Unions force Hostess into bankruptcy. 18000 to lose jobs. No more Twinkies

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by eric/

Yeah I think unions are actually a good thing in general and that it's the right of the workers to voluntarily form these associations.

You can say that management makes bad decisions, but so do unions. So I don't really think that you can lay that solely on management. Too often people are quick to blame the management and label them as fat cats without realizing that it's usually in their interest to keep the company afloat too.

Thumbs up, Eric.

Originally Posted by glocke12

In regards to the comments in this thread about overinflated CEO salaries, why is it that in this case they are fat greedy CEO's, while a few weeks ago I pointed out the fat salaried that PBS and Sesame Street CEOs have, and was basically told that those salaries are needed to attract quality people???

How much do they make? I missed it.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by MacNut

If the Wiki is accurate, these are the Hostess brands:

Colombo

Holsom

Toscana

Wonder Bread

I could see a good portion of those surviving under another company. How many would Kraft Foods buy?

There is some "French" bread there that is better than nothing if you happen to be in Ely, Nevada.

(Great Basin National Park is definitely worth a visit, if you are wondering.

http://www.nps.gov/grba/planyourvisit/directions.htm

).

Holsum and Wonder Bread I recall from my youth fondly. The best use for it was making bread pills to throw at each other when the adults were not looking. I recall destroying an entire loaf on one occasion when things got out of hand. For some reason, the "there are children starving in China" concept did not apply to Wonder Bread

Seriously, I'm sorry about the employee's jobs, the pensions, and most especially the health insurance.

[VulchR]

No more Twinkies? NOOOOOOOooooooooo

The obvious solution to issues between the management and the unions is worker ownership of companies (or at least partial ownership or profit sharing). There is a company called John Lewis in the UK that has done quite will with this model. As long as big business holds on to the outdated robber-baron model of motivating employees, the more we'll see businesses go down.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

The union workers can have fun finding a different job with even close to the same wages with "twinkee conveyor belt watcher" on their resume.

Superiority complex much?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by VulchR

The obvious solution to issues between the management and the unions is worker ownership of companies (or at least partial ownership or profit sharing). There is a company called John Lewis in the UK that has done quite will with this model. As long as big business holds on to the outdated robber-baron model of motivating employees, the more we'll see businesses go down.

Well big business doesn't all hold that mentality of motivating employees. Many of the crappy ones do. But Fortune 25 companies? Fortune 50 companies even? No way.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Grey Beard

I must admit that I have been known to have a Twink in my clutches and quite enjoyed the situation.

KGB

Why ...... why ...... you nasty old man.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by eric/

Because if they don't give in, the plant shuts down and they all lose their jobs

same could be said about the higher ups at the company. So the question comes up again why should they trust them.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by IBradMac

The Chevy volt is an absolute joke. GM's government dependency is an absolute joke.

My last two vehicles have been silverados. After the election and the debates over GM, I'm moving on when I trade next. Ford or Honda will be my next purchase. There was good reason Henry ford hated unions, and it wasn't because he was a money horder either.

The Volt is a joke because they spent so much money on engineering and sales are so poor they will never recoup their money. They should have looked at what Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. are doing with hybrids. They have been perfecting conventional hybrid technology and introducing new models which build on technology that has already been introduced. The new Ford C-Max and Toyota Prius V are good examples of how to do it right.

The fact that they are still marketing Buick and GMC in North America also tells me they don't get it. I can understand keeping Buick for China, but in North America they should sell Chevy and Cadillac only. Anything more then that is just market overlap and takes away from profit. What is the point of spending the money to restyle and market the same vehicle with a different badge? It might have made sense 40-50 years ago when GM pretty much owned half of the North American market, but it doesn't today.

That is why I think the Government needs to sell off what shares they have left even if they take a loss and let the mess go on it's own. They can go bankrupt again and hopefully properly restructure into a company that is right sized for it's market share. Currently GM doesn't sell that many more vehicles then Ford does yet it's organization is much larger. That doesn't make any sense.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

same could be said about the higher ups at the company. So the question comes up again why should they trust them.

No the same can't be said for the higher ups.

And it's not whether or not they should trust them, it's a matter of practicality.

No job vs job.

I choose job.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by eric/

No the same can't be said for the higher ups.

And it's not whether or not they should trust them, it's a matter of practicality.

No job vs job.

I choose job.

What good is a job that doesn't pay the bills?

