• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

And we wonder why jobs have moved to other countries

Faster horses

Well-known member
And you wonder why jobs have moved to other countries ?? Your Hostess Cupcake products, if they come back, may come from China. (Beware of lead paint in them)

Way to go, union workers at Hostess! You showed that terrible company who's boss! Of course, you're out of a job. No problem. Another company will buy up the rights to produce Hostess products and they must hire you. Wait, they already have bakeries and employees and your reputation of putting a company out of business won't put you at the top of their hiring lists. LES
Again, no problem. You're a union and you got Barack Obama re-elected so he'll extend your unemployment benefits as long as you want them. Wait, he can't do that. Congress could but the country is broke. Once again, no problem. You can just retire. Wait, there's no pension since there's no Hostess. No problem! The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will take over your pension. Wait, they're technically broke, too — with more liabilities than assets.
Well, good luck anyway. Your strike was a huge success
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
:clap:

Wishing those not wanting the strike, success in finding a new job, being out of work is an emotional hardship as well as concerning financially. To those striking, I wish them nothing but life lessons in what ever form they come in.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
I wonder if anyone's ever counted up all of the union induced bankruptcies that have happened in the US? I'm sure the number, and number of jobs lost, is staggering.
 

Steve

Well-known member
oh when the unions battle .... almost everyone loses..

One big lesson from this bankruptcy is that unions can’t be counted on to stick together in a crisis. As Holman Jenkins pointed out in his Wall Street Journal column today, the Bakers may have finished off Hostess because they could see no way the $2 billion-a-year (revenues) company could be viable unless the rival Teamsters abandoned work rules that made its distribution network hopelessly inefficient.

pretty sad when even a union sees the harm they are doing.. but like any addict they can't stop themselves..
 

TSR

Well-known member
It would be interesting to see those work rules that made the company so inefficient. Got a link ,Steve???
 

Traveler

Well-known member
TSR said:
It would be interesting to see those work rules that made the company so inefficient. Got a link ,Steve???
The web is full. You need only to search.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/23/wal-mart-and-hostess-two-union-stories/

Compare the union attempts at Wal-Mart to what happened at now bankrupt Hostess Brands, maker of Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Dolly Madison cakes and Wonder Bread. The 82-year old business will now be liquidated after a national strike by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union, the company’s second -largest union that started on Nov. 9. This is the second bankruptcy in a decade for Hostess, as sales plummeted from $3.1 billion in 2006 to just $2.45 billion in 2011, a 20% drop, according to PrivCo, a financial research company. Hostess’s balance sheet was underwater, carrying debt of over $1.43 billion, $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and just $40.4 million in cash. Net losses nearly tripled from 2006 to 2010, from $128 million to $341 million, PrivCo says.

But while Hostess hammered out an eleventh-hour agreement in bankruptcy court with its largest union, the Teamsters, to cut workers' pay and benefits, the bakery union balked and went on strike.

The details are ugly when you see what was going on behind the scenes at Hostess. It reportedly was dealing with 372 separate collective-bargaining contracts, 80 separate health and benefits plans, and 40 different pension plans.

Union rules said no Hostess delivery trucks could have both bread and snacks on board, despite the fact the goods were going to the same stores. Drivers were not allowed to load the snacks onto their trucks, certain workers could only load snacks not bread, and vice versa. PrivCo notes that potential suitors for Hostess may include the owner of the Sara Lee, Entenmann's and Arnold brands, and Flowers Foods, which owns Tastykakes, Nature's Own, Dandee, and Sunbeam brands. C. Dean Metropoulos, a private equity firm, has been hovering too -- it owns brands like Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, Chef Boyardee and Bumblebee Tuna. PrivCo estimates Hostess' brands “could fetch about $1 billion in an asset sale based on comparable private M&A deal multiples on the PrivCo data platform.” The unfunded $2 billion pension liability “will be picked up by the government controlled Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. (PBGC), as well as other corporations participating in its multi-employer pension plan,” PrivCo notes.


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/23/wal-mart-and-hostess-two-union-stories/#ixzz2DjHwi6JL
 

Steve

Well-known member
Union rules said no Hostess delivery trucks could have both bread and snacks on board, despite the fact the goods were going to the same stores. Drivers were not allowed to load the snacks onto their trucks, certain workers could only load snacks not bread, and vice versa.

hard to believe that this type of self defeating rules would even exist.. but then communism never did work...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
This type of thing is what led to the demise of the Anaconda Copper Company in Anaconda, Mt. The electricians could only do electrical things,
the janitor could only do janitorial things, the plumbers could only do
plumbing things...and on and on, thanks to the union. It was a joke, but not ha ha. Really devastated the town. You could shop in Anaconda and those
stores really wanted your business. They went out of their way to please
shoppers.

