Union Kills the Twinkie

[Tornicade]

why should the company have to give any concessions to cut unneeded jobs. The company is in business to make money, not to ensure employment. If they want to cut jobs that aren't needed, they shouldn't have to ask anyone.

why should companies make agreements with employees and back out because they make poor decisions. Also Hostess put themselves in a situation that they have to ask alot of people for everything.

Employees provide equity and service to the company that allows them to bring in reveneue. Hostess also had to answer to their investors as well and they have spent 7 out of the past ten years having to ask the us bankruptcy court to d o anything.

Why do people feel that companies should have to honor their contracts to everyone but the employees. do people consider employees indentured servants like the guy on the street with a sign saying will work for food

 

[KI4MVP]

issues like how many employees a company has or what kind of work an individual employee can do should never be part of any negotiations. Negotiate things like salary, benefits, work conditions. But unions requiring two different sets of drivers driving the exact same routes to protect redundant jobs at the expense of the company is absurd. It's inefficient for the company, it's inefficient for the economy.

It's a reason right to work laws pass. It's a reason companies move jobs overseas.

 

[Tornicade]

I guarantee that if all union in the united states ceased to exist. everyone would be crying for their return within ten years.

yes some unions are mismanaged and their not perfect but neither is the government or companies themselves.

What Unions are though is an organization represnenting a unified work force that gives the individual leverage. it is no coincidence that as the unions have lost influence in the workplace that more and more of the companies revenue goes to the executives.

 

[Tornicade]

issues like how many employees a company has or what kind of work an individual employee can do should never be part of any negotiations. Negotiate things like salary, benefits, work conditions. But unions requiring two different sets of drivers driving the exact same routes to protect redundant jobs at the expense of the company is absurd. It's inefficient for the company, it's inefficient for the economy.

theyare certainly negotiable when a companie buys six other companies and operates them as seperate entities with shared resources.

Once again the company is voiding or going back on a preestablished contract. if it wasnt feasible then the company shouldnt of agreed to it.

the union absolutely should protect jobs when it can. thats what it gets paid to do. and in this case over 50% of its workforce lost their jobs because the company did not structure their 330 million acquisition in 1995 properly.

 

[KI4MVP]

I guarantee that if all union in the united states ceased to exist. everyone would be crying for their return within ten years.

yes some unions are mismanaged and their not perfect but neither is the government or companies themselves.

What Unions are though is an organization represnenting a unified work force that gives the individual leverage. it is no coincidence that as the unions have lost influence in the workplace that more and more of the companies revenue goes to the executives.

unions should negotiate a salary structure (tied to performance and not seniority), benefits, and work conditions. That should be pretty much it. Unions should have no say in hiring or firing (beyond ensuring there is no discrimination). The employees ultimately work for the company, not the union, and should be motivated by the companies success, not in placing obstacles in their path.

 

[KI4MVP]

theyare certainly negotiable when a companie buys six other companies and operates them as seperate entities with shared resources.

Once again the company is voiding or going back on a preestablished contract. if it wasnt feasible then the company shouldnt of agreed to it.

the union absolutely should protect jobs when it can. thats what it gets paid to do. and in this case over 50% of its workforce lost their jobs because the company did not structure their 330 million acquisition in 1995 properly.

no, 100% of the workforce lost their jobs because unions blocked ways to make things more efficient in an effort to "protect jobs". If the reestablished contracts were limited to the 3 things I stated, there would be nothing to go against in making things more efficient.

 

[Tornicade]

Employees ultimately work for themselves. They enter into an agreement and they hire the union to represent their interest.

When a corporation goes through and buys 6 companies they also take on the contracts of the bought out companies employees. meaning you may have multiple unions representing the interest of different contracts.

Employees are assets. unions represent those assets. If a company wants to renogitaite a contract then they are asking for concessions. employees can agree with those negotiations but they have a right to negotiate.

In this case the Union gave up over 175 million a year in concessions and preserved the jobs of thousands. this provided cost value to the company. otherwise why would they have agreed to it.

 

[Randolphkeys]

no, 100% of the workforce lost their jobs because unions blocked ways to make things more efficient in an effort to "protect jobs". If the reestablished contracts were limited to the 3 things I stated, there would be nothing to go against in making things more efficient.

For the most part I would prefer to keep out of this conversation, but if a company used to be successful... how did it become one third as successful? Did the workers cause the consumer demand to be cut by 200 percent?

If they needed 32,000 workers and ten years later needed 1/3 of that staff... at what point can we say that the vision of the company is questionable? Hostess had all the brand recognition in the world, and as the marketplace for food changed, it didn't change with the times.

