Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Little Acorn forgot to mention that their union made deep concessions 3 times earlier when Hostess was headed for bankruptcy. Hostess was badly in need of a new vehicle fleet, bakery modernization, and was severely mis-managed for the past 20 years. In all, Hostess veered toward bankruptcy 10 times before it finally went under.
The union was asked to accept a wage that was below minimum. We all know a family does very well these days on a minimum wage job.
The Republican Party is fantastic at making enemies, and so are their pals in big business. As they continue to screw the American worker, alienate Hispanics, stay the course with their racist obstructionism against Obama, and devote themselves to general stupidity as their base shrinks, I look forward to their complete removal from power in 2014 and 2016.
The Republican Party is fantastic at making enemies, and so are their pals in big business. As they continue to screw the American worker, alienate Hispanics, stay the course with their racist obstructionism against Obama, and devote themselves to general stupidity as their base shrinks, I look forward to their complete removal from power in 2014 and 2016.
And what does the House of Representatives have to do with Hostess Brands declaring bankruptcy and restructuring ?
The Republican Party is fantastic at making enemies, and so are their pals in big business. As they continue to screw the American worker, alienate Hispanics, stay the course with their racist obstructionism against Obama, and devote themselves to general stupidity as their base shrinks, I look forward to their complete removal from power in 2014 and 2016.
Please share with us in your infinite wisdom where the Republican Party had ANYTHING to do with this company closing and then re-opening.
You are so blinded with your hate you can't see past your nose.
It is amazing to me that the official conservative position where it concerns workers is to cheer low pay and crappy benefits. Unions increase the pay and benefits of workers when compared to non union workers doing the same job.
conservatives explicitly make this argument of greedy unions demanding too much.
It is truly amazing to read conservatives when it concerns American workers.
I make $28 an hour with full benefits. 200 hours vacation. Yes, non union and we have voted over and over to keep it that way.
I make $28 an hour with full benefits. 200 hours vacation. Yes, non union and we have voted over and over to keep it that way.
You're lucky. My wife is stuck in a public sector union that does nothing for the employees but raise their rates every year and stick them with over-priced health insurance.
Well the unions won. They stood their ground and Hostess caved and declared bankruptcy.
Now those union members are free to go work at Walmart and McDonalds for min wage.
And the new Hostess is not saddled with 372 union contracts, 80 health and benefits plans, and 40 pension plans.
Think so. It's true.
Hostess caved in because they never used the earlier concessions to do all the other necessary improvements that were needed for the company to become profitable again.
A big part of Hostess' problems was each bakery was on it's own, but corporate always raided the divisional bakeries' profits. Each division was responsible for it's own bills and expenses, but they never got their full share of the corporate profits. Each manager was on his own. That is why Hostess had all those differing contracts, health plans and pensions in the first place.
Don't be so sure all the former workers were shown the door when the division bakeries were sold or that the newly non-union bakers who were there are now drawing a minimum wage. Most went back to work at the same pay they got before, because they have exactly the experience needed to make the new management profitable from the get-go.
The fleet truck drivers may be replaced, as will office staff and the grunt laborers, but even then, most will come back at a lesser wage, but still above the minimum. They, too, know how the division bakeries function better than a fresh hire off the street.
Hostess as parts was much more valuable than it was as a company. Their board of directors screwed up continually by starving the goose while handing too much to the stockholders. Some of the new owners are not public corporations, and they don't have the stockholder burden that Hostess had. Others are public corporations that were always better run than Hostess was, so the stockholders are
not a burden.
Nobody at Hostess won. Everyone from the CEO to the floor sweepers lost completely. If the Hostess brands had not been as valuable, nobody would have gone back to work. The CEO and the board, of course, got their golden parachutes, as they always do. Some may go on to drive another company into the ground, as often happens these days.
Really? The company broke the law by paying their workers less than minimum wage? And union allowed it? I think that's a lie.
And in those 20 years, those workers were FREE to go elsewhere for employment.
Many did go elsewhere. But a lot stayed because they had so much invested in their jobs and in the company.
The minium wage is not enforced in many states. In some states, there is no minimum wage, and in others, it is less than the federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is a suggestion, not a federal law. Any state can choose to follow it or not at their discretion. In my home state, the minimum is a dollar less than the federal, and even less in the agricultural section.
But that does not mean that employers are required to pay only the minimum wage as a starter. Any employer can pay more if he chooses.
Many did go elsewhere. But a lot stayed because they had so much invested in their jobs and in the company.
The minium wage is not enforced in many states. In some states, there is no minimum wage, and in others, it is less than the federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is a suggestion, not a federal law. Any state can choose to follow it or not at their discretion. In my home state, the minimum is a dollar less than the federal, and even less in the agricultural section.
But that does not mean that employers are required to pay only the minimum wage as a starter. Any employer can pay more if he chooses.
If you are speaking about Idaho their minimum wage is the same as the federal. Where a state has a a minimum wage law the employee is entitled to whichever is higher, the state or federal minimum wage.
Well that is the company who bought them, nothing like paying workers less to do more work. It is the new American Way.
Well, if it's unskilled work, and is not too physically demanding, then they get commensurate pay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