I'm over $800 in debt just to go to school next semester, and as a part time student my student loans are now coming due. I owe $12,000, if I can manage to scrape together $100 a month (quite a stretch given my $10.50 an hour wage) to put towards those debts I'll be paying for over twelve years. A raise is out of the question as they are pittances (think less than a dollar a year), and I cannot find any jobs that don't require 3+ years of experience, which are all going to those whom have been displaced from full time employment.

I don't see how this model won't ruin the entire country. Less than 25% of the American workforce has a "standard" (9-5) job these days, a trend that skyrocketed before the crash in 2006.

The country is following the Walton model, and it will be the utter destruction of the middle class.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by NT1440

What good is a job that doesn't pay the bills?

Gonna be a lot harder to pay those bills without a job, compared to having a job

As for the rest of your post. I'm sorry to hear that, and it sucks. But idk what to tell you. Join the army, that's what I did.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by eric/

Gonna be a lot harder to pay those bills without a job, compared to having a job

As for the rest of your post. I'm sorry to hear that, and it sucks. But idk what to tell you. Join the army, that's what I did.

I'm not joining a cause I can't agree with so the Army is not an option for me. Let's not open the can of worms of what is happening to our veterans in terms of employment options when they're discharged either.

I have to go though, time to head to work for my 3-10 shift (after our meeting this morning from 7:30-10 this morning). I practically live at Best Buy even though I'm a part time employee.

Just a tidbit, I have to get to work on thanksgiving night half an hour ahead of schedule (unpaid, as mandated by our meeting this morning) and work from 11pm-11am on black friday. Oh joy.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by eric/

No the same can't be said for the higher ups.

And it's not whether or not they should trust them, it's a matter of practicality.

No job vs job.

I choose job.

This seems really naive. You can really set up levels upon levels of unsustainability to a point where when those factories do eventually close, these people may not have employment opportunities where they live while simultaneously lacking the funds to relocate. Right now my concern is that this has been relegated to a slow death while the management searches for someone willing to buy the assets. These people may not have jobs a year from now either way.

Originally Posted by MacNut

If the Wiki is accurate, these are the Hostess brands:

Baker's Inn
Beefsteak
Blue Ribbon
Bread du Jour
Butternut Breads
Colombo
Cotton’s
Di Carlo
Dolly Madison
Drake's
Dutch Hearth
Eddy’s
Good Hearth
Holsom
Home Pride
Hostess
J.J. Nissen
Merita
Millbrook
Mrs. Cubbison's Foods
Nature's Pride
Parisian
Standish Farms
Sweetheart
Twinkie
Toscana
Wonder Bread

I could see a good portion of those surviving under another company. How many would Kraft Foods buy?

That's a much bigger list than I turned up. I wouldn't be surprised if the factories don't actually make it, but the assets are sold to a company like Kraft. It would support my theory that raises were to retain management long enough to attract a buyer for the assets.

[robanga]

Originally Posted by NT1440

What good is a job that doesn't pay the bills?

I'm over $800 in debt just to go to school next semester, and as a part time student my student loans are now coming due. I owe $12,000, if I can manage to scrape together $100 a month (quite a stretch given my $10.50 an hour wage) to put towards those debts I'll be paying for over twelve years. A raise is out of the question as they are pittances (think less than a dollar a year), and I cannot find any jobs that don't require 3+ years of experience, which are all going to those whom have been displaced from full time employment.

I don't see how this model won't ruin the entire country. Less than 25% of the American workforce has a "standard" (9-5) job these days, a trend that skyrocketed before the crash in 2006.

The country is following the Walton model, and it will be the utter destruction of the middle class.

Well stated. Those that control the major sources of capital will never more evenly distribute it unless the collective forces them to. This is why an element of socialism mixed with capitalism works.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by thekev

This seems really naive. You can really set up levels upon levels of unsustainability to a point where when those factories do eventually close, these people may not have employment opportunities where they live while simultaneously lacking the funds to relocate. Right now my concern is that this has been relegated to a slow death while the management searches for someone willing to buy the assets. These people may not have jobs a year from now either way.

What's better, having the job for another year and saving money to move, or just losing the job right now?

Because I'd much rather keep making money at my job so I could at least stall and come up with a plan than to just wake up tomorrow and have lost everything.

----------

Originally Posted by NT1440

I'm not joining a cause I can't agree with so the Army is not an option for me. Let's not open the can of worms of what is happening to our veterans in terms of employment options when they're discharged either.

Companies have veteran hiring policies. I know, I've worked for one already and I'm about to start work for another.

It is an option. You could also join the Navy, or Coast Guard. There are a lot of different options, that you just aren't willing to take.

