#101
Posted: 11/18/12 at 9:14pm
Is $680 their take home pay, or their gross pay?
Hostess to close, lay off 18,500 after 'crippling' union fight — Page 5
#102
Posted: 11/18/12 at 9:18pm
that would be gross
#103
Posted: 11/18/12 at 9:27pm
The bakers were making $17 an hour for a 40 hour week.....in 2009. Since then, they have taken three pay cuts and had their hours cut. When the bakery closed they were averaging $400 a week ($20,800 a year) and had had their benefits and pension cut. The union rejected further cuts and the owners decided to sell the company and the (extremely profitable) brands.
Some might speculate they did this as it would have been detrimental to their image to fire the union and hire minimum wage workers. This strategy has given them a HUGE boost in brand awareness and the bidding war has already begun to pick up Twinkies while they are red-hot. Considering the abundant coverage they have gotten and the deep-pocket suitors that are clamoring to buy, they are going to make out handsomely.
Some might speculate they did this as it would have been detrimental to their image to fire the union and hire minimum wage workers. This strategy has given them a HUGE boost in brand awareness and the bidding war has already begun to pick up Twinkies while they are red-hot. Considering the abundant coverage they have gotten and the deep-pocket suitors that are clamoring to buy, they are going to make out handsomely.
#104
Posted: 11/18/12 at 10:51pm
I am not sure if this has been posted yet - but it from the union's perspective.
This seems like the "Baining" of yet another company. The money men literally steal from the pension, enrich themselves and then go through bankruptcy proceedings to provide further cover for their conduct.
I also think that the one upside of the Romney candidacy was a spotlight thrown on this type of business.
I don't agree with unions all the time, but I think they are not the ones to blame for this situation. Greed of the money men did in the Twinkie.
Inside the Hostess Bakery
This seems like the "Baining" of yet another company. The money men literally steal from the pension, enrich themselves and then go through bankruptcy proceedings to provide further cover for their conduct.
I also think that the one upside of the Romney candidacy was a spotlight thrown on this type of business.
I don't agree with unions all the time, but I think they are not the ones to blame for this situation. Greed of the money men did in the Twinkie.
Inside the Hostess Bakery
#105
Posted: 11/19/12 at 12:24am
Everyone will be relieved to know that the Twinkie, which is made in Quebec here, will live on in Canada (and undoubtedly it, and Hostess' other major brands will live on in the US as well). I've never actually had a Twinkie...
http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Twinkie+ever/7566667/story.html
http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Twinkie+ever/7566667/story.html
#106
Posted: 11/19/12 at 10:44am
'I've never actually had a Twinkie...'
I think there might be something wrong with you.
I think there might be something wrong with you.
#107
Posted: 11/19/12 at 4:33pm
Hey look. Hostess was forced back to the bargaining table by the bankruptcy judge.
Mediation
Mediation
#108
Posted: 11/19/12 at 6:33pm
Good. I rather think that the whole "no deal, we're liquidating the company and taking millions" plan sets a terrible precedent.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#109
Posted: 11/19/12 at 8:06pm
Corporate thievery may not be legal afterall.
#110
Posted: 11/20/12 at 12:12am
Do you guys always twist information to fit your point of view? Or are you just really selective readers.
To quote the USA Today article that JoeKv99 posted:
"The temporary reprieve in the labor-management standoff came in a White Plains, N.Y., hearing Monday in which U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Drain QUESTIONED THE RATIONALE for the strike by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union.
Drain cited "SERIOUS QUESTIONS" about the strike because the union rejected Hostess' latest contract offer without filing an objection to it or discussing the possibility of going to mediation. The union represents about 5,000 of the company's 18,500 workers."
So yes the judge forced the unions to go back to the table and seek meditation with Hostess, because he thinks the unions were being unreasonable. Further proving how unions are at fault in this entire ordeal.
To quote the USA Today article that JoeKv99 posted:
"The temporary reprieve in the labor-management standoff came in a White Plains, N.Y., hearing Monday in which U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Drain QUESTIONED THE RATIONALE for the strike by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union.
Drain cited "SERIOUS QUESTIONS" about the strike because the union rejected Hostess' latest contract offer without filing an objection to it or discussing the possibility of going to mediation. The union represents about 5,000 of the company's 18,500 workers."
So yes the judge forced the unions to go back to the table and seek meditation with Hostess, because he thinks the unions were being unreasonable. Further proving how unions are at fault in this entire ordeal.
Updated On: 11/20/12 at 12:12 AM
#111
Posted: 11/20/12 at 12:27am
Further proving how unions are at fault in this entire ordeal.
Cuts pay by nearly $300. Unions accepted it. Execs decide to repurpose that money into raises for themselves, The CEO tripled his income to $2.5M, rather than reinvesting it into the company. Then they cut the employees benefits & stopped paying into their pensions. Then they attempted to cut their wages again and that's when they said no and striked. I think they've been reasonable for long enough.
Cuts pay by nearly $300. Unions accepted it. Execs decide to repurpose that money into raises for themselves, The CEO tripled his income to $2.5M, rather than reinvesting it into the company. Then they cut the employees benefits & stopped paying into their pensions. Then they attempted to cut their wages again and that's when they said no and striked. I think they've been reasonable for long enough.
