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.
This thread is just another union bashing thread, and please spare anyone on this site the tripe that you guys care. The fact is this company went bankrupt once before, got bought out by a venture capitalist who in turn profited from this company WHILE the Ceo's kept giving themselves bigger and bigger bonuses while the company was hurting. Not only this but after the 1st bankruptcy the unions took a 30% pay cut as well as a cut to their benefits. The biggest factor for the company going out of business was demand, nowadays with people eating healthier and with places like wal-mart around people are finding sweets from other countries that are cheaper.
This was the real downfall of hostess not the unions, but the simple fact they cannot compete in todays market because no one really eats there food any longer. It's a shame for all the people of that company that are or will be losing there jobs but hopefully they will come out of this fine. And for those barbarians on this site cheering there job losses as a good thing. May you never go without a job yourselves, you sad pathetic small minded monsters.
What's even MORE pathetic, is that this didn't have to happen. But for the fact that the union chose to strike during a time where the company could not afford it, the company is going under.
The union could have looked over the offer while working, an offer that gave them 25% interest in the company, but they chose to drive it into bankruptcy.
There are other factors involved, I am not passing total blame on the union, HOWEVER, but for their actions, going on strike when the company could not afford it, over 18,000 people will be losing their jobs, just over a month from the holidays.
It will end up getting sold. The Street article points out the action is not to get rid of the union as much as it is to get rid of the pensions. Without the pension obligation the whole deal becomes much more salable.
Pension is free money - they are anti-capitalistic. I don't see how any company can survive giving out long term pensions under any circumstances.
It would be simple. All you need is to accurately account for the pensions as the commitment is made.
You are of course correct if management plays the kick the can down the street game. But I would think that simple truth in accounting would take care of that.
Notice how many capitalist managers are actually willing to play it straight?
What's even MORE pathetic, is that this didn't have to happen. But for the fact that the union chose to strike during a time where the company could not afford it, the company is going under.
The union could have looked over the offer while working, an offer that gave them 25% interest in the company, but they chose to drive it into bankruptcy.
There are other factors involved, I am not passing total blame on the union, HOWEVER, but for their actions, going on strike when the company could not afford it, over 18,000 people will be losing their jobs, just over a month from the holidays.
Correct it did not have to happen, if the ceo's and higher ups didn't keep giving themselves outlandish bonuses and raises year round while their company was hurting. The union striking is a small thing and they decided to shut the place down because they got the bosses got their money so F@$! everyone else. That is what they did they scapegoated the unions for the incompetence of the higher ups
This thread is just another union bashing thread, and please spare anyone on this site the tripe that you guys care. The fact is this company went bankrupt once before, got bought out by a venture capitalist who in turn profited from this company WHILE the Ceo's kept giving themselves bigger and bigger bonuses while the company was hurting. Not only this but after the 1st bankruptcy the unions took a 30% pay cut as well as a cut to their benefits. The biggest factor for the company going out of business was demand, nowadays with people eating healthier and with places like wal-mart around people are finding sweets from other countries that are cheaper.
This was the real downfall of hostess not the unions, but the simple fact they cannot compete in todays market because no one really eats there food any longer. It's a shame for all the people of that company that are or will be losing there jobs but hopefully they will come out of this fine. And for those barbarians on this site cheering there job losses as a good thing. May you never go without a job yourselves, you sad pathetic small minded monsters.
Please explain with a credible link how the venture capitalist profited. Hostess was losing over 100mil a year after the first bankruptcy.
I agree that the big pressure on Hostess was demand for their product but also increased operating costs (raw ingredients) and a sluggish economy that further hampered people's ability to purchase their products.
Correct it did not have to happen, if the ceo's and higher ups didn't keep giving themselves outlandish bonuses and raises year round while their company was hurting. The union striking is a small thing and they decided to shut the place down because they got the bosses got their money so F@$! everyone else. That is what they did they scapegoated the unions for the incompetence of the higher ups
And again, I agree, but remember, the current CEO and top 4 executives cut their pay to $1 in April, till Dec 31'st, or the company is out of bankruptcy.
Correct it did not have to happen, if the ceo's and higher ups didn't keep giving themselves outlandish bonuses and raises year round while their company was hurting. The union striking is a small thing and they decided to shut the place down because they got the bosses got their money so F@$! everyone else. That is what they did they scapegoated the unions for the incompetence of the higher ups
Oh please. The CEO raise of 1.75mil for 2012 isn't what took down a company losing >100mil a year for 6-7 years.
LOL, the union striking wasn't a small thing but one cannot blame them for doing so.
Let me put you in managements shoes. You are losing $150million a year, how do you fix it?
Really, both management and the union were between a rock and a hard place and I fault neither for doing what they had to do.
Please remember, this isn't the federal government where you just run deficits forever and borrow more.
P.S. Please note that many of the younger union members were like "screw it" I will get more off unemployment while I land a comparable new job and many of the older union workers did NOT WANT TO STRIKE.
My understanding is there is a Mexican Billionaire looking to buy the twinkies brand to manufacture and sell them.
There are several Bakeries interesting in the twinkies brand, only One company has expressed interest in Hiostess, not ALL the bakeries, I hope they refuse to hire the Baker's union people.
[/color]
Groupo Bimbo is a mehican company and they are unionized so there will still be union jobs for those who live in mexico. The ones in the US just head for the line. The union management will of course continue to collect their six figure incomes.
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.
