Those unions watching out for their workers...

[whatbogsends]

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.

Perhaps the Teamsters union members were more in dire straights and preferred the lousy offer to unemployment. Bargaining from a position of weakness will lead one to make decisions that aren't in your best interest.

 

[kermit]

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.

The world is not that black and white. Just because one union accepts it (by a small margin) and another rejects it (by a small margin) doesn't make either one of them bad per se.

The rich wage class warfare by pitting poor against poor. That is exactly what you are doing.

No group's hands are clean when it comes to the hostess shutdown. However, the fact is that continual financial woes of the company were due to the execs inability to adapt the company to changing market conditions.

 

[mathetes123]

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

I keep hearing the issue is changing market conditions and managements failure to respond. What is the source for this or is it just a hypothetical? Another hypothetical would be that the poor economy has resulted in reduced demand for their product. Would management also be blamed for this? Wouldn't it be prudent for management to cut back in this case? Could it be that they offered the wage cuts to avoid layoffs? As long as we are speculating on what might or might not have happened I thought I would throw that into the mix

Regardless of whether there was or was not mismanagement, it was the decision of the union to go on strike while the company was in bankruptcy, knowing ahead of which the end result which resulted in the shutdown of the company.

 

[MachZer0]

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.

The sarcasm failed

 

[kermit]

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.

Performance bonuses are to reward success. Moving that money into salary is to reward failure. That's mismanagement.

 

[MachZer0]

The world is not that black and white. Just because one union accepts it (by a small margin) and another rejects it (by a small margin) doesn't make either one of them bad per se.

The rich wage class warfare by pitting poor against poor. That is exactly what you are doing.

No group's hands are clean when it comes to the hostess shutdown. However, the fact is that continual financial woes of the company were due to the execs inability to adapt the company to changing market conditions.

It didn't make them bad, but it did make them unemployed.

 

[MachZer0]

Performance bonuses are to reward success. Moving that money into salary is to reward failure. That's mismanagement.

Or it could be an effort to keep executives on board through the bankruptcy. regardless, it had nothing to do with the company having to file for bankruptcy as the attorneys to manage the bankruptcy had already been hired.

 

[whatbogsends]

The sarcasm failed

Something definitely failed, Mach.

 

[Thekla]

I keep hearing the issue is changing market conditions and managements failure to respond. What is the source for this or is it just a hypothetical? Another hypothetical would be that the poor economy has resulted in reduced demand for their product. Would management also be blamed for this? Wouldn't it be prudent for management to cut back in this case? Could it be that they offered the wage cuts to avoid layoffs?

Here's a link to the Hostess bankruptcy from this summer - which includes some of the history of the problem dating back to its acquisition by a Private Equity firm, Hedge Funds, and an assortment of minor players.

Hostess is bankrupt … again - Fortune Management

 

[kermit]

I keep hearing the issue is changing market conditions and managements failure to respond. What is the source for this or is it just a hypothetical?

Hostess' sales have been dropping for years. Have you seen any significant changes in their product offerings?

Another hypothetical would be that the poor economy has resulted in reduced demand for their product. Would management also be blamed for this?

That is a change in market conditions. Their failure to respond is still to blame.

Also, to my knowledge, their competitors are not struggling like they were.

Wouldn't it be prudent for management to cut back in this case? Could it be that they offered the wage cuts to avoid layoffs?

Is that before or after they decide to give themselves lavish raises?

 

[mathetes123]

Or it could be an effort to keep executives on board through the bankruptcy. regardless, it had nothing to do with the company having to file for bankruptcy as the attorneys to manage the bankruptcy had already been hired.

That is a good point. The last thing the company needs while going through bankruptcy is for the management to jump ship.

 

[Rion]

The world is not that black and white. Just because one union accepts it (by a small margin) and another rejects it (by a small margin) doesn't make either one of them bad per se.

The rich wage class warfare by pitting poor against poor. That is exactly what you are doing.

No group's hands are clean when it comes to the hostess shutdown. However, the fact is that continual financial woes of the company were due to the execs inability to adapt the company to changing market conditions.

Yeah, about that. You're probably wealthier than I am. Most of those union members were. One thing I hate to do more than anything is clean toilets, but I'd be more than happy to do so for $29/hour. Class warfare doesn't work when you're the "evil rich" in this situation.

And kudos for being able to admit that every party was guilty. I'm well aware it isn't a black-and-white situation, but many in this thread can't seem to wrap their minds around that, and insist that it was solely the evil corporation's fault.