I hope I haven't come across as holding the union's decisions as blameless... but it astounds me that so many people are turning a blind eye to the mismanagement of the company's finances and complete lack of improving the brand since the 1980s.

I'd just like to see a fair assessment of what went wrong because it can be important lessons for the people in high up positions in their respective fields who read the thread. We can all learn from this.

 

[Tornicade]

no, 100% of the workforce lost their jobs because unions blocked ways to make things more efficient in an effort to "protect jobs". If the reestablished contracts were limited to the 3 things I stated, there would be nothing to go against in making things more efficient.

you can say this with a straight face after seing how ripplewood and ibc management has ran the company since 2004?.

A union of 5, 000 employees who very likely would lose their jobs in the next 3 years stated they would not negotiate with a company with the current management. The group that went on strike represented 20% percent of the companies business.

employees have the right not to work for a company if they choose.

Hostess chose to take on 700 million in debt as opposed to a deal that would of provided them with equity instead.

 

[KI4MVP]

For the most part I would prefer to keep out of this conversation, but if a company used to be successful... how did it become one third as successful? Did the workers cause the consumer demand to be cut by 200 percent?

If they needed 32,000 workers and ten years later needed 1/3 of that staff... at what point can we say that the vision of the company is questionable? Hostess had all the brand recognition in the world, and as the marketplace for food changed, it didn't change with the times.

I hope I haven't come across as holding the union's decisions as blameless... but it astounds me that so many people are turning a blind eye to the mismanagement of the company's finances and complete lack of improving the brand since the 1980s.

if demand is down, they should be free to make their company more efficient to let them stay in business while they try to fix the demand issue. For example it's absurd that a struggling company is blocked from making their trucking routes more efficient.

 

[Randolphkeys]

if demand is down, they should be free to make their company more efficient to let them stay in business while they try to fix the demand issue. For example it's absurd that a struggling company is blocked from making their trucking routes more efficient.

It seems that they were trying to pressure the new management company to begin putting effort into the Hostess brand, which they had no intention of doing. We can't completely defend absentee management, can we? I've worked for a principal who spent most of his time working on a PhD and barely a thought in his head on the daily running of the school. Trust me, it's hard to continue to pretend that you want the betterment of the organization to be your top priority in a situation like that. It's natural to start mirroring the leadership at the top and begin to look out for yourself and the people immediately around you.

 

[KI4MVP]

you can say this with a straight face after seing how ripplewood and ibc management has ran the company since 2004?.

A union of 5, 000 employees who very likely would lose their jobs in the next 3 years stated they would not negotiate with a company with the current management. The group that went on strike represented 20% percent of the companies business.

employees have the right not to work for a company if they choose.

Hostess chose to take on 700 million in debt as opposed to a deal that would of provided them with equity instead.

a judge just ruled that they shouldn't have gone on strike and instead should go through mediation

"Many people, myself included, have serious questions as to the logic behind this strike," said Judge Robert Drain, who heard the case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York in White Plains, N.Y. "Not to have gone through that step leaves a huge question mark in this case."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/11/19/twinkies-hostess-mediation/1715415/

and sure, employees should have the right to not work for a company if they don't want to, just like employers should have the right to let people go when they need to.

 

[Tornicade]

no its like this.
Hostess to union we need you to take a 125 million pay cut. we are also cutting out 18,000 jobs.
Union to hostess. If we take a 150 million paycut could you only cut 15,000 jobs. so the XYZ plant can continue to operate. as their own entity in case the division is sold.
Hostess. Deal

 

[KI4MVP]

It seems that they were trying to pressure the new management company to begin putting effort into the Hostess brand, which they had no intention of doing. We can't completely defend absentee management, can we? I've worked for a principal who spent most of his time working on a PhD and barely a thought in his head on the daily running of the school. Trust me, it's hard to continue to pretend that you want the betterment of the organization to be your top priority in a situation like that. It's natural to start mirroring the leadership at the top and begin to look out for yourself and the people immediately around you.

that's the shareholders and board of directors job.

as for your principal, the school board should be able to take care of that problem.

 

[Randolphkeys]

that's the shareholders and board of directors job.

as for your principal, the school board should be able to take care of that problem.

The thread isn't about my situation, but the principal had a high up position waiting for him in the Philadelphia superintendent's immediate staff. That job fell apart eventually and I don't keep up on what the principal does now, but I just wanted to express how demoralizing it is to have a boss who clearly doesn't care anymore.