Hostess, maker of Twinkies and Ding Dongs, says closing business

page: 22
37
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Svipdagr
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Read the company history at some point they were underpaying all upper level management after the 2nd filing for bankruptcy. Truth is the union wanted too much, too much into pension/retirement, they couldn't compromise after the bankruptcy. Only a third of the company's workers were in unions. They were warned of what is going with the company presently and what could happen in the future. They were warned of the dire situation and that a strike would give the finishing blow to the company...

And there you have it, the end. Now 18,000+ people are out of jobs, congratulations 1/3rd of the company for screwing everyone else over.



Read the post right above yours.

If someone chooses to stay ob strike and bankrupt a company, they are pissed.

I am not buying a word that you typed because I am the puissant worker and I know the wealthy CEO.




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
For those who care I am in a union.

Strikes do not come all at once. There are multiple warnings and votes. Not to mention the meetings from the union and employer.

The company knows exactly what it is doing.

Personally this is starting to make me wonder a out december21. Hostess, bankrupt and out of business, wtf were are doomed.

No worker would rather be out of work, all workers want fairness, and obviously they thought it wasn't fair.

I doubt the CEO will be hurting like the Guy sitting on the bench at the union hall waiting for that job phone call.

edit on 17-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by steve1709
Let me get this right. A bunch of union groupies refuse to work for this company over a few bucks more a week, to the point that they cause the company to go broke and in doing so lose the jobs of everybody that works there. So due to them wanting a bit more in their pay packet, they have now caused people to have no pay packet at all. Wow, how smart are they. I don't usually back the boss but in this case it looks like the tough guy union pr1cks have pushed that little bit too hard. I wonder how many of those union rep freaks have no job now, or have they simply moved on to another shop floor to do it all over again. Yea for the union reps. Bet they are still pulling in weekly money from "union funds" Isn't there a fiction book called Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand that where the unions do something similar so the owner of the company burns his business to the ground. Sorry for the families that will do xmas tough but for the actual blokes who went on strike for the extra few bucks, I can't help thinking that in many cases, it serves them right.


Come on. Is there a book called Atlas Shrugged? Look under your pillowcase. Remember it's where your bible used to be.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Thing is, everyone that accepts things as they are, be it "Government Approved Healthcare" that Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry will profit from, or the continued outsourcing of jobs for the Multi National Corporations or Wall Street controlling our government, nothing will change until we claw back power from these parasites, and those that attack unions are helping these scumbags.

The policies that brought America to where it is today is not the fault of unions that have always existed and are dwindling in number, but the ones that have been attacking them and every American that have seen the most to profit from.

Considering that the top 1% and above hold the most power and wealth in this country, and also own the government, it is quite clear who the problem is.

So why are the posters attacking the little guys, when cockroaches like Goldman Sachs are free to infest our government?

These cockroaches from Wall Street are supposed to be the best and the brightest and the top talent our government needs. How is that working out?

Oh that's right. They are not working for the best interest of the country but their elite chums.
Imagine that!



Originally posted by kawika
I drove by this group out on the picket line in Columbus on Thursday. I wanted to stop and get out and tell them "do you know how hard it is to get a job right now? Go back to work, what is wrong with you people"

edit on 17-11-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-11-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
For anyone who actually wants to learn something (pessimistic estimate, 1% of you) there are not 2 but 3 distinct parties involved in today's union v employer disputes. The union rank and file, the company management, and the union bosses. If anyone doesn't want to believe it, look up Ashenfelter and Johnson's groundbreaking study from 1969. Contrary to the knee-jerk reaction of liberals, none of the brass at Hostess are getting rich from shutting the place down because the company is in Chapter 11 and creditors get first $$$ of whatever they raise from selling off assets. The union rank and file, working with asymmetric information as always, decided to listen to the 3rd distinctly identifiable party involved, the union bosses, and voted to lose their jobs as well those of their co-workers. The union leadersip is what doomed this, and they've over-reached any number of times in the past as well. They don't lose their jobs over this, they have a 'tough-on-The-Man' bit of street cred to anyone who just decides to blame Hostess, nothing lost to them. The workers lose their jobs, the investors lose their company, the union brass will point fingers and deflect blame. Somewhere in Mexico, someone is getting ready to buy the rights to the Hostess brand names, will fire up the ovens, and quite likely do so profitably.

While unions are necessary, too few of the pro-union folks really understand just how different the goals of the union leadership and regular rank and file members truly differ. I've been a member of 2 unions, both of them existed to serve the union leadership, not better things for us regular Joe's.
edit on 17-11-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: typos



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
It makes you wonder if, in a few years, children going through our movie collections will understand any of this.



Sorry to point this out, but $43K a year was the average wage for the hourly worker. The 8% cut for a year would have only brought them down to $39,560 (again the average pay). Personally, I would have done the job for $30K and been ecstatic about such a wage. And given the automation in plants today, most people just pushed buttons for that. $43K to make Twinkies? That is a big Twinkie, indeed.

edit on 17-11-2012 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
I want to see all the greedy people who made their money off the backs of the poor and middle class lose it all, and truly understand what it's like to be at the mercy of crappy, greedy bosses and have your benefits whisked away or watch your co-workers laid off one by one until it comes down to you so the shareholders can have more money, and CEO's can buy a 10th vacation home.
edit on 11/17/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by HabiruThorstein
 


The brass is what drove the company inti the ground.

They are nit getting rich filing for chapter11, they already are rich. And I will bet my shiny quarter in my pocket they juggled around some assets in advance to cushion the blow and make some no eyes off of the move.

