Hostess is Toast

[Gumbo4x4]

I am thinking there is a good chance some of these products will be bought by other companies. Hostess owned lots of brands, not just junk either. THey made Natures pride breads, and those had good ingredients, I really liked them.

I can see Nabisco or someother company at least buying recipes. I can't see no more Twinkies (I havent eaten them in decades) or Yodels or devil dogs. I see them being made elsewhere.

But the little ppl lose their jobs, and the hedgefund rich guys sell the company by the recipe and walk away even richer.

Certainly someone (or a combination of someones) will have to fill that void. Some Hostess products will resurface, some won't. Some all-new products will surface, some existing products will see an increase in sales. And someone will have to produce these goods. Like the PP who said her husband is on OT now as he works for a competitor. It's the nature of the World. Someone's heartbreak will be to someone else's benefit.

 

[Princess Dolly]

This exactly!! I feel no sympathy for these people that walked out on their jobs. They made their beds, let'em lie in it.

I do feel bad for the rest of us that will miss Hostess products & be forced to take care of a whole bunch more people with economic handouts. I personally don't think they should see a dime, but most will end up better off not working. Sad, what this country has become.

Yes it's sad that the rank and file workers bear all of the burden while the executives live high off the hog. Sad that corporations are so greedy and uncaring.

 

[castleview]

Let's see: Management givens themselves hefty salaries while asking lowest paid employees to take an 8% cut (their third cut, btw) and no work is being done in the R&D department even though we live in a far more health conscience society, two bankruptcy filings over the last decade…and it's the union's fault? Now the hedge fund owners will liquidate the assets and sell the brands to companies who hire 15 year temp workers. I love this country.

 

[donaldlovesdaisy]

Yes it's sad that the rank and file workers bear all of the burden while the executives live high off the hog. Sad that corporations are so greedy and uncaring.

This is America we all have the opportunity to be those greedy cooperate executives ! I sometimes wonder if all this hate and rage people have for the wealthy is no more than just plain old jealousy.

 

[furb & dez]

Twinkies changed at some point in the late 80's/early 90's and I lost interest. Then they changed again and just became absolutely foul.

You're right, 100% reduction. But if they gave in, what's to say that it would not get worse. You (collective you) can't always give in because every time you do, they get more powerful. At what point do you need to stand up for yourself. All companies do is try to reduce, reduce reduce to make higher profits. The more you give in the more they reduce.

Because that's worked so well for Pilots and Stewardessess in our crumbling air travel industry? (re-regulate the air travel industry!!)

And even as the company was crumbling under the weight of too much debt and slagging sales, and even as the unions that the usual suspects are going to blame for all this were making concession after concession, the CEO got a 300% raise and the next top 4 executives received pay increases averaging 80%.

I just don't get how this happens.

It's really very simple... it's in their contracts/agreements. If you draw up a contract that says "in year X, CEO receives a 300% increase" and attach no riders or stipulations, then guess what... in year X, the CEO will receive a 300% increase, regardless of how the company is performing financially. It's not rocket science.

If it's in the contract it happens. If it didn't, they'd be in a lot more trouble for breaking the contract, and then they would get sued on top of still owing the money.

 

[castleview]

Really I assuming from this post you have run many successful businesses?

Here's my rules…and I had this conversation once with a small publishing house owner who defended hiring unpaid interns because she couldn't afford an employee. If you can't afford it, you can't have it.

 

[castleview]

This is America we all have the opportunity to be those greedy cooperate executives ! I sometimes wonder if all this hate and rage people have for the wealthy is no more than just plain old jealousy.

No, that's not the case. There are plenty of business owners who realize they have to treat their employees well in order to sleep at night and run a successful business. I worked for a man who dipped into his own personal savings account to cover salaries when times were hard (and the company did come through).

If you honestly think it's okay for someone to pull in millions as a CEO while the lowest paid employee is paid minimum wage, has temporary or "independent contractor" status, doesn't get any benefits or rights as a worker, then you need to grow a conscience. That IS greed.

