Hostess is Toast

[EMAW_KSU]

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.

and now a 100% reduction.

 

[donaldlovesdaisy]

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.

Well it is better then nothing until I found another job!

 

[rgf207]

and now a 100% reduction.

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.

 

[FireDancer]

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?

But that is sacrificing the long term for the short term and it is always better to think long term. When your company is in trouble you have to make concessions or be willing to risk losing everything. It just is what it is.

 

[jen0610]

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.

You do what you have to do. You make changes to your life style.

Personnally, a 8% reduction in pay is a whole lot better than what they are going to get with unemployment. That will be more like a 60 to 80% pay cut. A benefit reduction - insurance (?) - I would rather have to pay more than not have any, seeing as you don't have an employer sponcered plan any more.

 

[RadioNate]

and now a 100% reduction.

Yep. But if the company is in bankruptcy you can't tell me that this wasn't already the likely outcome. Hostess has been headed this way a long time.

I said that I think it should have been worked out, if possible w/out a strike. It sucks for all involved.

Workers are hoping that the brand will be sold & they will return to their jobs.

It was a no-win situation.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

While you don't like to see people lose their jobs, sometimes they have no one but themselves to blame for that. As a company, Hostess was in trouble. The union workers knew that, but instead of working with Hostess to try and work out a deal that would help keep Hostess open and keep people in jobs, they didn't so now there are no jobs, instead of a number of jobs at a lesser wage.

I just don't get why people have a hard time understanding, a little of something is a whole lot better than nothing.

Yup, the Teamsters recognized the issues & agreed to the wage cuts, but the baker's union wouldn't. Now they're all unemployed. My instinct is they will emerge from bankrupcy with an all non-union staff making less than half of what they made before. Those 17% cuts don't look so bad now

 

[Gumbo4x4]

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.

That's absolutely the stance to take with a healthy employer rolling in profits. It's the wrong stance to take with a company in bankrupcy. The correct stance is to suck it up, take the concessions, and sharpen your resume while you search for a better place to work.

 

[RadioNate]

You do what you have to do. You make changes to your life style.

Personnally, a 8% reduction in pay is a whole lot better than what they are going to get with unemployment. That will be more like a 60 to 80% pay cut. A benefit reduction - insurance (?) - I would rather have to pay more than not have any, seeing as you don't have an employer sponcered plan any more.

So would I but they saw differently. I never said the union was right. I think it was a no-win situation for all.

It's ok to have compassion & feel badly for people out of work.

Not that it matters much to me, I don't buy their products.

 

[msjprincess]

I'm not crazy about Hostess products. But I do always buy a box of cupcakes for my daughter to keep in her class. She has a nut allergy so she can't eat birthday treats that the other kids bring in. I guess she's going to be eating a lot of Rice Krispie Treats.

 

[Disneycrazymom]

I'm not crazy about Hostess products. But I do always buy a box of cupcakes for my daughter to keep in her class. She has a nut allergy so she can't eat birthday treats that the other kids bring in. I guess she's going to be eating a lot of Rice Krispie Treats.

I do the same thing for my DD. Even if they sell the brand there is a possibility the new factory won't be peanut free.

 

[ICF]

While you don't like to see people lose their jobs, sometimes they have no one but themselves to blame for that. As a company, Hostess was in trouble. The union workers knew that, but instead of working with Hostess to try and work out a deal that would help keep Hostess open and keep people in jobs, they didn't so now there are no jobs, instead of a number of jobs at a lesser wage.

I just don't get why people have a hard time understanding, a little of something is a whole lot better than nothing.

Striking when your company is already in financial trouble, really wasn't going to have a good ending for them. It was a very short-sighted move on their part.

 

[Princess Dolly]

While you don't like to see people lose their jobs, sometimes they have no one but themselves to blame for that. As a company, Hostess was in trouble. The union workers knew that, but instead of working with Hostess to try and work out a deal that would help keep Hostess open and keep people in jobs, they didn't so now there are no jobs, instead of a number of jobs at a lesser wage.

I just don't get why people have a hard time understanding, a little of something is a whole lot better than nothing.

So does Capitalism need some Socialism to survive? Doesn't everyone have the right to try and fight for what is best for themselves?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

So does Capitalism need some Socialism to survive? Doesn't everyone have the right to try and fight for what is best for themselves?

Capitalism is everyone fighting for what's best for themselves. Socialism is fighting for a common good. At least, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

 

[scrapquitler]

While you don't like to see people lose their jobs, sometimes they have no one but themselves to blame for that. As a company, Hostess was in trouble. The union workers knew that, but instead of working with Hostess to try and work out a deal that would help keep Hostess open and keep people in jobs, they didn't so now there are no jobs, instead of a number of jobs at a lesser wage.

I just don't get why people have a hard time understanding, a little of something is a whole lot better than nothing.

Exactly. I think the union is largely to blame in this. I wonder how many of the workers would have rather settled than have it come to this? No matter what the differences between the company's proposals and the unions demands, wouldn't a JOB have been better than this?

The company called their bluff. I wonder if we'll start hearing this more now?

(For the record, I belong to a union, and we have been working without a contract since April 1, 2011)

 

[Princess Dolly]

Capitalism is everyone fighting for what's best for themselves. Socialism is fighting for a common good. At least, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

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.

 

[pumba]

I thought I heard on the news that this company took the money from the employees 401K ( I think that is what they said) (NOPE IT WAS PENSIONS) that they put in weekly and it is NO where....what did they do with it...they didnt put in anything and they didnt show where the money is...
To me that is stealing...
and we belonged to a union for the last 35 and a half years...they do good things and protect the workers...so I wont say anything about unions..vs non-unions...

If this is not right..please let me know ...I believe this is what I heard...

 

[Princess Dolly]

I thought I heard on the news that this company took the money from the employees 401K ( I think that is what they said) that they put in weekly and it is NO where....what did they do with it...they didnt put in anything and they didnt show where the money is...
To me that is stealing...
and we belonged to a union for the last 35 and a half years...they do good things and protect the workers...so I wont say anything about unions..vs non-unions...

If this is not right..please let me know ...I believe this is what I heard...

If that's true that is horrid!

 

[cornflake]

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.

Except that's not what those things are or mean, at all.

This is sad and the blame is squarely on the single union, imo. The Teamsters made a deal because they looked into the company's books and saw this wasn't a ploy. The smaller union acted like it was. Good plan.

Not that I buy it but Wonder Bread is iconic and so are Twinkies and so many of their other products.

Guess Tennessee was right - "There's a box of Twinkies in that grocery store. Not just any box of Twinkies, the last box of Twinkies that anyone will enjoy in the whole universe. Believe it or not, Twinkies have an expiration date. Some day very soon, Life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go empty."

 

[Princess Dolly]

Except that's not what those things are or mean, at all.

This is sad and the blame is squarely on the single union, imo. The Teamsters made a deal because they looked into the company's books and saw this wasn't a ploy. The smaller union acted like it was. Good plan.

Not that I buy it but Wonder Bread is iconic and so are Twinkies and so many of their other products.

Guess Tennessee was right - "There's a box of Twinkies in that grocery store. Not just any box of Twinkies, the last box of Twinkies that anyone will enjoy in the whole universe. Believe it or not, Twinkies have an expiration date. Some day very soon, Life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go empty."

I know it's not exactly. I just find it ironic when some people say others should take less for the greater good. Anyway, don't want to go down a forbidden road.

Personally, the less crap food in circulation the better.