with no pension contribution and higher premiums, i think i'd be furious, too....
It should be the employee's choice to sever ties and replace the job with something that pays what they demand. The sickening thing is that the union forced this, from what I've come to understand the union majority was against the strike but the smaller group won out. iirc only 7k of the 18k wanted the strike, this cost all 18,000 their jobs. Instead of a two dollar(9%) pay cut they now have a 100% pay cut.
It was actually a chance at more money. The company wanted a 2$/hr. pay reduction but with the concession of issuing stocks up to 25% to the union workers.I read the article in the Daily Kos that included these numbers but they seem specious to me. Consider the often reported wage reduction was 8%. If dudes income numbers are right they took a 27% reduction ($48k to $35k - roughly $6.25/hr) and then now are asked to take a 28.5% reduction($35k to $25k - roughtly $4.80/hr) . This is inconsistent with what is being reported AND is WAY out of line with the recent concessions made by the Teamsters as evidenced by the documents on the Teamster website.
Something seems hinkey…
Could be, I thought I saw 7K, either way it was a definite minority.I think it is 4,000 only.
It was actually a chance at more money. The company wanted a 2$/hr. pay reduction but with the concession of issuing stocks up to 25% to the union workers.
I'm going to have to re read it, iirc any pay cuts were temporary, but hell I'd take a portion of stock even if it is .25/12 it's still good money "if" the company can successfully restructure, and even more if they can get to a split.If I understand it right the $2 concession was the first year. They were to get a 3% increase in years 2, 3, 4 and then a 1% raise in the 5th year. I understood the 25% ownership also but it would certainly have to be divided between the 12 unions. There WERE increases in employee healthcare contributions and reductions in employer pension contributions but that is the nature of negotiations...
If I understand it right the $2 concession was the first year. They were to get a 3% increase in years 2, 3, 4 and then a 1% raise in the 5th year. I understood the 25% ownership also but it would certainly have to be divided between the 12 unions. There WERE increases in employee healthcare contributions and reductions in employer pension contributions but that is the nature of negotiations...
Okay, I definitely need to re read it. Hostess offered a sweetheart deal, the long term was nothing but win for the employees and it's more than stupid to throw away guaranteed raises, holdings in the company, and board representation over a temporary pay cut and increase in benefits contribution.They were going to cut their pay by 8% immediately and increase their portion of the health insurance premium. In years two, three and four of the contract, they were to get a 3% increase each year; in year five, a 1% increase. Pension frozen until 2015. 25% interest in the company to all 6,500+ union workers. Two union representatives on the Board of Directors, made up of eight directors total.
Okay, I definitely need to re read it. Hostess offered a sweetheart deal, the long term was nothing but win for the employees and it's more than stupid to throw away guaranteed raises, holdings in the company, and board representation over a temporary pay cut and increase in benefits contribution.
I read the article in the Daily Kos that included these numbers but they seem specious to me. Consider the often reported wage reduction was 8%. If dudes income numbers are right they took a 27% reduction ($48k to $35k - roughly $6.25/hr) and then now are asked to take a 28.5% reduction($35k to $25k - roughtly $4.80/hr) . This is inconsistent with what is being reported AND is WAY out of line with the recent concessions made by the Teamsters as evidenced by the documents on the Teamster website.
Something seems hinkey…
Still, when a company is willing to turn a bad faith decision around and it benefits and employee, it's not smart on the employee part to turn it down over a short term loss. In fact those are exactly the types I would not hire, I would want employees who look at the entire picture.Well, don't forget that the company had totally broken faith with the employees. That had to be part of it, too. Before filing bankruptcy, the old CEO gave the executives a huge raise . . . which is why, when he left the company, the new CEO asked them to all work for $1 a year until either the end of the year or 'til they emerged from bankruptcy. That didn't really do much to appease the union, since they had a "gotcha moment" already in place. Plus, again under the old CEO, the employees were giving over around $3.60 an hour towards their pensions -- which Hostess never deposited into their accounts. It appears that the judge said that debt would be erased...I'm not sure about that. In addition, for the past year or so, all the employees were "donating back" $10 a week to the company to help them stay viable.
There's plenty of blame to go on the company here . . . but still me personally? I'd have taken the contract and looked for a job. Who on earth! wants to be out of a job this time of year? Nobody's even looking for people now.
it's possible. cnn covered it as well, though, and reported the same story. it's possible that this particular worker's story was not representative, I suppose. however, if I were in his shoes, I'd be pretty pissed off.
They were going to cut their pay by 8% immediately and increase their portion of the health insurance premium. In years two, three and four of the contract, they were to get a 3% increase each year; in year five, a 1% increase. Pension frozen until 2015. 25% interest in the company to all 6,500+ union workers. Two union representatives on the Board of Directors, made up of eight directors total.
There are (at least) two different unions involved. The 25% stock and 2 board seats was for the teamster union. The compensation specifc, I am not sure what was offered to the bakers union - besides the wage issues you mentioned.
The company had offered the unions a 25% stake in the reorganized Hostess if they would agree to significant wage and pension concessions but the Bakers Union members overwhelmingly rejected the proposal.
Well uh, yeah...presuming regular time $48k would be $23/hr. $25k would be $12/hr...I wouldn't be pissed I'D BE WORING SOMEWHERE ELSE!
Two union seats on the board. That was the offer to all the unions as I understand it. I don't think it's clear "which unions" got seats . . . and I'm not quite sure it matters much. All union employees were offered the 25% stock. It applied to all of them. Not 25% each, a 25% stake for the 6,500 union employees.
Hostess Closing Doesn't Spell End For Bakers Union - Forbes
When your host has become a blood sucking vampire what choice do you have?
The difference is that the Govt. is financing the vampires.
This is the second paycut they have been asked to bear in 3 years, the Hostess executives have gotten raises every year.
Sounds to me like the Bakers were getting the same offer as the Teamsters but said no.
That is what the Teamsters said, in not-too-terribly-specific-but-still-pointed language.
This is something that should have come to light sooner.
Here is the Baker's Union employee take. It also defines the "vulture capitalists" more clearly and defines the management and Corporate directions.
Daily Kos: The Successful Hostess Business Plan Included Bankruptcy/updated w/wages language
"How about $2.4 BILLION.
Joshua Scherer, a partner at Perella Weinberg Partners, a Hostess advisor said it could be worth $2.3 billion to $2.4 billion, an amount equal to its annual revenue. It also has about $900 million of secured debt and faces up to about $150 million of administrative claims.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean they owe $1.05Billion (which does not include my pension) and may sell for $2.4 Billion. That would be a profit of $1.35Billion.
These hedge funds were not bakers, they were bankers. They will make money on their 14 year endeavor. 100's of millions no doubt, over a billion dollars possible. Their goal was to break the Unions and sell off the brands from the beginning. By that measure, this CEO deserves a raise."
Interesting find...note how similar this is to: http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...-thats-free-enterprise-11.html#post1061180082
And the author's name is the same...huh? I find this more and more specious in all directions.