#112
Posted: 11/20/12 at 12:32am
CEOs can't give themselves raises and then bitch about not making enough money. Things don't work that way.
#113
Posted: 11/20/12 at 12:37am
Look what's back, under a different name....
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#114
Posted: 11/20/12 at 12:40am
Hey TheatreFan4, don't argue with me. Take it up with the judge who forced the unions to go to mediation with Hostess after "questioning their rationale".
Jungle Red: is the CEO of Hostess "bitching" that he's not making enough? I don't see how that has anything to do with my post about the judge forcing unions to go back to the bargaining table after he insinuated they were being unreasonable.
Jungle Red: is the CEO of Hostess "bitching" that he's not making enough? I don't see how that has anything to do with my post about the judge forcing unions to go back to the bargaining table after he insinuated they were being unreasonable.
#115
Posted: 11/20/12 at 12:41am
Also, TheatreFan4, if you think that loosing 18,500 jovs was a major victory for the unions, you live in fantasy world. Let's see if that's still the case at Christmas time when everyone is on the unemployment line.
When you make a near poverty level wage, 18,500 employees and families don't have the luxury of striking and loosing their job out of principle for "symbolic" reasons.
When you make a near poverty level wage, 18,500 employees and families don't have the luxury of striking and loosing their job out of principle for "symbolic" reasons.
Updated On: 11/20/12 at 12:41 AM
#116
Posted: 11/20/12 at 12:44am
Oh did the judge say "Further proving how unions are at fault in this entire ordeal."? No, that sounded like what you said. What the judge is taking issue with is the union not going through the proper channels before striking.
Jungle Red: is the CEO of Hostess "bitching" that he's not making enough? I don't see how that has anything to do with my post about the judge forcing unions to go back to the bargaining table after he insinuated they were being unreasonable.
No honey, you don't get to use your own post and pretend that it's what the judge said. YOU said they were being unreasonable.
Jungle Red: is the CEO of Hostess "bitching" that he's not making enough? I don't see how that has anything to do with my post about the judge forcing unions to go back to the bargaining table after he insinuated they were being unreasonable.
No honey, you don't get to use your own post and pretend that it's what the judge said. YOU said they were being unreasonable.
#117
Posted: 11/20/12 at 12:49am
So what does the CEO of Hostess have to do with my post regarding the judge forcing the unions to go back to the table with Hostess after "questioning their rationale"?
Just trying to stay on topic here instead of you know, detracting from the issue when evidence is presented that contradicts your point of view.
Just trying to stay on topic here instead of you know, detracting from the issue when evidence is presented that contradicts your point of view.
#118
Posted: 11/20/12 at 12:50am
When I was a boy, my pa payed me a nickel an hour to work on the farm. Once my cousin got 10 cents and we thought he was rich. $17 dollar an hour sounds to me like mega wealth.
You coulda ate at Nathans for three months with that type of money.
You coulda ate at Nathans for three months with that type of money.
#119
Posted: 11/20/12 at 1:04am
And now it's not the 20s anymore. Live in the real world. When they stop putting money in their pensions and cut their benefits and expect them to take ANOTHER pay cut while those doing the cutting just lined their pockets with the money their employees lost in the last pay cut when being told it's what would have kept the company going I'd say taking another cut would be complete bull**** for them to do when they know their execs can't be trusted with their money.
#120
Posted: 11/20/12 at 1:07am
Sorry I'm a dumb twat.
#121
Posted: 11/20/12 at 1:09am
Theatrefan4, it's not "their" (the employees) money. It's the company's (Hostess) money that they get to spend as they see fit. If they wise to give it to their employees, they may. If they don't want to, they don't have to. Employees don't have to stay at the company if they're not happy. They can work elsewhere. It's a free market economy.
Updated On: 11/20/12 at 01:09 AM
#122
Posted: 11/20/12 at 1:10am
Neither side was asking for mediation, thus BOTH sides were ordered into it. The company is quite content with closing as long as they get to arrange the terms. The company stated within days of the strike that it was too late to come to sufficient labor terms to save the business.
I like the Court Trustee's recommendation of having the judge arrange the company dispensation instead of the execs.
I like the Court Trustee's recommendation of having the judge arrange the company dispensation instead of the execs.
#123
Posted: 11/20/12 at 1:12am
Park it, park it, it's a free market!
#124
Posted: 11/20/12 at 1:12am
Not true. Hostess had saught further negotiation before going under. The unions refused. So the judge is forcing the unions.
#125
Posted: 11/20/12 at 1:14am
The union already took a pay cut and look how that turned out. And they're expected to play dumb and not see this for what it really is. The CEOs aren't the brightest men in the room if they thought the union would go for that.
It sucks that the non-union members lose their job too but their job is even less protected than the unions.
I wonder what the pay difference is, if any, between union and non union.
It sucks that the non-union members lose their job too but their job is even less protected than the unions.
I wonder what the pay difference is, if any, between union and non union.
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $71
