Union Kills the Twinkie

[Otsego Mar]

I don't care what anyone says, Little Debbie swiss rolls are wayyyyyy better than twinkies.

Also, I blame Obama for this.

 

[MalTalm]

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.

This isn't fair, because unions are still needed. A case of union damage and abuse doesn't discount the viability of unions in other situations.

There is an inherent flaw in true capitalism, and that is a strict adherence to supply and demand. The supply of an untrained workforce will almost certainly always exceed the demand, so jobs for an untrained workforce can pay very poorly, and people will still fill the positions, as it is the only thing available to them. Unions play a significant role in the "specialized" workforce, where people actually do develop and utilize a skill set, but that skill set is only beneficial for a very small amount of jobs. In these situations, an employee who does not operate with a union may develop the ability to provide a significant benefit to the employer, but the employer would have little, if any interest in increasing their pay scale, because that individual can not simply move on to the next job.

The issue at hand as always is more complicated than union vs. non-union. Many unions operate solely on the behalf of the workers, and while that seems beneficial, it is not. A union should represent the workers and the corporation, and strive to find a way to not only allow a company to succeed, but thrive, while making sure the employees they represent are treated fairly. There are examples I am aware of where this is the case, but the 2 unions I am thinking of are very small in scale. The iron worker's union is the only large union I can think of which also does a fair job, but they handle temporary jobs, so their game is significantly different than one like the aforementioned BCTGM. This isn't to say I have a ton of experience in labor and labor disputes, but enough to draw some broad conclusions.

Randophkeys pointed out that the corporation should bear some of the blame, and that is reasonable. The issue came about because of poor market adjustments and a struggling economy brought profits down, which meant pay cuts were needed. That is on the executives. But that doesn't discount that, if the employees were acting in good faith for the company, they could have offset their income and would have been able to maintain their jobs for the foreseeable future. The rigidity of the modern union prevents companies from adjusting to the market, and that is almost impossible to bear. We almost saw 3 major car companies collapse due to similar issues just 4 years ago.

Unions serve a purpose, but they are a check and balance on corporate America. Where is the check and balance on the union? They need to be held accountable as well. There is no good reason for this to have happened, and I'm not sure what is to be gained in any debate stemming from it. Today, almost 20,000 blue collar Americans lost their jobs in an economy that is having the most trouble employing blue collar Americans. Many of these people will likely struggle to find re-employment, especially those over the age of 45, and that is very sad.

 

[Soar]

Union heads and workers don't understand the impacts of their avarice. A given company will eventually not always be able to provide more money and more benefits. Essentially, unions are a parasite which kills the host. If you kill the goose that lays the golden egg, or in this case the one that makes the Twinkie, you won't have a job. Well the union members killed the goose. And now, they will be unemployed.

 

[Tornicade]

I think unions are vital to the workforce and proper representation. However coproate america has taken the upperhand with Hedge funds and private financial groups seizing restructuring as a moneymaking opportunity.

The Unions have been slow to adjust but are slowly transforming into what they need to be. The finance companies take over assets for pennies on the dollar and have a solid exit plan where liquidation is very viable and profitable.

for instance lets takes the 18 thousand employees and calculate the outgoing net salayry at 540 million. The company ask for a 10% pay cut which brings the salary down to 500 mllion freeing up 40 million for the company to use other places. If alender came out and gave them that 40 million. the lender typically would take on responsibility for debt and in return be provided secured assets in the case of a liquidation.

Why not offer this to the employees who have a much bigger stake. They take the pay cut. the money increases their cash on hand and the company is financially viable. If it fails the employees get part their investment back. instead of an outside investor.


big corporate salary expenses are too heavily weighted towards their upper management.

In regards to this situation Im curious as too how much of the pension payments were from their actual employes pensions and how much was from paying other emploers pensions that were no longer in business.

The Mepps themselves should of done something to make their product appealing to new employers not just the ones that went in at the beginning.

 

[Lee]

This isn't fair, because unions are still needed. A case of union damage and abuse doesn't discount the viability of unions in other situations.

There is an inherent flaw in true capitalism, and that is a strict adherence to supply and demand. The supply of an untrained workforce will almost certainly always exceed the demand, so jobs for an untrained workforce can pay very poorly, and people will still fill the positions, as it is the only thing available to them. Unions play a significant role in the "specialized" workforce, where people actually do develop and utilize a skill set, but that skill set is only beneficial for a very small amount of jobs. In these situations, an employee who does not operate with a union may develop the ability to provide a significant benefit to the employer, but the employer would have little, if any interest in increasing their pay scale, because that individual can not simply move on to the next job.

The issue at hand as always is more complicated than union vs. non-union. Many unions operate solely on the behalf of the workers, and while that seems beneficial, it is not. A union should represent the workers and the corporation, and strive to find a way to not only allow a company to succeed, but thrive, while making sure the employees they represent are treated fairly. There are examples I am aware of where this is the case, but the 2 unions I am thinking of are very small in scale. The iron worker's union is the only large union I can think of which also does a fair job, but they handle temporary jobs, so their game is significantly different than one like the aforementioned BCTGM. This isn't to say I have a ton of experience in labor and labor disputes, but enough to draw some broad conclusions.

Randophkeys pointed out that the corporation should bear some of the blame, and that is reasonable. The issue came about because of poor market adjustments and a struggling economy brought profits down, which meant pay cuts were needed. That is on the executives. But that doesn't discount that, if the employees were acting in good faith for the company, they could have offset their income and would have been able to maintain their jobs for the foreseeable future. The rigidity of the modern union prevents companies from adjusting to the market, and that is almost impossible to bear. We almost saw 3 major car companies collapse due to similar issues just 4 years ago.