 

[pumpkinmomma]

Hostess demise can be laid at the feet of way too much debt in takeover restructuring, horribly out dated products, and bad management. Seriously, their plan to save the company was
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
BOOM!!!! BANANA FLAVORED TWINKIES!!!!!

And even as the company was crumbling under the weight of too much debt and slagging sales, and even as the unions that the usual suspects are going to blame for all this were making concession after concession, the CEO got a 300% raise and the next top 4 executives received pay increases averaging 80%. If the unions made any mistake it's that they actually thought the other side was bargaining in good faith. They weren't. Even if the union caved in on everything it wouldn't have changed a thing. And at this point, there is no way the workers can even trust that management would have even kept to any contract they agreed to. They've broken them in the past. Liquidation was the plan all along. The strike had nothing to do with it other than management playing CYA by blaming it for the company's demise which was coming anyway.

This. This is the 2nd trip for Hostess into bankruptcy in 10 years. This has been coming for a while and I think the strike was just an excuse. They were a failing business and have been for quite a while.

 

[tvguy]

This. This is the 2nd trip for Hostess into bankruptcy in 10 years. This has been coming for a while and I think the strike was just an excuse. They were a failing business and have been for quite a while.

I think this is it.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Let's see: Management givens themselves hefty salaries while asking lowest paid employees to take an 8% cut (their third cut, btw) and no work is being done in the R&D department even though we live in a far more health conscience society, two bankruptcy filings over the last decade…and it's the union's fault? Now the hedge fund owners will liquidate the assets and sell the brands to companies who hire 15 year temp workers. I love this country.

It's not the union's fault the company was in trouble. It's the union's fault the doors are shut today. Certainly, there were lots of problems with Hostess that may never have been solved. And what happened today may just be the inevitable. But, plain & simple, now was not the right time for a strike. The Teamsters recognized that, but the bakers did not.

 

[donaldlovesdaisy]

No genius, that's not the case. There are plenty of business owners who realize they have to treat their employees well in order to sleep at night and run a successful business. I worked for a man who dipped into his own personal savings account to cover salaries when times were hard (and the company did come through).

If you honestly think it's okay for someone to pull in millions as a CEO while the lowest paid employee is paid minimum wage, has temporary or "independent contractor" status, doesn't get any benefits or rights as a worker, then you need to grow a conscience. That IS greed.

If the lowest paid employee had very little skill or education then why should he be paid more than what they are worth? Oh and your genius remark is rude and condescending and really does not help your argument. Do you always insult people who don't agree with you?

 

[luvmy3]

No genius, that's not the case. There are plenty of business owners who realize they have to treat their employees well in order to sleep at night and run a successful business. I worked for a man who dipped into his own personal savings account to cover salaries when times were hard (and the company did come through).

If you honestly think it's okay for someone to pull in millions as a CEO while the lowest paid employee is paid minimum wage, has temporary or "independent contractor" status, doesn't get any benefits or rights as a worker, then you need to grow a conscience. That IS greed.

That is life in the corporate world, we aren't all equal.

 

[ilovemk76]

I feel bad for the workers. The Bakers Union was the only one striking.

I think they could have negated w/out a strike but they were asked to make huge concessions. Staff reduction (30+%) huge pay cut (I've read 8%), benefit reduction, pension freeze. Realistically, if your family depended on your income how many could live with those cuts?

The strike may have sped up the process but Hostess was headed this way anyway.

How is that new reality going to work better?

We have survived two simultaneous layoff, could happen again in the future, paycuts, jobs with not benefits and what is this pension you talk of.

 

[Thundergod]

God Bless our unions.

They can brag about how they brought hostess to it's knees while they stand in the unemployment line.

 

[donaldlovesdaisy]

God Bless our unions.

They can brag about how they brought hostess to it's knees while they stand in the unemployment line.

 

[JennaDeeDooDah]

Yes it's sad that the rank and file workers bear all of the burden while the executives live high off the hog. Sad that corporations are so greedy and uncaring.

