Those unions watching out for their workers...

[kermit]

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.

Like I said before, you are tyring to lay years of company misteps that have led to two bankruptcies and evenually the company closing at the feet of one incident.

If I pile you with weights and you stand, then someone else put more on and you collapse can you solely blame the second person?

 

[Thekla]

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.

Per the article I posted from this summer, your conclusion is incorrect.

If one is to address a problem, first an accurate analysis is needed.

Your analysis is shallow, and thus the conclusion is shy of accuracy.

 

[dies-l]

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.

We know that the strike was blamed for the loss if jobs. Whether that is indeed the cause is speculation.

 

[MachZer0]

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.

So now we're moving from the company being mismanaged to there being a symptom of mismanagement

 

[MachZer0]

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.

Actually, it was the failure of the union to accept what was offered. They had that freedom to accept or reject, and they chose, basically, unemployment. I for one don't believe they should be entitled to unemployment benefits

 

[MachZer0]

We know that the strike was blamed for the loss if jobs. Whether that is indeed the cause is speculation.

The company told the workers if they didn't return to work immediately, they would have to liquidate. The workers refused to return. the company began the process of liquidation. There isn't much to speculate about. We can speculate abut how long the company could have survived had the workers returned, but not about what caused them at this point in time to liquidate. it was the refusal of the workers to work.

 

[kermit]

Actually, it was the failure of the union to accept what was offered.

There is no evidence to support that accepting this offer would have saved their jobs. Hostess was circling the drain and was headed for collaspe unless some major changes were made and it was probably too late for any change to make a difference.

They had that freedom to accept or reject, and they chose, basically, unemployment. I for one don't believe they should be entitled to unemployment benefits

The decision to close the company due to the union's response was the owners'. What ever happened to personal responsiblity?

 

[TeddyReceptus]

So now we're moving from the company being mismanaged to there being a symptom of mismanagement

No, I'm saying that since I don't know the details of what Management did, that I think it is symptomatic of poor management.

If the managers were willing to line their pockets at a crisis time in the company then why would anyone trust them?

Until we know all the details it looks like management should be taken to task on this, rather than the Unions.

But further to my point: the reason we pay executives a lot of money is because they presumably have more "responsibility".

This seems like a case where the RESPONSIBLE parties are not being held to take responsibility for the problems.

 

[Paulos23]

There is no evidence to support that accepting this offer would have saved their jobs. Hostess was circling the drain and was headed for collaspe unless some major changes were made and it was probably too late for any change to make a difference.

Agreed. When management is getting rases and giving cuts to workers, that is a sign of management just wanting to get as much money out of the company as they can before it goes under. If I was an employee at that company I would be looking to jump ship, hopefully before the union vote.

Not saying that is ideal, but having been through one hostile takeover it is better to start looking early for another job rather then late. I really don't see how the baker can live on 25,000 a year (at least in my town). If you have to take a wage that low and management doesn't show you a plan to get back to profitblity, your better off in the unemployment line.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Actually, it was the failure of the union to accept what was offered.

Let's suppose we have a "2 man shop". YOu and me. I'm the boss. I didn't "found" the company, I didn't "build" it, I'm just a hired executive. And you make the widgets.

You get paid $20/hour and I get paid $200/hour. I don't do any physical labor but I sit in meetings all day and do the "running the business stuff".

Soon our widgets aren't selling as well. So we need to cut costs. I ask you to take a $2 pay cut. Me? Well, let's not worry about that right now.

Then one day you realize I'm no longer paying into your retirement pension. But I promise I will when we get back in the Black again.

I work out to give myself an 80% payraise taking me up to $360/hour

Then one day it appears we need to make some drastic changes in the business. We will file for a reorganization through bankruptcy. I'm going to need you to take another $1/hour pay cut. But it is imperative that my leadership be secure, so I'm going to get an incentive to stay onboard during the reorganization, so I won't have to suffer should things go horribly wrong under my watch. So now you are making $17/hour and I'm making $360/hour. But I "promise" you that some day in the distant future you'll be back up to $20/hour. Honest.

Tell me truthfully: since survival of the company through a reorganization is not "guaranteed", do you trust me? Would you accept this offer?

 

[MachZer0]

No, I'm saying that since I don't know the details of what Management did, that I think it is symptomatic of poor management.