Unions serve a purpose, but they are a check and balance on corporate America. Where is the check and balance on the union? They need to be held accountable as well. There is no good reason for this to have happened, and I'm not sure what is to be gained in any debate stemming from it. Today, almost 20,000 blue collar Americans lost their jobs in an economy that is having the most trouble employing blue collar Americans. Many of these people will likely struggle to find re-employment, especially those over the age of 45, and that is very sad.

Unions are mostly worthless. One of the main reasons for unions is job safety which laws have now been put into place to protect. As for the wage part, it is a different world today. I am not saying they are never needed, but we are not dealing with the same job market or safety issues as 1900.

One thing you cant deny, Unions have forced many, many plants to move south and west to avoid the high costs and have taken their good jobs with them. If you are an unskilled laborer, would your rather make $9 at Walmart or $20 at a non-unionized auto plant.

Unions tend to over value the value of their work forces. This is an exact case and point.

 

[Randolphkeys]

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.​

The mistakes made at the top are crucial to discussions as to why this company failed. I haven't read much on the demands and negotiations. I have my own work to do today.

I am sure workers were given a vote on the contract, and they voted it down. If the information on the management of the company is accurate, I don't know how we can sit by and put all the blame on the workers.

I do know that successful businesses are able to change with the times. Healthy food and carbohydrate-conscious foods are a growing business, processed foods are declining. The mismanagement of funds compounds the lack of direction at the top.​

 

[David.]

I wish there were unions for salespeople. I got fucked more than a senior on prom night on a consistent basis.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Meanwhile, in business news: Production of other food that isn't pure crap is a booming business.

http://www.foodbeat.com/industry-news/annies-homegrown-shares-soar-nearly-90-on-first-trading-day/

Annie’s Homegrown, an organic and natural foods company based in Berkeley, California, has a lot of reasons to celebrate this morning after a phenomenal initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange. Annie’s, which trades as BNNY on the NYSE, ended its first day of trading yesterday at $35.92 per share, a 89.05% increase over its opening price!

The total amount raised by the Annie’s initial public offering Wednesday was $95 million.

This represents a best-case scenario for a small company who is now about to embark on a new journey of growth as a publicly traded company in one of the fastest growing consumer segments. While Annie’s has a fantastic growth story to date, their next few years are sure to be as exciting to watch as a fan of the company.

The strong investor demand for Annie’s underscores an growing trend in organic and natural food demand with consumers. The natural foods created by Annie’s are very “on-trend” with public demand and the company has a great deal to benefit from as one of the first major players to plant its feet in the natural and organic market segment.

Annie’s, which is known for its organic bunny crackers (of which their stock symbol is based), sells a number of common food products such as frozen pizzas and macaroni and cheese that avoid the use of artificial flavors, preservatives and coloring dyes. Annie’s is the number one natural and organic company in four grocery product lines: macaroni and cheese, snack crackers, graham crackers and fruit snacks.

Their initial public offering will not only offer Annie’s more cash to expand their sales and marketing, but will allow their brand name much more exposure through new avenues. For example, the story of Annie’s IPO has made the front page of a number of financial publications over the last 24 hours given the tremendous success of their first trading day.

Investors should be cautioned that the excitement around the Annie’s hot stock may soon be counter-balanced by a selloff to take some of their profits off the table. At the current stock price Annie’s market cap is now $598 million, about 4.4 times last year’s sales. That multiple is much higher than industry averages, which can be argued somewhat due to the fact that the company is in a high-growth, niche category but will likely factor into the decision process of some investors who would rather take some risk off the table.

 

[Lee]

I wish there were unions for salespeople. I got fucked more than a senior on prom night on a consistent basis.

Steak knives or fired?

 

[David.]

Commissions cut on a weekly basis, longer shifts required, product turning shitty, no support on sales, myriad of new rules implemented consistently. I left my company for another one (legit I fucked that one up, good job, great pay) but got fired because I didnt really follow all rules which led to many discussions (arguments) with management. Now any sales job requires prospecting or micromanagement to an absurd extent, especially considering how much they started paying out when the economy tanked.

 

[Bill Walton.]

Now what will we eat when we're nuked?!

 

[David.]

cockroaches

 

[Bill Walton.]

cockroaches

touche

 

[AZ_]

Now what will we eat when we're nuked?!

CEO's...

 

[FlatulenciaRoar]

NOT INTERESTED IN BREAD

Hostess blamed burdensome wage and pension obligations for its financial woes. It said a strike by members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, which began November 9, was the latest in a series of labor troubles that had crippled the company's ability to produce and deliver products at several facilities.

But union officials and line workers said the company had failed to invest in new technology, brand marketing and modernization of plants and trucks and had focused instead on enriching owners such as private equity firm Ripplewood Holdings and hedge funds that include Silver Point Capital.

Ripplewood and Silver Point officials declined to comment.


"The people who are running this company are not interested in making bread," said Roger Harrison, 56, who bags buns at the Hostess plant in Lenexa, Kansas, and has been with the company for 35 years.
"They are not in the baking industry; they are just interested in the money," said Harrison. "This company is so unstable that once they close, maybe someone can take over and buy it and give us more stability."

from Reuters

The union officials and workers may be right about mismanagement but that doesn't change the financial realities. The union apparently didn't recognize that the financial realities left them in a very weak bargaining position. They found out the hard way.

BTW, the line "they are just interested in the money" amused me. Isn't that what the union was obsessed with enough to cost all those jobs?