Let's be fair. Everyone is "greedy" because everyone wants to make money. Now, in this specific situation, Hostess told the Union workers that they (Hostess) could no longer contribute 2% towards their (the union) retirement and that the union would need to pick up that tab. They told the union that if they (Hostess) continued to contribute that amount, it would put them out of business. The union refused to budge and now EVERYONE is out of a job. In this specific situation, it sounds like the union was greedy and uncaring.

 

[FireDancer]

No genius, that's not the case. There are plenty of business owners who realize they have to treat their employees well in order to sleep at night and run a successful business. I worked for a man who dipped into his own personal savings account to cover salaries when times were hard (and the company did come through).

If you honestly think it's okay for someone to pull in millions as a CEO while the lowest paid employee is paid minimum wage, has temporary or "independent contractor" status, doesn't get any benefits or rights as a worker, then you need to grow a conscience. That IS greed.

But the CEO isn't the business owner, they are just employees like everyone else. The stock holders are the business owners. If someone is to be blamed for the pay structure of the executives blame them and the board that is supposed to be representing their best interests but often doesn't.

I always hear about CEOs giving themselves raises but I have never worked for a company in which management was able to determine their own raise or pay structure. It is always a negotiation between the board and the executive. That would be congress.

That is life in the corporate world, we aren't all equal.

And thank God! Employment, like everything, comes down to supply and demand. If you can supply needed skills better than most other people you can demand a higher price for them. If you can only supply a skill that is essentially a commodity you can not demand as high of a price for them. That isn't a problem, it is how it should work. Luckily we can all learn new skills to change what we can both supply and demand. That is what I love about the free market even though it doesn't always work perfectly. Then again nothing works perfectly 100% of the time.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

If the lowest paid employee had very little skill or education then why should he be paid more than what they are worth?

I do believe there is something to this as well. Fact is, some jobs are just plain easy. One issue I have with unions is that the easiest jobs go to the most experienced workers. The idea of staying in a BIG company for a LONG time is that you should start out at a low-pay, low-skill job. Over time, as your skill increases, you move into a more difficult job with higher pay. And as more time passes, hopefully you repeat this process. But, because union wages often pay the same across the board, it works in the opposite direction. New hires are given the most difficult tasks, while seasoned veterans use their seniority to work their way DOWN the corporate ladder. That system benefits nobody. The company loses because they don't have the benefit of their best people doing the toughest jobs, and the workers lose because you don't have the opportunity to really work your way UP. Obviously, this is speaking in general terms & it doesn't work that way EVERYWHERE the unions exist. But, it does happen.

 

[ilovemk76]

I agree. My point is that some posters wanted workers to take concessions so the company survives, which is socialism. The company decided to shutdown instead, which points toward Capitalism (best for the company). I just want people to realize what they are advocating.

I am so glad that you helped me see the light!!!!!

I use my brain to decide what will be best in the short run and the long run. I would have made a short term concession with the company and then decided it this was a company that was viable in the long run, if I it was a company I could work for in the long run and then look for another job, if that is best.

It is better to find another job when you have a job then when you are unemployed. The longer the unemployment the less employable you become.

 

[luvmy3]

No one said they should get equal pay, but they should be paid something livable. And while they may not be worth as much as a top level executive, they are part of what makes the company successful too…so yes, they should be rewarded.

That isn't what you said though, this is what you said

If you honestly think it's okay for someone to pull in millions as a CEO while the lowest paid employee is paid minimum wage, has temporary or "independent contractor" status, doesn't get any benefits or rights as a worker, then you need to grow a conscience. That IS greed.

If the problem is they are making minimum wage, and they can't live on it, take it up with the legislators. If a person agrees to take a job as a temp, or work as an IC then blame them not the company. They are the ones agreeing to those conditions.
Yes I think its okay for a CEO to pull in millions while some workers in that same company make minimum wage, or while some are just temps or ICs. Its not greed, it is life in the corporate world.