The other company I can remember laying off everyone was
Acme Coal on the Montana-Wyoming line, but located in Montana.
(Wyoming is a Right-to-Work state.) The miners kept striking for more and
more pay, benefits etc. That little mine employed many local workers.
After so long, the coal mine shut down and laid off all the miners.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Traveler said:
TSR said:
It would be interesting to see those work rules that made the company so inefficient. Got a link ,Steve???
The web is full. You need only to search.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/23/wal-mart-and-hostess-two-union-stories/

Compare the union attempts at Wal-Mart to what happened at now bankrupt Hostess Brands, maker of Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Dolly Madison cakes and Wonder Bread. The 82-year old business will now be liquidated after a national strike by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union, the company’s second -largest union that started on Nov. 9. This is the second bankruptcy in a decade for Hostess, as sales plummeted from $3.1 billion in 2006 to just $2.45 billion in 2011, a 20% drop, according to PrivCo, a financial research company. Hostess’s balance sheet was underwater, carrying debt of over $1.43 billion, $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and just $40.4 million in cash. Net losses nearly tripled from 2006 to 2010, from $128 million to $341 million, PrivCo says.

But while Hostess hammered out an eleventh-hour agreement in bankruptcy court with its largest union, the Teamsters, to cut workers' pay and benefits, the bakery union balked and went on strike.

The details are ugly when you see what was going on behind the scenes at Hostess. It reportedly was dealing with 372 separate collective-bargaining contracts, 80 separate health and benefits plans, and 40 different pension plans.

Union rules said no Hostess delivery trucks could have both bread and snacks on board, despite the fact the goods were going to the same stores. Drivers were not allowed to load the snacks onto their trucks, certain workers could only load snacks not bread, and vice versa. PrivCo notes that potential suitors for Hostess may include the owner of the Sara Lee, Entenmann's and Arnold brands, and Flowers Foods, which owns Tastykakes, Nature's Own, Dandee, and Sunbeam brands. C. Dean Metropoulos, a private equity firm, has been hovering too -- it owns brands like Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, Chef Boyardee and Bumblebee Tuna. PrivCo estimates Hostess' brands “could fetch about $1 billion in an asset sale based on comparable private M&A deal multiples on the PrivCo data platform.” The unfunded $2 billion pension liability “will be picked up by the government controlled Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. (PBGC), as well as other corporations participating in its multi-employer pension plan,” PrivCo notes.


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/23/wal-mart-and-hostess-two-union-stories/#ixzz2DjHwi6JL

Now from the Journaltribune newspaper: The union members striked because of wage and benefit concessions hostess was imposing. John Jordan of the bakers union said something was fishy after they hired a liquidation specialist as CEO of hostess prior to the strike. Of course the judge said the company may pay 1.8 million in bonuses to the top exec.'s if they meet certain guidelines. Really :shock:
Just another viewpoint besides that of Faux news. Anyone interested feel free to read the story at Journaltribune.com
 

Steve

Well-known member
John Jordan of the bakers union said something was fishy after they hired a liquidation specialist as CEO of hostess prior to the strike.

the difference between a non-union worker and a union worker must be in how they would react to that news...

a non-union worker would realize his job was on the line.. and make an effort to keep it... or at least not lose it..
 

Zilly

Well-known member
There's management's story. There's the union's story. Then somewhere in the middle is the truth. Neither side is innocent and the whole thing stinks.

The CEO gets his salary tripled right before filing for bankruptcy, but wants workers to take a cut? Union won't allow drivers to carry other Hostess brands? When the union went on strike, did the company try and make a go of it with minimum wage replacement workers?

Sounds to me if it was the perfect storm that put an end to a mismanaged and failing company that was an "American Icon". With both sides able to stand back and say, "we didn't do it". The true statement would be, "we didn't do it... alone".
 

Steve

Well-known member
Just another viewpoint besides that of Faux news. Anyone interested feel free to read the story at Journaltribune.com

does the viewpoint change any of the facts? not really..

if what you are saying is the only reason the CEO was brought in... Then the union played right into his hands..


here is what I see.. a company in bankruptcy court twice in a few years.. struggling in a recession..

the company tried to make a viable business plan that kept most of,.. if not all the jobs..

the union went on strike... so now the CEO can do what he is best at..

yep.. the union sure won that battle... they showed him who is boss..