 

[Thekla]

That is a good point. The last thing the company needs while going through bankruptcy is for the management to jump ship.

As the article I posted points out, they've gone through 6 CEOs in less than 10 years ...

 

[MachZer0]

Something definitely failed, Mach.

Yes, the sarcasm

 

[kermit]

Or it could be an effort to keep executives on board through the bankruptcy. regardless, it had nothing to do with the company having to file for bankruptcy as the attorneys to manage the bankruptcy had already been hired.

I've get a performance bonus. Mine is mostly tied to company performance which I have little control over. When the company does poorly no one offers me a higher salary to make up for it, nor do I expect them to. But in the case of Hostess the very people that had the most control over company perfomance decided to guarantee their reward regardless of performance. That's is a textbook example of rewarding failure.

 

[kermit]

That is a good point. The last thing the company needs while going through bankruptcy is for the management to jump ship.

9 times out of 10 that's exactly what needs to happen.

5 years ago I was hired to a company with declining revenue. Then the recession came which made things worse. Within a few months all the top execs were replaced and many of the directors. Within a year the company was in financial shape again.

 

[MachZer0]

I've get a performance bonus. Mine is mostly tied to company performance which I have little control over. When the company does poorly no one offers me a higher salary to make up for it, nor do I expect them to. But in the case of Hostess the very people that had the most control over company perfomance decided to guarantee their reward regardless of performance. That's is a textbook example of rewarding failure.

Again, whether that is true or not has no bearing on the bankruptcy being a result of mismanagement. We know our liberal friends don't like corporate executives, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. Hostess was already heading toward bankruptcy at the time of the alleged increases

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Again, whether that is true or not has no bearing on the bankruptcy being a result of mismanagement. We know our liberal friends don't like corporate executives, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. Hostess was already heading toward bankruptcy at the time of the alleged increases

It is, however a symptom of a sick management culture.

Management that does that sort of thing during a "crisis" for the company has probably been poor management for quite some time.

It reflects horrible judgement.

So when an "autopsy" is done on the company one can look at how management approached various market stressors.

In the end what may have killed Hostess has nothing to do with what people inside Hostess did so much as the market moving to different choices.

Was the quality not as good for the price? Or was the price too high?

If the price is too high is it really all due to union folks who want a living wage? Or is it due to management who may have a track record of lining their own pockets?

Frankly when one pays an exec a million or so dollars a year to do their job, one assumes that part of that hyper-giant pay rate is the ability to bear the burden of RESPONSIBILITY.

What "apologist" for Hostess management seem to be doing is saying:"These people making tons of money shouldn't be asked to bear any actual burden of responsibility beyond that of what the lowest paid person should bear."

This is akin to saying that you wish to pay the top tier a lot of money just because they wear suits. And NOT because of their higher profile and higher degree of risk.

One cannot have it both ways.

 

[mathetes123]

It is, however a symptom of a sick management culture.

Management that does that sort of thing during a "crisis" for the company has probably been poor management for quite some time.

It reflects horrible judgement.

So when an "autopsy" is done on the company one can look at how management approached various market stressors.

In the end what may have killed Hostess has nothing to do with what people inside Hostess did so much as the market moving to different choices.

Was the quality not as good for the price? Or was the price too high?

If the price is too high is it really all due to union folks who want a living wage? Or is it due to management who may have a track record of lining their own pockets?

Frankly when one pays an exec a million or so dollars a year to do their job, one assumes that part of that hyper-giant pay rate is the ability to bear the burden of RESPONSIBILITY.

What "apologist" for Hostess management seem to be doing is saying:"These people making tons of money shouldn't be asked to bear any actual burden of responsibility beyond that of what the lowest paid person should bear."

This is akin to saying that you wish to pay the top tier a lot of money just because they wear suits. And NOT because of their higher profile and higher degree of risk.

One cannot have it both ways.

All this talk about management is speculation. What we do know is that the decision by the union to strike directly caused the shutdown and the loss of 18000 jobs. Period.

 

[whatbogsends]

All this talk about management is speculation. What we do know is that the decision by the union to strike directly caused the shutdown and the loss of 18000 jobs. Period.

What we know is that the offer put forth by management wasn't acceptable to workers, so it was the failure of management to make a reasonable offer that directly caused the shutdown and the loss of 18000 jobs. Double period.