So unless you have a physical defect, you can't sit here and say that you don't have options and that you're all stuck at Best Buy.

Originally Posted by NT1440

I have to go though, time to head to work for my 3-10 shift (after our meeting this morning from 7:30-10 this morning). I practically live at Best Buy even though I'm a part time employee.

Funny you should mention Best Buy. I actually know 4 people working at Best Buy right now, have the same kind of work, and are perfectly content. At one store, two of my friends have moved up to supervisor positions, and are paying loans from college at Ohio State, and they just bought a house together.

Originally Posted by NT1440

Just a tidbit, I have to get to work on thanksgiving night half an hour ahead of schedule (unpaid, as mandated by our meeting this morning) and work from 11pm-11am on black friday. Oh joy.

They can't force you to work unpaid. I don't care what your manager told you.

And yes, that sucks. That's retail. Be happy you even have a job to work on Black Friday. I've worked retail at Kmart and Best Buy for about 2 years off and on.

Anyway this is off topic. So if you want to continue you should PM me!

[killerrobot]

Originally Posted by eric/

What's better, having the job for another year and saving money to move, or just losing the job right now?

Because I'd much rather keep making money at my job so I could at least stall and come up with a plan than to just wake up tomorrow and have lost everything.

What makes you think the workers would be in a situation to save any money by accepting less pay and working the same or longer hours?

I believe the workers have been stalling for several months trying to work something out. This shouldn't be a shock to any of the employees unless they truly just had their heads in the sand ignoring all Union meetings, announcements and all recent economic factors that the company has been dealing with for the last decade.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by NT1440

What good is a job that doesn't pay the bills?

I'm over $800 in debt just to go to school next semester, and as a part time student my student loans are now coming due. I owe $12,000, if I can manage to scrape together $100 a month (quite a stretch given my $10.50 an hour wage) to put towards those debts I'll be paying for over twelve years. A raise is out of the question as they are pittances (think less than a dollar a year), and I cannot find any jobs that don't require 3+ years of experience, which are all going to those whom have been displaced from full time employment.

I don't see how this model won't ruin the entire country. Less than 25% of the American workforce has a "standard" (9-5) job these days, a trend that skyrocketed before the crash in 2006.

The country is following the Walton model, and it will be the utter destruction of the middle class.

So what is the answer. College is far to expensive but good luck getting universities to lower tuition. We need to prop up the stock market and the only way to do that is to make investors happy and cut costs to employees. How do we balance this out and still have the economy run and keep people employed with enough money to get by.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by eric/

No the same can't be said for the higher ups.

And it's not whether or not they should trust them, it's a matter of practicality.

No job vs job.

I choose job.

They can't keep giving in indefinitely. Eventually, you have to draw the line, or the company will continue to make cuts.

So, the option is stand up for your morals or give in and get raked over the coals and end up having wages cut so much that you're barely making minimum wage.

Originally Posted by eric/

Join the army, that's what I did.

So he can go and fight the rich man's war in a sandbox 10,000 miles away, then either get killed or come back physically harmed or mentally ****ed and then be in the same exact spot when he gets back? The entire way our country treats our veterans is pathetic. Someone who's served as a battlefield medic can't even get a job as a basic EMT back in the states without going through a bunch more training. That's just stupid.

Originally Posted by eric/

What's better, having the job for another year and saving money to move, or just losing the job right now?

Saving money to move? Where's this extra income that you can save coming from when you don't even have enough income to pay the bills currently?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by killerrobot

What makes you think the workers would be in a situation to save any money by accepting less pay and working the same or longer hours?

Less pay > 0 pay And if they are working more than 40 hours, they get overtime, so that's not an issue.

Originally Posted by killerrobot

I believe the workers have been stalling for several months trying to work something out. This shouldn't be a shock to any of the employees unless they truly just had their heads in the sand ignoring all Union meetings, announcements and all recent economic factors that the company has been dealing with for the last decade.

That's true, but they still had no idea which way it was actually going to go.

----------

Originally Posted by zioxide

They can't keep giving in indefinitely. Eventually, you have to draw the line, or the company will continue to make cuts.

Well what's better, the existence of the company and some jobs, or no jobs?

Originally Posted by zioxide

So, the option is stand up for your morals or give in and get raked over the coals and end up having wages cut so much that you're barely making minimum wage.

It's better than being unemployed.

Originally Posted by zioxide

So he can go and fight the rich man's war in a sandbox 10,000 miles away,

Oh please. If you're going to post stuff like that then I'm not going to keep responding. If you want to have a serious discussion then refrain from comments like this.