If the managers were willing to line their pockets at a crisis time in the company then why would anyone trust them?

Until we know all the details it looks like management should be taken to task on this, rather than the Unions.

But further to my point: the reason we pay executives a lot of money is because they presumably have more "responsibility".

This seems like a case where the RESPONSIBLE parties are not being held to take responsibility for the problems.

Management WAS taken to task as has been pointed out so many times

 

[MachZer0]

Let's suppose we have a "2 man shop". YOu and me. I'm the boss. I didn't "found" the company, I didn't "build" it, I'm just a hired executive. And you make the widgets.

You get paid $20/hour and I get paid $200/hour. I don't do any physical labor but I sit in meetings all day and do the "running the business stuff".

Soon our widgets aren't selling as well. So we need to cut costs. I ask you to take a $2 pay cut. Me? Well, let's not worry about that right now.

Then one day you realize I'm no longer paying into your retirement pension. But I promise I will when we get back in the Black again.

I work out to give myself an 80% payraise taking me up to $360/hour

Then one day it appears we need to make some drastic changes in the business. We will file for a reorganization through bankruptcy. I'm going to need you to take another $1/hour pay cut. But it is imperative that my leadership be secure, so I'm going to get an incentive to stay onboard during the reorganization, so I won't have to suffer should things go horribly wrong under my watch. So now you are making $17/hour and I'm making $360/hour. But I "promise" you that some day in the distant future you'll be back up to $20/hour. Honest.

Tell me truthfully: since survival of the company through a reorganization is not "guaranteed", do you trust me? Would you accept this offer?

You forgot the part about me going on strike after the company filed bankruptcy, refusing to work

 

[Redac]

You forgot the part about me going on strike after the company filed bankruptcy, refusing to work

That's what happens after you accept or refuse the offer in the final line of the post. Do you accept more cuts? Or do you refuse and strike? Now try answering the question.

 

[SharonL]

You accept it - management holds the cards - in a society where there are no jobs - you think about feeding your family and $17 an hr is better than zero per hour.

 

[kermit]

You accept it - management holds the cards - in a society where there are no jobs - you think about feeding your family and $17 an hr is better than zero per hour.

America was made great by people who refused to just accept things.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

You accept it - management holds the cards - in a society where there are no jobs - you think about feeding your family and $17 an hr is better than zero per hour.

That's a recipe for investing in the hands of a few potentially extraordinarily greedy individual a stranglehold over everyone else.

A hostage taker of sorts.

Perhaps if management had some "skin in the game" (ie not have thousands and thousands of extra dollars because they lined their pockets ahead of time) this wouldn't be quite so unbalanced.

It is a painful less in American Labor History that we will apparently have to re-learn. Yeah, some unions did get corrupt and went overboard.

But look at this graph and tell me that bigger greed and more systemic abuses aren't happening elsewhere:

THIS IS WHY WE NEED UNIONS EVEN TODAY.

 

[MSBS]

You want to know what killed hostess? A combination of high labor costs and high sugar costs (because of tariffs to protect sugar growers in Florida), coupled with a fall in sales because people are trying not to eat as much junk food. Costs went up, demand went down, and the unions were unwilling to make concessions when the company was circling the drain.

Management, workers, and offering products that aren't in that much demand anymore. You don't need an MBA to figure it out, but everyone wants to take sides and proclaim it was the other "team" that caused it.

 

[SharonL]

I was raised in a family that had to put up with the unions and the ole country store. In those times Unions were needed for the coal miners and companies that took advantage of their employees - my family suffered through many, many strikes - you never catch up - your loss goes on for years while the union feels no pain whatsoever. In this day and time there are other laws to cover things that are not fair - unions are still draining the people and again - they feel no pain. Their corruption and treatment of the people is unbelievable. They buy corruption for anything they want to achieve. They pay to disrupt and cause problems. I know very well the workings of the union - I lived it.

 

[szechuan]

you all do realize the CEO of hostess took a 300% increase in pay while preparing for bankruptcy.

 

[[serious]]

Then one day you realize I'm no longer paying into your retirement pension. But I promise I will when we get back in the Black again.

That should read, "One day, you realize I "borrowed" money from the pension that I don't actually pay money into. I didn't check with you first, just went in and helped myself."