Those unions watching out for their workers...

[kiwimac]

Ah, so unions - Bad; Management - Good.

Nice to know where you stand.

 

[Redac]

I don't have any reason to believe the company was "mishandled", but I do find it a mishandling by union representatives to go on strike against a company already in bankruptcy

How can you seriously claim that the company wasn't being mishandled? Why do you suppose they were in bankruptcy? And note that this is not the first time they've been through bankruptcy; this is the second time in less than a decade!

Or did the union do that last time too?

 

[MachZer0]

How can you seriously claim that the company wasn't being mishandled? Why do you suppose they were in bankruptcy? And note that this is not the first time they've been through bankruptcy; this is the second time in less than a decade!

Or did the union do that last time too?

A company doesn't have to be mishandled to go bankrupt

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

A company doesn't have to be mishandled to go bankrupt

True. Sometimes they go bankrupt because unregulated markets favour the most unethical and ruthless competitors.
In the case of Hostess, however, it's pretty clear that the management's failures were to blame.

 

[Assyrian]

Better than a straw man? The straw man wasn't mine

Yes it was:

Straw man

 

[dies-l]

I don't see how the union status is irrelevant since it is the union strike being blamed for the liquidation of the company and you actually proved the point by comparing a non union company that seems to be doing OK

My point all along has been that the company was mismanaged, as evidenced in part by the lack of consumer interest in their product and management's unwillingness or inability to address that problem. Nowhere have I said that the union is blameless, but it is abundantly clear that it is not the sole or even the primary cause of the Company's woes.

 

[MachZer0]

My point all along has been that the company was mismanaged, as evidenced in part by the lack of consumer interest in their product and management's unwillingness or inability to address that problem. Nowhere have I said that the union is blameless, but it is abundantly clear that it is not the sole or even the primary cause of the Company's woes.

Lack of consumer interest does not mean mismanagement, but a company that uses union employees has less flexibility to deal with market changes.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes it was:

 

[whatbogsends]

Lack of consumer interest does not mean mismanagement, but a company that uses union employees has less flexibility to deal with market changes.

Right, because union contracts stated that they must maintain the same levels of production of Twinkies and Ho Hos!

Oh wait, product lines are a management decision.

Keep trying to spin it away, Mach, but this one has management's incompetence written all over it.

 

[Rion]

I find it interesting that people keep insisting that this is a management vs. union issue, when it's clearly union vs. union. Either the Teamsters were idiotic sell-outs, or the baker's union was being selfish. Which is it?

 

[whatbogsends]

I find it interesting that people keep insisting that this is a management vs. union issue, when it's clearly union vs. union. Either the Teamsters were idiotic sell-outs, or the baker's union was being selfish. Which is it?

I didn't realize the Teamsters union were offering the contracts for the baker's union, it seemed like it was a management proposal...

Oh, wait, that was just a red herring? Thanks for the diversion.

It's clearly a management vs. union 1 and management vs. union 2, where of the 2 unions took the bad offer, and the other of the 2 unions rejected it.

The only people trying to pit union against union are the anti-union folks.

 

[kermit]

As noted earlier, the execs had their salaries reduced to $1, a level hundreds of times lower than the laborers

They lowered them because the Teamsters made the information public. There's no reason to think that they would have done so on their own. The fact remains that any execs that are willing to give themselves lavish raises while the company struggles has some serious management issues.

 

[MachZer0]

Right, because union contracts stated that they must maintain the same levels of production of Twinkies and Ho Hos!

Oh wait, product lines are a management decision.

Keep trying to spin it away, Mach, but this one has management's incompetence written all over it.

Source?

 

[Rion]

I didn't realize the Teamsters union were offering the contracts for the baker's union, it seemed like it was a management proposal...

Oh, wait, that was just a red herring? Thanks for the diversion.

It's clearly a management vs. union 1 and management vs. union 2, where of the 2 unions took the bad offer, and the other of the 2 unions rejected it.

The only people trying to pit union against union are the anti-union folks.

No, I'm just saying that if it was such a horrible, wretched deal, then the Teamsters were sell-outs. If it wasn't, then the Bakers union was being selfish. You see, I'm not "anti-union." I'm simply able to recognize that, often times, the union leadership is as harmful to the employees as the very management they're supposed to "protect" the workers from. In this case, I think the Bakers union sacrificed Hostess employees so they could look tough for the rest of their members.

 

[morningstar2651]

Oh...wait...

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hostess Brands -- the maker of such iconic baked goods as Twinkies, Devil Dogs and Wonder Bread -- announced Friday that it is asking a federal bankruptcy court for permission to close its operations, blaming a strike by bakers protesting a new contract imposed on them.

The closing will result in Hostess' nearly 18,500 workers losing their jobs as the company shuts 33 bakeries and 565 distribution centers nationwide, as well as 570 outlet stores. The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union represents around 5,000.

In September, one of its major unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, voted narrowly to accept a new contract with reduced wages and benefits. The bakers' union rejected the deal, however, prompting Hostess management to secure permission from a bankruptcy court to force a new concession contract on workers.
​

Hostess Brands closing for good due to bakers strike - Nov. 16, 2012

It's not the union's fault that the executives of hostess couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag. Did you read the crap deal that the executives were trying to give their employees?

They were going to cut everyone's pay, cut everyone's benefits, and give themselves raises.

 

[kermit]

Lack of consumer interest does not mean mismanagement, but a company that uses union employees has less flexibility to deal with market changes.

Failure to respond to changing market conditions is a type of mismanagement.

 

[MachZer0]

They lowered them because the Teamsters made the information public. There's no reason to think that they would have done so on their own. The fact remains that any execs that are willing to give themselves lavish raises while the company struggles has some serious management issues.

They were lowered because of the new CEO who was hired to manage the bankruptcy. And the salaries had nothing to do with mismanagement leading to a bankruptcy as the increases came after the company had already hired restructuring notices. Moreover, the increases were a result not of just simply increasing salaries but rather from converting their salaries from performance based bonuses to guaranteed salaries. At any rate, the salaries had nothing to do with mismanagement or bankrutcy

 

[MachZer0]

Failure to respond to changing market conditions is a type of mismanagement.

It can be, but is not necessarily so.

 

[whatbogsends]

Source?

The source was sarcasm. It was your claim that union shops have less flexibility to meet market needs than non-union shops. I was simply showing how foolish that statement was via sarcasm.

 

[Thekla]

Hostess hoisted the employee pension contributions, accepted the lowered wage/benefit agreement, and was supposed to use the savings for improvements. And didn't. But did give mgmt. raises.

A similar thing happened at Bethlehem Steel -- the Union took cuts. They also pointed out to mgmt. that the Steel needed to upgrade its equipment to remain competative; mgmt. said they couldn't afford this. So the union employees gave the mgmt. xdollars per hour of their pay to help with the cost of upgrades. Upgrades didn't happen ... and of course we now have a huge brown zone in town (that is being rejuvenated by an Arts organization and a casino).

The Fortune Mag. article on Hostess (from July/Aug) that I linked earlier recounts the Hostess saga -- to lay this mess in the lap of the Unions is to ignore the facts of the matter.