Those unions watching out for their workers...

[Steve Petersen]

Boeing unions struck. Company moved out of Washington. That's the way.

Could change the law so companies can't move.

 

[[serious]]

You need to look at what Hostess actually is. It is much more than just Twinkies; Twinkies is just getting all the attention because of it being a part of Americana.

The brands owned by Hostess that are now out of business are:

• Baker's Inn
• Beefsteak
• Blue Ribbon
• Bread du Jour
• Butternut Breads
• Colombo
• Cotton’s
• Di Carlo
• Dolly Madison
• Drake's
• Dutch Hearth
• Eddy’s
• Good Hearth
• Holsom
• Home Pride
• Hostess
• J.J. Nissen
• Merita
• Millbrook
• Mrs. Cubbison'sFoods
• Nature's Pride
• Parisian
• Standish Farms
• Sweetheart
• Twinkie
• Toscana
• Wonder Bread

They didn't only make junk food that was empty calories.

Brands I've heard of:
[*]Blue Ribbon
[*]Hostess
[*]J.J. Nissen
[*]Twinkie
[*]Wonder Bread
[*]Colombo
[*]Eddy’s

I haven't personally bought any of those products in years. Eddy's is the only one that has a particularly good reputation and is the last one I've seen bought. 2 years ago. For a party.

If they are even thinking of giving CEOs huge raises after a first bankruptcy (in which the union agreed to pay cuts) then they aren't taking their situation seriously. If I was in that union, I wouldn't be willing to bankroll a second round of executive raises either.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

It all reminds me of a quite I am fond of.

“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” - Hélder Câmara

 

[FreeSpirit74]

Those companies tend to be what is termed a "closely held company" meaning that the management team is comprised of the owners who actually fill day to day roles within the physical company itself among other things that define this type of company. This tends to lead to a spirit of teamsmanship where every person within the company is seen as a member of a team whose goal is the success of the team as a whole. This situation tends to be ideal as their aren't really any sides in an argument, in other words, management and workers don't tend to take opposite sides on matters. In fact, most closely held companies have perks for their employees like holiday dinners at nice restaurants and things of that nature. Ironically, these types of businesses tend to be an "S" Corp or LLC which pay taxes at the individual rates.

This is exactly the type of company I work for - all decisions are made inhouse at monthly meetings with the department managers and the company president/owner, who is in the office every single day (we only have the one location). We are an "Inc." not an LLC however , so we do pay Corporate Tax. One thing that really stands out about this company is the longevity of the workforce - there's only 2 of us in the office who've been there less than 20 years(I'm in my 11th year); one guy started there in 1969!

 

[USincognito]

This is, iirc, Hostess' 2nd Chapter 11 in less than a decade.

They were initially "saved" by a buyout launched through at least one PE firm (30%), hedge fund/s (30%), and a handful of other investors.

The company was loaded with more debt (already indebted at the first bankruptcy), ostensibly for upgrades that did not occur.

The Union/s agreed to layoffs, job cuts, reduced wages and benefits. Which did not result in the hoped-for turnaround.

Commodity price spikes for sugar, corn, and wheat have presented a struggle for all snack food companies including Hostess.

From the looks of it, even with the Union agreeing to further paycuts, there was no guarantee that Hostess would survive -- especially with raises at the top, any call-in demands for loans, their failing "infrastructure", and stiff competition from healthier competitors.

This was a long story, a shaggy dog story, and we're only catching the headlined last moments of the saga. Imo, the blame cannot be laid solely w/ the Union - especially given their previous deep concessions.

How dare you brings facts and history into this discussion when one can just decry greedy union "workers" who have the temerity to want to get paid for their sweat!

The problem is the entitlement mentality where people think they have a right to a job. The jobs belong to the owners of the companies who took the risks and put their blood sweat and tears into building the businesses. As my boss says, if the employee doesn't like his situation, he can find another situation (or build his own company).

Your boss sounds like a real {bless don't curse}.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Evil workers who don't want to submit to autocratic rule are evil.

How come that people who'd otherwise regard themselves as paragons of freedom (and even approve of wars abroad to "defend" said freedom) are such staunch champions of absolutism when it comes to business practices?

The highest-ranking members of American companies make up to 350 times as much money per month as their lowest-ranking employee. Now, a certain disparity of income is not only expected but also just (in light of a higher degree of specialized skills being required for higher-ranking jobs, more responsibility has to be borne and so on and so forth), but THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY TIMES AS MUCH???
There's no way to justify that. Not in an age when many people barely get by in spite of working full-time.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

That said, unions do not act wisely by default, and they may not be the best solution to resolve the inherent injustices of plutocratic capitalism.

It's pretty clear, though, that handing all of the power to those who own the company is a disastrous idea. Several countries tried that (and still follow that approach), with the result that the vast majority of the populace lives in abject poverty while a small elite grows fat on their labour.

Unbridled capitalism is basically (post-)industrial feudalism, except that the serfs/slaves are no longer made complacent with promises of a better afterlife for the poor (as they were in the middle ages), but with promises of (mostly illusory) social permeability. The "rags to riches"-myth is what makes most people look away from all the injustices of the system - for one day, THEY might be the ones who can afford all that decadent splendour and live like kings in some gated community.

