• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Union Kills the Twinkie

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Hostess can suck my dick. Swiss Rolls for life.
 
:bigcry:


Ho%20Hos%203%20copy.jpg
 
The workers weren't going to take a drastic pay cut for a failing product. I'm not agreeing with them, but I hope we see the fault of the company decision-makers as well.

Hostess has been the biggest symbol for eating poorly, outside perhaps for McDonalds. Steve Ettleinger wrote a very popular book called, Twinkie Decontructed, which broke down how bad processed foods are for your health.

If we are going to talk about personal responsibility for your own health in one thread, we should be talking about Hostess changing their products with the times in another. Hostess produced crap that dieticians have been warning us against since the 80s.

pi-twinkies-fat-america.jpg
 

This reminds me of my childhood, in the catholic school system. We'd occasionally get to go to the convent, with one of the nuns (for what, I don't remember). They'd always give us Ho-Ho's, and the rumor was that the Ho-Ho's were old and moldy, and the nuns were trying to poison us.

I didn't eat Ho-Ho's for years, after grade school.

Thanks for the memories, Hostess.... You were the mostest!


What about the Deep Fried Twinkies at Melt?! Nooooooooo!!!!
 
They're not selling off the brands?
 
The workers weren't going to take a drastic pay cut for a failing product. I'm not agreeing with them, but I hope we see the fault of the company decision-makers as well.

Hostess has been the biggest symbol for eating poorly, outside perhaps for McDonalds. Steve Ettleinger wrote a very popular book called, Twinkie Decontructed, which broke down how bad processed foods are for your health.

If we are going to talk about personal responsibility for your own health in one thread, we should be talking about Hostess changing their products with the times in another. Hostess produced crap that dieticians have been warning us against since the 80s.


http://townhall.com/news/business/2012/09/14/teamsters_approve_contract_with_hostess_brands
"This was a difficult decision," said Teamsters General Secretary-Treasurer Ken Hall. "At the end of the day, our members recognized that they can't replace their pay and benefits in the non-union sector."

The union itself said that these rates would be better than they could find in a non-union shop. It was a one year decrease of 8% in salary, then raised 3% in the second year and 1% increases in years 3 and 4. Drastic, you say? They did have to pay more into their health insurance coverage. I really can't comment on the route structure for deliveries in the contract, and if what industry standard practices for that are. I did see that those would remain union jobs. The unions would get 2 out of 8 seats on the board of directors an an equity share in the company.

Less than 60% (4,400 out of 7,500) of the Teamsters, who passed their contract, cared enough to vote on the contract. How pathetic is that when it is your job on the line and you can't be bothered to vote yes or no?

The BCTGM voted on a strike vocally by yay or nay in a union hall, not exactly the democratic way to vote. A secret ballot might have shown that a majority of members didn't want to strike. Many had already crossed picket lines to keep their jobs.
 
18,500 jobs destroyed by a 5,000 member union refusing to budge at the bargaining table. Awesome. I love our liberal overlords.

multi employer pension plans has become a form of corporate welfare as companies go out of business and the remaning employers ar left holding the bag with no way to make the pension plan viable enough to attract new employers.

The hedge funds that allowed the company to restructure e during the first bankruptcy will make a tremendous profit off this liquidation and essentially managed the company with an indifference to the outcome. They won either way.

The union meanwhile had value in its product and were willing to give more concession for return value in the company. This would of cut into the hedge funds piece of the pie and there is no way this was going to happen.

Brian Driscoll, Hostess' 52-year old CEO, the Board of the Directors and the Executive staff have pretty much bled the value of Hostess dry in the last three years, with 10 individuals accounting for nearly 46% of the company's annual salary and salary-related operating expenses.


Turns out that Hostess has no treasury department. Indeed, it apparently doesn’t have anyone who can perform treasury functions at all.
The company has asked the bankruptcy court for permission to hire FTI Consulting to do the work. Apparently Hostess does not have much of a finance department either, since FTI is also providing employees for that department.
If approved, FTI will provide three people to staff Hostess’ treasury department. The interim treasurer gets monthly fees that work out to an annual salary of $780,000. His two deputies get $660,000 per year, each.
The finance department group gets paid hourly rates that top out at $895 per hour. You might think that would supplant the need for a financial adviser in the case, but Hostess is asking to retain one of those, too.