They are already rich, it is why the company is broke. It is the multimillion dollar bonuses and pay raises and benefit packages that sink a ship. Not the Guy bailing the water below deck.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


From someone who is lucky to make 30 grand a year. I do not think ecstatic is a appropriate word. At the end of the day you are broke and can barely e end pay the bills.

Why should a worker get a pay cut, and a CEO get a pay raise?
edit on 17-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
They CEO reduced his and all of the other top executives salaries to $1.00, but nobody seems to care about that part. Stop trying to pawn this off on upper management.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
it does not matter in the long run in regards to Hostess on "who is to blame" at this juncture.
The company and the union have been around for a long time, and it is only because of policy changes at the government level controlled by the 1% that is the problem.


The 1% wants to be able to buy our government and to put their pigmen in power, then they should take all the blame as well when the country goes to #


Originally posted by HabiruThorstein
For anyone who actually wants to learn something (pessimistic estimate, 1% of you) there are not 2 but 3 distinct parties involved in today's union v employer disputes. The union rank and file, the company management, and the union bosses.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
I truly hope we have a collapse of all world currencies.
The system is currently out of balance.
We have people playing with other people's live for their own self gain.

I laugh when I hear business's going GALT.
They are helping the collapse along where they will have nowhere to run to protect their "sense of ego" when everything collapses



Originally posted by muse7
I want to see all the greedy people who made their money off the backs of the poor and middle class lose it all, and truly understand what it's like to be at the mercy of crappy, greedy bosses and have your benefits whisked away or watch your co-workers laid off one by one until it comes down to you so the shareholders can have more money, and CEO's can buy a 10th vacation home.
edit on 11/17/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
I would have done the job for $30K and been ecstatic about such a wage. And given the automation in plants today, most people just pushed buttons for that. $43K to make Twinkies? That is a big Twinkie, indeed.



I know 18000 employees that might agree with you this morning.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by anton74
They CEO reduced his and all of the other top executives salaries to $1.00, but nobody seems to care about that part. Stop trying to pawn this off on upper management.


Uh,

Doesn't that make upper manegment........

Incompetent?

They are to blame. They were behind the wheel when the car crashed.

Yes they took a dollar pay( if that is accurate), but please tell me what their benefit package was.

Again, at the end of a quarter or year, what did their over all package come out to be.

The captain is always in charge, even when the ship sinks
edit on 17-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: phone spelling



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by anton74
They CEO reduced his and all of the other top executives salaries to $1.00, but nobody seems to care about that part. Stop trying to pawn this off on upper management.



I just did a quick Google search.

Look at the wall street journal. There is a nice article that states otherwise friend.

If I could link it I would.

It seems they are questioning managements moves right before the filing.

Yes it is managements fault. They could nit handle a multi- multi million dollar company.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by HabiruThorstein
For anyone who actually wants to learn something (pessimistic estimate, 1% of you) there are not 2 but 3 distinct parties involved in today's union v employer disputes. The union rank and file, the company management, and the union bosses. If anyone doesn't want to believe it, look up Ashenfelter and Johnson's groundbreaking study from 1969. Contrary to the knee-jerk reaction of liberals, none of the brass at Hostess are getting rich from shutting the place down because the company is in Chapter 11 and creditors get first $$$ of whatever they raise from selling off assets. The union rank and file, working with asymmetric information as always, decided to listen to the 3rd distinctly identifiable party involved, the union bosses, and voted to lose their jobs as well those of their co-workers. The union leadersip is what doomed this, and they've over-reached any number of times in the past as well. They don't lose their jobs over this, they have a 'tough-on-The-Man' bit of street cred to anyone who just decides to blame Hostess, nothing lost to them. The workers lose their jobs, the investors lose their company, the union brass will point fingers and deflect blame. Somewhere in Mexico, someone is getting ready to buy the rights to the Hostess brand names, will fire up the ovens, and quite likely do so profitably.

While unions are necessary, too few of the pro-union folks really understand just how different the goals of the union leadership and regular rank and file members truly differ. I've been a member of 2 unions, both of them existed to serve the union leadership, not better things for us regular Joe's.
edit on 17-11-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: typos


Have you read what happened at Hostess? Obviously not. Due to competitors and bad management the company had financial troubles since 2004. The workers have been taking concessions since then with the promise of an interest in the company once the company was in the black. The brass who you claim are not getting rich gave themselves an 80% pay raise while all this was happening. The unions found out and went to court they judge sided with the corporation. One union caved in the other did not. You blame this on union leadership? Sell that propaganda elsewhere.


Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence

John Adams



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by anton74
They CEO reduced his and all of the other top executives salaries to $1.00, but nobody seems to care about that part. Stop trying to pawn this off on upper management.



I just did a quick Google search.

Look at the wall street journal. There is a nice article that states otherwise friend.

If I could link it I would.

It seems they are questioning managements moves right before the filing.

Yes it is managements fault. They could nit handle a multi- multi million dollar company.





I agree with everything you wrote except for the last line. Management knew exactly what they were doing.
They purposely bankrupted the company to kill the union get, out of contracts and to skip paying a lot of vendors. The sad part is they will do it again and again. Welfare Queens.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I've dreaded this day for a looong time. It's a known fact that the world will descend into hell without Hostess. It's about to get really evil, folks. I have proof:








posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
where am I going to get my ding dong fix?

Oh No you rotten no good Unions see you get us hooked on your ding dongs and then you want more money tomake them, and then we get the jones because it was your greed that shut the doors.

I might go crazy without my ding dongs.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Tell me about it. I just ran to my 24 hour grocery store to see for myself. The entire Hostess shelf is empty. I did find some Hostess traditional fruitcake though.

The funny thing is--I never really craved a Hostess until I read this thread haha!
edit on 17-11-2012 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join