Originally Posted by zioxide

then either get killed or come back physically harmed or mentally ****ed and then be in the same exact spot when he gets back? The entire way our country treats our veterans is pathetic.

I'm a living example of how that is not the typical case. Join something other than the infantry. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are ending now anyway.

Originally Posted by zioxide

Someone who's served as a battlefield medic can't even get a job as a basic EMT back in the states without going through a bunch more training. That's just stupid.

Well to be fair, medic training isn't the same as EMT training. But the government has also recognized this problem and is working to fix it. That's one example. Have any more?

Originally Posted by zioxide

Saving money to move? Where's this extra income that you can save coming from when you don't even have enough income to pay the bills currently?

Sell your car, sell your house, rent, idk. There is always a way. If you can't afford your bills, you're living above your means. Quit having cable TV for a year, don't eat out.

And even if somehow that wasn't the case, that there was nothing you could do to cut your expenses more...

Some money > $0.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by robanga

Well stated. Those that control the major sources of capital will never more evenly distribute it unless the collective forces them to. This is why an element of socialism mixed with capitalism works.

So, if you eventually becomes a self-made millionaire you would like the government to take your hard-earned money with the excuse that it's going to give it to the poor? Is that what you really want?

I have lived through socialist-communist societies and can attest that this does not work. A lot of us have immigrated to this great nation to now see it turning into the places we have left behind, and it's very sad to see how naive new generations of Americans are. But I am not blaming you, for the way you feel today is the result of the US educational system.

[robanga]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

So, if you eventually becomes a self-made millionaire you would like the government to take your hard-earned money with the excuse that it's going to give it to the poor? Is that what you really want?

I have lived through socialist-communist societies and can attest that this does not work. A lot of us have immigrated to this great nation to now see it turning into the places we have left behind, and it's very sad to see how naive new generations of Americans are. But I am not blaming you, for the way you feel today is the result of the US educational system.

I'm already there and that is pretty close to exactly what i plan to do with it. Its not just about helping the "poor" however you define that category. Its about rewarding people for hard work with a real living wage.

Pure Socialism is wrought with problems i agree with you. It does work when it is balanced within a democracy and with capitalism. Nobody is calling any system pure "bad" Making things work requires all forces to work together.

[leenak]

Originally Posted by robanga

Its about rewarding people for hard work with a real living wage.

I think this is the aspect that is important.

Also, this isn't a new issue, the downturn just brought it more to light. The digital divide has been talked about for many, many years and yes there is a growing split between the rich and the poor in this country and many of those who work hard are barely making a living wage. I don't think that is the ideal we should want for our country.

[robanga]

Originally Posted by leenak

I think this is the aspect that is important.

Also, this isn't a new issue, the downturn just brought it more to light. The digital divide has been talked about for many, many years and yes there is a growing split between the rich and the poor in this country and many of those who work hard are barely making a living wage. I don't think that is the ideal we should want for our country.

I believe more people are waking up to that fact. When the people organize its a beautiful thing.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by robanga

I'm already there and that is pretty close to exactly what i plan to do with it. Its not just about helping the "poor" however you define that category. Its about rewarding people for hard work with a real living wage.

Pure Socialism is wrought with problems i agree with you. It does work when it is balanced within a democracy and with capitalism. Nobody is calling any system pure "bad" Making things work requires all forces to work together.

Yes, it's OK if it's you making money and then giving it away instead of the Government taking it away from you.

There is not such thing as a real living wage. Every person should develop a budget in order to survive. If you are now rewarded with more cash from your boss, you can either invest the profit, or spend it (increase your budget's expenses). A person working on minimum wage that creates and adheres to a budget will more than likely do a lot better financially than one who has no budget and spends more than what he makes (like CA, and our US Government-other examples).

But the attitude of the late generations of Americans is to take from others (the rich) instead of working hard and becoming rich themselves. We have turned into a nation of takers.

By the way, there is a book titled "A Nation of Takers," but what I like the most is this buyer's review of the book. Please take a look a this review:
http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Takers-...owViewpoints=1

My point is as follows: we as a government can't just punish those who have riches by taking it away from them to supplement our unsustainable budgets. Instead, we should nurture all those who can contribute to our society (individuals, corporations...the private sector).

[JBazz]

Hostess was $2B underfunded on their retirement plans.

During high market returns, companies draw money out of their pension plans, then when the market dives they are in arrears for billions.

No one ever reports on this. And upper managements golden parachutes are never raided or depleted.