About a month after the current CEO, Gregory Rayburn, got to the company in March 2012, he slashed executive compensation. Four of the top executives, including Executive Vice President John Stewart, had their salaries cut to just $1 a year.

Though most of those executives have since left the company, one other remaining executive, Richard Seban, had his pay cut from $656,256 to $1.

As of mid-October, Stewart and Seban started earning their previous salaries, minus an 8%, reduction that applied to everyone who worked at Hostess,


Rayburn, (CEO) is not eligible for a bonus nor did he ask for one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/11/30/hostess-speaks-why-its-executives-deserve-bonuses/

if you read why and how the bonuses are structured it may upset you more.. ...

but the fact remains.. if the company is not sold at current market value in a timely manner.. the pensions of the union workers will remain unfunded..

The company is liquidating so it will not see a benefit to a swift liquidation.

the only benefit is to the creditors and the union pension fund..

if the executives see no pay.. and no closing bonus.. then they will have little reason to stay and safeguard the value of the assets.. which in turn will hurt the unions pension funds value..

sometimes you have to dig below the surface to see what is really happening ... from what I read the CEO worked hard to save the company,.. and now is working hard to save the value of the assets.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Zilly said:
There's management's story. There's the union's story. Then somewhere in the middle is the truth. Neither side is innocent and the whole thing stinks.

The CEO gets his salary tripled right before filing for bankruptcy, but wants workers to take a cut?.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.

Hostess’ creditors accused the company in April of manipulating executive salaries with the aim of getting around bankruptcy compensation rules, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time. In response, Rayburn announced he would cut his pay and that of other executives to $1 until Dec. 31 or whenever Hostess came out of bankruptcy.

seems what the Union is "claiming" is not true... all executives and management took the same 8% cut that was asked of the unions..
 

Steve

Well-known member
seems the union claim for the CEO pay is a bit of a mis-truth..



Hostess Blames Union For Bankruptcy After Tripling CEO’s Pay

The pay increase was given to Brad Driscoll, Hostess’ former CEO, in July 2011, before the company filed for bankruptcy. The salary was later cut from $2.5 million to $1.5 million, according to a Hostess spokesperson. The new CEO reduced the salaries of four senior executives to $1 until the company emerges from bankruptcy, and four junior executives who received raises had their salaries reduced to pre-raise levels, the spokesperson said.

seems the new CEO was a bit hard on the executives who intended on just lining their pockets.. and the union is telling a year old story.. of an injustice that was corrected by the current CEO.. a fact requiring most news sources to issue updates and corrections to the unions claims.

can anyone really fault a CEO who
slashed all executive pay..
wiped out all executive and management raises and restored pre-raise pay levels
and then went further to slash all top executive pay to $1 (pay that was partially restored by the bankruptcy courts)
cut all executive and management pay an 8%
cut his own pay to $1

is he really the bad guy? cause from what I have read.. he is not.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
TSR said:
Traveler said:
TSR said:
It would be interesting to see those work rules that made the company so inefficient. Got a link ,Steve???
The web is full. You need only to search.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/23/wal-mart-and-hostess-two-union-stories/

Compare the union attempts at Wal-Mart to what happened at now bankrupt Hostess Brands, maker of Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Dolly Madison cakes and Wonder Bread. The 82-year old business will now be liquidated after a national strike by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union, the company’s second -largest union that started on Nov. 9. This is the second bankruptcy in a decade for Hostess, as sales plummeted from $3.1 billion in 2006 to just $2.45 billion in 2011, a 20% drop, according to PrivCo, a financial research company. Hostess’s balance sheet was underwater, carrying debt of over $1.43 billion, $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and just $40.4 million in cash. Net losses nearly tripled from 2006 to 2010, from $128 million to $341 million, PrivCo says.

But while Hostess hammered out an eleventh-hour agreement in bankruptcy court with its largest union, the Teamsters, to cut workers' pay and benefits, the bakery union balked and went on strike.

The details are ugly when you see what was going on behind the scenes at Hostess. It reportedly was dealing with 372 separate collective-bargaining contracts, 80 separate health and benefits plans, and 40 different pension plans.