 

[Thekla]

You need to look at what Hostess actually is. It is much more than just Twinkies; Twinkies is just getting all the attention because of it being a part of Americana.

The brands owned by Hostess that are now out of business are:

• Baker's Inn
• Beefsteak
• Blue Ribbon
• Bread du Jour
• Butternut Breads
• Colombo
• Cotton’s
• Di Carlo
• Dolly Madison
• Drake's
• Dutch Hearth
• Eddy’s
• Good Hearth
• Holsom
• Home Pride
• Hostess
• J.J. Nissen
• Merita
• Millbrook
• Mrs. Cubbison'sFoods
• Nature's Pride
• Parisian
• Standish Farms
• Sweetheart
• Twinkie
• Toscana
• Wonder Bread

They didn't only make junk food that was empty calories.

Sure, but failing flagship lines and a downward sales trend over years coupled with rising costs and mismanagement is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Thekla]

Because right now they are forcing the company to close.

Do you know the harassment people face when they don't vote with the union?

Actually, looking at the Hostess story over the last decade, it doesn't seem to be the fault of the unions -- they're just the last link in a long chain.

And given the downward sales trend, huge debt, and general mismanagement it doesn't seem a union agreement could have saved the company.

 

[Belk]

Boeing unions struck. Company moved out of Washington. That's the way.

Could change the law so companies can't move.

Huh. Must of missed them leaving. Maybe it's because they haven't?

Washington jobs at Boeing

 

[TerranceL]

Huh. Must of missed them leaving. Maybe it's because they haven't?

Washington jobs at Boeing

Not exactly because they wanted to keep it there...

How NLRB helped unions shake down Boeing | WashingtonExaminer.com

It's worth remembering what happened in this case. The union, in the midst of a labor dispute, complained to the NLRB that Boeing was building a non-union factory in the right to work state of South Carolina to service a backlog of orders on its 787 Dreamliner airplanes. And the NLRB's general counsel, Lafe Solomon, responded by suing Boeing and demanding that they move work from the newly constructed $750 million South Carolina facility to the unionized Washington state. The suit was completely frivolous and unlikely to ultimately prevail. However, businesses, especially those that are publicly traded, hate uncertainty. So they decided to reach a settlement with the union. To be clear, nothing is a done deal, and there's no guarantee that NLRB will now drop its suit, but Solomon did call the agreement a "a very significant and hopeful development." Though Boeing did not agree to shut down its South Carolina facility, the company did agree to build its 737 MAX passenger jets in unionized Washington state, though they had been considering building them elsewhere. In addition, the Machinists report the tentative deal includes:

• Annual wage increases of 2 percent, plus cost-of-living adjustments;
• An incentive program intended to pay bonuses between 2 and 4 percent;
• A ratification bonus of $5,000 for each member;
• Increases to the formula for calculating pensions in each year of the pact; and
• Guarantees that new hires would continue to receive traditional pensions.

In other words, the Machinists were able to extract a lot of concessions from Boeing that they otherwise might not have gotten, because the Obama administration's NLRB filed a frivolous lawsuit on their behalf.

 

[dies-l]

I can't say for sure who's to blame, but when make a product that doesn't taste very good, is terribly unhealthy, and priced considerably more than better tasting albeit not much healthier competition products, how on Earth do you expect to stay in business?

 

[TeddyReceptus]

to what point...til the company has to shut down? That's not being fair that is being vindictive.

To be fair Hostess Brands was on the verge of giving their CEO a pay package of $1.5 million a year base salary after they went into bankruptcy.

That CEO abruptly left, however and Geoffrey Rayburn stepped in to guide them through this bankruptcy.

Here's a quote that may clarify what the union workers were seeing back in March just 3 months after filing Chapter 11:

Hostess's plan to pay Mr. Driscoll $1.5 million in a yearly base salary plus millions more in additional awards—the full details of which Hostess didn't disclose—sparked the ire of a federal bankruptcy watchdog and one of the biggest unions in the case.



"They have amazing laws in this land that allow a company to file bankruptcy and give the CEO...such a lucrative contract while demanding deep, deep givebacks from its employees," Frank Hurt, the president of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, or BCTGM, said in an interview last month. (source)

Further some of the union members prior to the bankruptcy, when the company was in the process of the "run-up" to bankruptcy, hiring lawyers for this apparently started doing some interesting things in regards to executive compensation:

In court papers, the creditors say testimony from Hostess's executive vice president of human resources indicates that "in the run-up to bankruptcy"--when Hostess had already hired bankruptcy attorneys--it was also working to shift its compensation structure. Hostess slashed bonuses payable only if certain performance goals were met and, on July 26, the company's compensation committee signed off on "substantial salary increases for numerous senior executives," the creditors said, calling the jumps "dramatic."(source)

(emphasis added)


(Interestingly enough, apparently Driscoll actually turned down a significant increase in his salary!)


Now whether Hostess actually did manipulate exec pay or not I suppose will be hashed out in later investigations as the creditors will want to learn more.