This company has been dead from the day they took on the hostess name a few years ago. All three parties involved were just just trying secur their piece of the inheritance before the will was read. If you seriously believe that hostess would of have had any long term success with their pro

Im not defending the Union or even saying the 33% of the hostess workforce who would not concede benefits without having some level as a secured creditor. did the right thing. Just pointing out that this companywas on the road to liquidation regardless of what the union workers did.
 
The workers weren't going to take a drastic pay cut for a failing product.

100% bullshit right there. If you were to take a poll right now of those 18,500, I bet 99% would accept the pay cut. 13,000 already had accepted it. Some of the remaining 5500 started crossing the lines and were fined by the union. The union said Hostess was bluffing...they weren't. The union gave these employees awful advice, now all 18,500 are out of jobs.

A drastic pay cut is not having a job. This isn't drastic...

The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.

Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.



Randolphkeys said:
I'm not agreeing with them, but I hope we see the fault of the company decision-makers as well.

Hostess has been the biggest symbol for eating poorly, outside perhaps for McDonalds. Steve Ettleinger wrote a very popular book called, Twinkie Decontructed, which broke down how bad processed foods are for your health.

If we are going to talk about personal responsibility for your own health in one thread, we should be talking about Hostess changing their products with the times in another. Hostess produced crap that dieticians have been warning us against since the 80s.

pi-twinkies-fat-america.jpg


You really trying to justify the union leaders killing 18,500 jobs by claiming the products were unhealthy? They didn't sell just twinkies. They also sold Wonder Bread, Nature's Pride 100% Natural, Homepride, and Butternut breads.

Who should we go after next? Coca-Cola, Mars, McDonalds, Hersheys?
 
This who thing make me sick, the union would not agree to take less, now the government and the tax payers get to flip the bill for them to sit at home. I believe unions do have a place, but this is a prime example showing unions have to much power.

Just another union story, I have a friend who is part of a union, received his job about 2 years ago, and has been a hard and loyal worker, he has built the reputation as one of the best workers at his job. Last month, the company he worked for had to lay some people off, he was the first to go because of seniority. The company was forced to keep workers that produced less then he did, and made almost 30% more then he did. What would have been better for the company, a guy who is more productive and makes less, or a guy who is unproductive and makes more.
 
If all it took was a strike for a few days to down this company, I don't think it was really in a good financial position anyways. That being said, it still amazes me that people think that unions, in this day of age, are still needed.
 
Last edited:
Interesting case study. As usual, there are 2 sides of the story. The obvious one was the union belligerently striking and forcing the company to liquidate. However; there is a back story as Tornicide points out. The company's real problem was mismanagement. The ones in control weren't concerned about jobs or the product, they were concerned about bleeding as much $$ from the company coffers as possible. The company's best interest and long term success was not top priority and that is why they were in the position to ask for concessions from the union. Both sides come out looking terrible. The one saving grace I suppose is the last twinkie rolling off the assembly line will still be edible 1,000 years from now because of all the preservatives they put into it.
 
This who thing make me sick, the union would not agree to take less, now the government and the tax payers get to flip the bill for them to sit at home. I believe unions do have a place, but this is a prime example showing unions have to much power.

Just another union story, I have a friend who is part of a union, received his job about 2 years ago, and has been a hard and loyal worker, he has built the reputation as one of the best workers at his job. Last month, the company he worked for had to lay some people off, he was the first to go because of seniority. The company was forced to keep workers that produced less then he did, and made almost 30% more then he did. What would have been better for the company, a guy who is more productive and makes less, or a guy who is unproductive and makes more.

Unfortunately that's not an isolated incident. Seniority is king in union environments.
 
Unfortunately that's not an isolated incident. Seniority is king in union environments.

I agree, this is why I am against them. Working in an environment, where I could be fired any day, it makes me work hard and be conservative in my finances. But these union guys can be lazy, and keep there job because they have been there so long.

I do agree there is a place for unions, police/fire, some of the trades, etc.
 
I hate Unions. Now, it isn't all their fault that they exist. If management knew and cared for the importance of employee morale and satisfaction, we wouldn't be in this situation. Really, it is unfortunate that we need things like Unions as it is the result of greed and incompetence of management/ownership. Now, the tables have turned and we're still fucked.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top