Union rules said no Hostess delivery trucks could have both bread and snacks on board, despite the fact the goods were going to the same stores. Drivers were not allowed to load the snacks onto their trucks, certain workers could only load snacks not bread, and vice versa. PrivCo notes that potential suitors for Hostess may include the owner of the Sara Lee, Entenmann's and Arnold brands, and Flowers Foods, which owns Tastykakes, Nature's Own, Dandee, and Sunbeam brands. C. Dean Metropoulos, a private equity firm, has been hovering too -- it owns brands like Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, Chef Boyardee and Bumblebee Tuna. PrivCo estimates Hostess' brands “could fetch about $1 billion in an asset sale based on comparable private M&A deal multiples on the PrivCo data platform.” The unfunded $2 billion pension liability “will be picked up by the government controlled Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. (PBGC), as well as other corporations participating in its multi-employer pension plan,” PrivCo notes.


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/23/wal-mart-and-hostess-two-union-stories/#ixzz2DjHwi6JL

Now from the Journaltribune newspaper: The union members striked because of wage and benefit concessions hostess was imposing. John Jordan of the bakers union said something was fishy after they hired a liquidation specialist as CEO of hostess prior to the strike. Of course the judge said the company may pay 1.8 million in bonuses to the top exec.'s if they meet certain guidelines. Really :shock:
Just another viewpoint besides that of Faux news. Anyone interested feel free to read the story at Journaltribune.com

Since the meat of the article didn't sink in, here's another from a site you don't have a cute little name for.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/166130-paul-price/1301671-hostess-union-rules-were-harder-to-digest-than-twinkies

Hostess: Union Rules Were Harder To Digest Than Twinkies
Nov 21, 2012 6:05 PM
Union workers have now completed their mission. 18,500 jobs are gone forever.

The national labor bosses stood firm. Labor leaders are proud they stood up to those nasty 'suits' [see Entourage for definition] who refused to run a money-losing business simply to continue paying salaries and benefits.

Hostess posted a $341 million loss in 2011 on revenues of about $2.5 billion. Contributing to those 2011 losses:

$52 million in Workers' Comp Claims.

Dealing with 372 District Collective- Bargaining Contracts.

Administration of 80 seperate Health and Benefit Plans.

Funding and Tending to 40 Discreet Pension Plans.

$31 Million in year-over-year wage and befits increases for 2012 v 2011.


Unaccounted for in the above numbers were the outrageous union-imposed rules that made for a too-high-to-bear cost of sales:

No truck could carry both bread and snacks even when going to the same location.

Drivers were not permitted to load their own trucks.

Bringing products from back rooms to shelves required another set of union employees.

Multi-employer pension obligations made hostess liable for other, previously bankrupted, retirement plan contributions from employees that never worked for Hostess at all.

America has come to this. The only defense against insane union demands is the willingness to walk away and close shop.

With General Motors and Chrysler we found that even that remedy would not work.

What I am waiting for is to see some union actually pull together and buy a ruined company, and then run it with the same rules and obligations that they had forced upon it. If their business model is so damn good, then put their money where their mouth is. Of course it isn't posssible, because their parasitic demands are a recipe for destruction. Any of us running our own ranch, or any business for that matter, knows that we couldn't survive, much less thrive, under such weight.
 

Red Barn Angus

Well-known member
In our litttle town, pop 25,000, we had a Hostess plant that employed over 450 people. It was the second largest employer in town. Today there is a big plant and lots of trucks all just shut down. The effect on the town, the retail stores, the schools and the tax receipts is going to major. In addition there are many retirees still living in the community that are going to be in big trouble if their pensions no longer exist. How anyone could support the unions is beyond me but a few do. There are no jobs here and the Hostess jobs were pretty good jobs. The plant had been here many years and now is just another huge empty building. Very sad.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Traveler said:
TSR said:
Traveler said:
The web is full. You need only to search.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/23/wal-mart-and-hostess-two-union-stories/

Now from the Journaltribune newspaper: The union members striked because of wage and benefit concessions hostess was imposing. John Jordan of the bakers union said something was fishy after they hired a liquidation specialist as CEO of hostess prior to the strike. Of course the judge said the company may pay 1.8 million in bonuses to the top exec.'s if they meet certain guidelines. Really :shock:
Just another viewpoint besides that of Faux news. Anyone interested feel free to read the story at Journaltribune.com

Since the meat of the article didn't sink in, here's another from a site you don't have a cute little name for.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/166130-paul-price/1301671-hostess-union-rules-were-harder-to-digest-than-twinkies

Hostess: Union Rules Were Harder To Digest Than Twinkies
Nov 21, 2012 6:05 PM
Union workers have now completed their mission. 18,500 jobs are gone forever.