But people at the bottom often see a completely different group of thugs playing money games.


Unions exist because management is not always looking out for the best interests of the workers. Unions exist to provide those without the kind of power to control pay and future that the executive team enjoys.


It is a balance.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Simple answer - outsource all the work to Mexico.

 

[variant]

Now they'll get 99 weeks of unemployment followed by a lifetime of disability payments.

Striking workers are generally not eligible for unemployment.

 

[variant]

You need to look at what Hostess actually is. It is much more than just Twinkies; Twinkies is just getting all the attention because of it being a part of Americana.

The brands owned by Hostess that are now out of business are:

• Baker's Inn
• Beefsteak
• Blue Ribbon
• Bread du Jour
• Butternut Breads
• Colombo
• Cotton’s
• Di Carlo
• Dolly Madison
• Drake's
• Dutch Hearth
• Eddy’s
• Good Hearth
• Holsom
• Home Pride
• Hostess
• J.J. Nissen
• Merita
• Millbrook
• Mrs. Cubbison'sFoods
• Nature's Pride
• Parisian
• Standish Farms
• Sweetheart
• Twinkie
• Toscana
• Wonder Bread

They didn't only make junk food that was empty calories.

They make food and junk food. They are going out of business because they can't compete, not because they couldn't lean on their workers more.

Emphasis on more because this is not the first set of wage cuts at the company.

Those parts of the business that were profitable will be sold to turnaround companies and ultimately stick around.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

The problem is the entitlement mentality where people think they have a right to a job.

Please don't refer to this new meme of "entitlement mentality". Remember the reason the Hostess CEO could make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year base salary is NOT because he was out hawkin' Twinkies on the corner. It was because of thousands of hard working people in blue collar positions.

Management gets to drive the ship. When Management makes decisions where the ship goes the workers have to make the ship run. If management fails to see the icebergs (sometimes no one could see the iceberg) or management decides to steer the ship into an iceberg, one cannot then blame the workers for the failure of the company.

If Hostess was having a tough time of it in this economy and the executives might have been larding up on a few extra liferafts for themselves while asking the workers to hang out here on the deck just a few more minutes, it isn't an "entitlement mentality".

Think about these union workers who are now out of a job. They risked far, far far more than the executives. The execs were probably sitting each on a pile of money and the will move onto other companies, but the bakers will be out of a job sitting on a tiny, tiny bit of money if they are lucky and then have to find another baking job.

The reason people strike is usually not because they are whiny and petulant. It is because they have hit the limit and there really is little to lose for them.

The "entitlement mentality" is probably more at the top. These folks seem to think that sitting in meetings all day "earns" them hundreds of thousands of dollars base salary (and often ridiculous bonuses).

The jobs belong to the owners of the companies who took the risks and put their blood sweat and tears into building the businesses.

And Leroy Nafziger, who founded Interstate Bakeries in the 1930's...you think he's still around? Well he wasn't the last CEO and he isn't the current CEO.

As my boss says, if the employee doesn't like his situation, he can find another situation (or build his own company).

And if your boss doesn't realize that his paycheck is also due to your work then your boss's company is likely to be shortlived.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Simple answer - outsource all the work to Mexico.

Even highly profitable companies started outsourcing work long ago.

Why? Because Americans are expensive. Who can understand why these leeches want to earn a good living in the richest nation on earth, but for some reason they do.

Executive pay is now about 200times the average worker pay. That's because each CEO is working 200 times harder than any person on the production line. Each CEO puts in 200*40 = 8000 hours a week of work. Each CEO produces, directly 200 times more material than any worker.

And when the CEO's go home (or take the corporate jet...along with the wife and kids...which is allowed under some compensation packages) to get some rest it is well deserved.

I mean for someone who puts in 8000 hours a week in work, well that's hard!

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Even highly profitable companies started outsourcing work long ago.

Why? Because Americans are expensive. Who can understand why these leeches want to earn a good living in the richest nation on earth, but for some reason they do.

Executive pay is now about 200times the average worker pay. That's because each CEO is working 200 times harder than any person on the production line. Each CEO puts in 200*40 = 8000 hours a week of work. Each CEO produces, directly 200 times more material than any worker.

And when the CEO's go home (or take the corporate jet...along with the wife and kids...which is allowed under some compensation packages) to get some rest it is well deserved.

I mean for someone who puts in 8000 hours a week in work, well that's hard!

Greed and envy of executive pay will always be prevalent among those who have no experience in such positions.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Greed and envy of executive pay will always be prevalent among those who have no experience in such positions.

LOL.

So you think a CEO on average actually "earns" 200 times more than the average worker at their company?

Really?

Could you please explain to me how this works? I have no experience as an executive. I have, however worked at companies in which executives make millions of dollars regardless of which way the stock goes. I even read an SEC document in which a CEO of one company got help with his mortgage despite pulling down hundreds of thousands of dollars base pay and millions in total comp.

Please explain to me what a CEO does that is not only starting off at 200 times average worker pay and doesn't seem to have much in the way of accountability or "downside" if things don't go just perfectly on the Street.

I'm truly curious!