Those unions watching out for their workers...

[MachZer0]

I suggest you learn the difference between profit centers and cost centers. Management is is a cost center while production is a profit center.

Now cost centers are needed to support the profit center, but they don't actually ever make money for the company. The best a cost center can hope for to benefit the company's bottom line is to cut costs.

That's what I said basically. Management benefits from their own work. Moreover, the relationship is symbiotic

 

[MachZer0]

Except that bakers, truck drivers, etc. are not rewarded for their failure with huge bonuses and a last-minute rise during the company's bankruptcy.
Unlike managers, who can look forward to not having to bear the consequences of their company's collapse, financially or otherwise.

In this case, one union's failure rewarded other union members with unemployment.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In this case one of the unions screwed up and all the employees paid for it.

Was it the unions who mismanaged the company into bankruptcy -- twice -- while awarding pay raises to management?

 

[Thekla]

In this case, one union's failure rewarded other union members with unemployment.

Rewarding a large number of employees with unemployment was one of the stated goals of the company's restructuring plan (and had been warned up to a year ago - 9 plants iirc).

Tanking the company was not the stated goal, but the effective goal given the decisions made by the company over a number of years (not shedding debt at an earlier bankruptcy, taking on more debt when emerging from bankruptcy whilst also cutting wages and failing to start the planned, and essential for viability, infrastructure upgrades).

Ie the company's ultimate demise was the foreseeable end-game anyway; it just happened "now".

Which means that a potential buyout of viable product lines and infrastructure will happen sooner - providing jobs with a mgmt. profile (likely Bimbo Bakeries or Flowers) that isn't so clueless. Or, these competitors will (without product line buyout) increase sales to fill the hole left by Hostess - still more jobs.

I don't know how, given the Hostess recent history, the whole blame can be laid at the feet of the Union/s.

Whatever their responsibility in this, it is a shared responsibility, and is dwarfed by other factors -- and many of these factors were the mgmt.'s to control.

* I should add: our son works for a privately owned NE US grocery store chain. They didn't carry Hostess - in fact in the industry they were known to be unreliable for some time now.

 

[MachZer0]

Was it the unions who mismanaged the company into bankruptcy -- twice -- while awarding pay raises to management?

It would appear that one union mismanaged the company into liquidation

 

[MachZer0]

Rewarding a large number of employees with unemployment was one of the stated goals of the company's restructuring plan (and had been warned up to a year ago - 9 plants iirc).

Tanking the company was not the stated goal, but the effective goal given the decisions made by the company over a number of years (not shedding debt at an earlier bankruptcy, taking on more debt when emerging from bankruptcy whilst also cutting wages and failing to start the planned, and essential for viability, infrastructure upgrades).

Ie the company's ultimate demise was the foreseeable end-game anyway; it just happened "now".

Which means that a potential buyout of viable product lines and infrastructure will happen sooner - providing jobs with a mgmt. profile (likely Bimbo Bakeries or Flowers) that isn't so clueless. Or, these competitors will (without product line buyout) increase sales to fill the hole left by Hostess - still more jobs.

I don't know how, given the Hostess recent history, the whole blame can be laid at the feet of the Union/s.

Whatever their responsibility in this, it is a shared responsibility, and is dwarfed by other factors -- and many of these factors were the mgmt.'s to control.

* I should add: our son works for a privately owned NE US grocery store chain. They didn't carry Hostess - in fact in the industry they were known to be unreliable for some time now.

Tanking the company was the result of workers who refused to work

 

[Thekla]

Tanking the company was the result of workers who refused to work

That is demonstrably false.

 

[MachZer0]

That is demonstrably false.

It seems to be demonstrably true. The company was in bankruptcy, notified the workers that if they didn't return to work the company would have to liquidate, the workers refused to work, the company requested and received permission from the bankruptcy court to liquidate.

 

[Thekla]

It seems to be demonstrably true. The company was in bankruptcy, notified the workers that if they didn't return to work the company would have to liquidate, the workers refused to work, the company requested and received permission from the bankruptcy court to liquidate.

So you focus on one moment in a long process (spanning 8 plus years) and call that "true" ?

Remind me not to consult you for investment advice

 

[MachZer0]

So you focus on one moment in a long process (spanning 8 plus years) and call that "true" ?

Remind me not to consult you for investment advice

That one moment resulted in liquidation of a company trying to remain viable. If I give you investment advice for many years and then in one moment give you advice that results in you going broke, then you're broke as a result of that one moment

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So, is there anyone here who actually thinks that 18,000 employees would be unemployed today if the Bakers union had agreed to the contract?

On a related note, our Hostess Bakery outlet store closed its doors last week. The women that ran this store were some of the most wonderful women I've ever known. They are older women and are lamenting that they probably will not be able to get another job like the one they had. No one wants older women these days.

They blame the union, too, although they realize the company was in trouble. But, like most sane people, they would've rather have at least had a job through the holidays.

 

[SharonL]

The unions don't care if they destroy the company - their goal is only to grab more members which means more money for them and they are backed by the government because more money for the union means more money to buy favor from the administration which is defined as 'power.'

 

[Thekla]

That one moment resulted in liquidation of a company trying to remain viable. If I give you investment advice for many years and then in one moment give you advice that results in you going broke, then you're broke as a result of that one moment

If your investment advice is based on one moment instead of the company's actual history, it's bad advice (and doesn't qualify as analysis).

 

[kiwimac]

A job, to be of value, must enable the worker to meet their minimum requirements, ie. Rent, food, bills, otherwise it is valueless. Can someone please explain to me why it is apparently fine for successive management teams to run this firm into the ground whilst taking large salaries for themselves and it's okay but when the workers try to defend the little they have THEY are in the wrong?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

A job, to be of value, must enable the worker to meet their minimum requirements, ie. Rent, food, bills, otherwise it is valueless. Can someone please explain to me why it is apparently fine for successive management teams to run this firm into the ground whilst taking large salaries for themselves and it's okay but when the workers try to defend the little they have THEY are in the wrong?

Roughly 5,000 people decided to "defend" and they ended up costing the jobs of 18,000 people.

 

[quilbilly]

Roughly 5,000 people decided to "defend" and they ended up costing the jobs of 18,000 people.

Whoever decided it was better to liquidate the company instead of hiring replacement workers cost those people their jobs.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Whoever decided it was better to liquidate the company instead of hiring replacement workers cost those people their jobs.

Yes, cuz that would really ease the tensions with the union.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Yes, cuz that would really ease the tensions with the union.

Why would "tensions with the unions" matter? If the goal is to keep the doors open hiring non-union workers (or investing in moving to a non-union state) would surely have been a more rational choice for the company.

They clearly had extra cash in order to offer the previous CEO a raise as they went through bankruptcy.

So I fail to see why the unions are a concern at all!

Isn't the whole goal here to make sure that the workers' interests are completely ignored?

Because it sounds like that from many of our posters on here who see no value to what the unions are there for.

 

[MachZer0]

If your investment advice is based on one moment instead of the company's actual history, it's bad advice (and doesn't qualify as analysis).

In this case, the bad advice came form the union choosing to remain on strike against a company in bankruptcy. that advice resulted in 18,000 plus workers needing to find new jobs in a down economy.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, cuz that would really ease the tensions with the union.

It was still an option.

Further, the company's documented plan and announcement to at least one govt. official (a year ago) included the closure of several manufacturing sites.

Even without a strike, there were significant closures planned.

As they didn't even attempt to re-fill the strike positions, it doesn't seem that the strike had any affect on the closing. The timing of the closing was opportunistic.