The national labor bosses stood firm. Labor leaders are proud they stood up to those nasty 'suits' [see Entourage for definition] who refused to run a money-losing business simply to continue paying salaries and benefits.

Hostess posted a $341 million loss in 2011 on revenues of about $2.5 billion. Contributing to those 2011 losses:

$52 million in Workers' Comp Claims.

Dealing with 372 District Collective- Bargaining Contracts.

Administration of 80 seperate Health and Benefit Plans.

Funding and Tending to 40 Discreet Pension Plans.

$31 Million in year-over-year wage and befits increases for 2012 v 2011.


Unaccounted for in the above numbers were the outrageous union-imposed rules that made for a too-high-to-bear cost of sales:

No truck could carry both bread and snacks even when going to the same location.

Drivers were not permitted to load their own trucks.

Bringing products from back rooms to shelves required another set of union employees.

Multi-employer pension obligations made hostess liable for other, previously bankrupted, retirement plan contributions from employees that never worked for Hostess at all.

America has come to this. The only defense against insane union demands is the willingness to walk away and close shop.

With General Motors and Chrysler we found that even that remedy would not work.

What I am waiting for is to see some union actually pull together and buy a ruined company, and then run it with the same rules and obligations that they had forced upon it. If their business model is so damn good, then put their money where their mouth is. Of course it isn't posssible, because their parasitic demands are a recipe for destruction. Any of us running our own ranch, or any business for that matter, knows that we couldn't survive, much less thrive, under such weight.

In many instances what you would like to see doesn't have to happen because the "threat of unionization" forces some companies to pay a decent wage with decent benefits unlike for example, Walmart. Or would you like all workers to have to work for $8/hr. many partime and then have to be subsidized by the taxpayers because their pay is so low they qualify for gov't help??
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
TSR said:
In many instances what you would like to see doesn't have to happen because the "threat of unionization" forces some companies to pay a decent wage with decent benefits unlike for example, Walmart. Or would you like all workers to have to work for $8/hr. many partime and then have to be subsidized by the taxpayers because their pay is so low they qualify for gov't help??


are you suggesting that obamacare is forcing companies to drop workers down to part time hours and be subsidized by the taxpayer?

Wasn't Walfart threatened with unionization by their workers? Guess that isn't one of the instances" you are talking about, eh?


Maybe if Walmart wasn't paying those union wages of $165,000, when it comes to the guys unloading their ships, they could pay more to the ones that work for them in the stores?

I bet paying the longshoreman, never even crossed your mind, eh, TSR?
 

TSR

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
In many instances what you would like to see doesn't have to happen because the "threat of unionization" forces some companies to pay a decent wage with decent benefits unlike for example, Walmart. Or would you like all workers to have to work for $8/hr. many partime and then have to be subsidized by the taxpayers because their pay is so low they qualify for gov't help??


are you suggesting that obamacare is forcing companies to drop workers down to part time hours and be subsidized by the taxpayer?

Wasn't Walfart threatened with unionization by their workers? Guess that isn't one of the instances" you are talking about, eh?


Maybe if Walmart wasn't paying those union wages of $165,000, when it comes to the guys unloading their ships, they could pay more to the ones that work for them in the stores?

I bet paying the longshoreman, never even crossed your mind, eh, TSR?

Are you suggesting that companies like Walmart didn't work people partime for low wages prior to the passage of Obamacare.
I like that name "Walfart". I think they were, hope it becomes a reality one of these days.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
In many instances what you would like to see doesn't have to happen because the "threat of unionization" forces some companies to pay a decent wage with decent benefits unlike for example, Walmart. Or would you like all workers to have to work for $8/hr. many partime and then have to be subsidized by the taxpayers because their pay is so low they qualify for gov't help??


are you suggesting that obamacare is forcing companies to drop workers down to part time hours and be subsidized by the taxpayer?

Wasn't Walfart threatened with unionization by their workers? Guess that isn't one of the instances" you are talking about, eh?


Maybe if Walmart wasn't paying those union wages of $165,000, when it comes to the guys unloading their ships, they could pay more to the ones that work for them in the stores?

I bet paying the longshoreman, never even crossed your mind, eh, TSR?

Are you suggesting that companies like Walmart didn't work people partime for low wages prior to the passage of Obamacare.
I like that name "Walfart". I think they were, hope it becomes a reality one of these days.

of course they had part time workers, some even worked 35 hours. and now those workers will not be allowed to work more than 30 hours.
 

Latest posts

Top