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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
kermit said:Failure to respond to changing market conditions is a type of mismanagement.
Performance bonuses are to reward success. Moving that money into salary is to reward failure. That's mismanagement.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.
It didn't make them bad, but it did make them unemployed.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.
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.Performance bonuses are to reward success. Moving that money into salary is to reward failure. That's 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?
Hostess' sales have been dropping for years. Have you seen any significant changes in their product offerings?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?
That is a change in market conditions. Their failure to respond is still to blame.Another hypothetical would be that the poor economy has resulted in reduced demand for their product. Would management also be blamed for this?
Is that before or after they decide to give themselves lavish raises?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?
MachZer0 said: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.
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.
That is a good point. The last thing the company needs while going through bankruptcy is for the management to jump ship.
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.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.
9 times out of 10 that's exactly what needs to happen.That is a good point. The last thing the company needs while going through bankruptcy is for the management to jump ship.
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 increasesI'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 said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?