Hostess can't preserve itself

In reply to alfadriver:

you're changing the terms of the discussion with this post. your first scenario was:

So had they been in the situation that each worker had agreed upon the exact same compensation, but not a union, that would be ok?

I addressed this very specifically; that even if somehow all the employees coordinated to have the same agreement of compensation without forming a union, and that it was such a.... "rich" package, then the instant the company's bottom line is threatened, cost cutting always comes first because it has the quickest effect without affecting incoming business. Even the sorriest executives i've seen know this to be true and would slash workforce costs first.

Your scenario is an impossible comparison because a union in place would/does have agreements to obstruct executive reduction of workforce without their major consulation.

I wasn't 'blaming' anyone; just putting together the scenario to explain things.

chaparral wrote: If they hadn't had to pay the union pensions, they'd have had to pay the same amount extra for the employees to put in their 401k's!

umm... i highly doubt that... 401k contributions are usually less than %10 of salary set aside, and usually 5% or less matched by employer.

a union pension is usually much much higher.

madmallard wrote: In reply to alfadriver: you're changing the terms of the discussion with this post. your first scenario was:

So had they been in the situation that each worker had agreed upon the exact same compensation, but not a union, that would be ok?

I addressed this very specifically; that even if somehow all the employees coordinated to have the same agreement of compensation without forming a union, and that it was such a.... "rich" package, then the instant the company's bottom line is threatened, cost cutting always comes first because it has the quickest effect without affecting incoming business. Even the sorriest executives i've seen know this to be true and would slash workforce costs first. Your scenario is an impossible comparison because a union in place would/does have agreements to obstruct executive reduction of workforce without their major consulation. I wasn't 'blaming' anyone; just putting together the scenario to explain things.

Workers get cut first = worker's getting blamed.

You are blaming the unions. You should be blaming the managment. Why did sales suffer. Why did they not react to that? Why can't executive's be slashed in equal amounts to workers?

If you have 10% too many workers, you probably have 10% too many management to go with them. All the way to the top.

In reply to alfadriver:

if its a privately held company, its not the worker's decision to worry about the direction of the company. Its not a democracy, they don't get to vote on the matter; its not their job. Thats the cold reality of it. Its not about blame no matter how much you assert that it is.

Thats because even if its management's fault and not the workers, the first place they're going to go is still going to be labor costs. Thats just how it works.

I posted the numbers from the article because even taking into account that thats the default position the management goes that the proportion of financial embarassment falls squarely very specifically not on all the labor in general but of just ONE FACET of the dealings with unions.

I forget which one it was, but there was a vacuum cleaner mfg in the Midwest somewhere that went under for the same reason. Pension liabilities were something like 1.5 times the company's worth, a bunch of people were due to retire in a short time and there was no way the company could pay them so they folded. IIRC the assets were sold for fire sale prices and the employees split the proceeds (after the lawyers sucked all the gravy off, of course).

That wasn't the only case of its sort. Continental Can Co. tried to defraud its employees of their pensions in an attempt to keep the business afloat. They lost a well publicized court case over that. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/11/business/company-news-continental-can-loses-pension-case.html

Here's the thing: there is enough blame for both sides. I guaran damn tee you the top guys saw this coming a while back and looted the place, they put away enough money to keep themselves in good shape.

For their part, the unions demanded more and more knowing that there is only so much pie to split, the management kept saying 'okay' on the pension demands with each side knowing full well all they were doing was delaying the inevitable.

In short, just like our government (and the car companies, and etc etc etc.) both sides kept kicking the can down the road. That can only happen for so long.

Michelle Obama is clearly at fault. All the children shouldn't eat those nasty things in their government approved lunch.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286351/michelle-obama-s-unsavory-br-school-lunch-flop-michelle-malkin

mad_machine wrote: I would rather have tastycake anyway. And yes.. I hate how people automatically jump on the "it's the unions" bandwagen without doing some digging of their own.

I'd rather have TastyKake, too. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to find west of PA. Every once in a while one of the Walmarts around here will get a case of TastyKake that is near it's expiration date. I'll still eat some because well TastyKake.

Unions are fine. Take some off the top.

So what's your idea of "Take some off the top."?

Obviously they've been taking too much off the top for too long.

bluej wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I read "hotness" a whole bunch of times.

this. was expecting smut spam.

I was expecting saggy old boobs, which is why I didn't look the first five or six times. Alas, my curiosity got the better of me.

Great thread title. Fortunately, I just bought a couple boxes at the store this week, which I am now listing on ebay for a 9,000% profit. There are some people who just aren't going to be able to live without their Twinkies.

Without twinkies, the zombie apocalypse will be that much harder to survive

griffin729 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: I would rather have tastycake anyway. And yes.. I hate how people automatically jump on the "it's the unions" bandwagen without doing some digging of their own.

I'd rather have TastyKake, too. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to find west of PA. Every once in a while one of the Walmarts around here will get a case of TastyKake that is near it's expiration date. I'll still eat some because well TastyKake.

Ahhh, the joys of living in eastern PA. Tasty is king around here. They're everywhere. They're in serious financial trouble too...not sure how much longer they'll survive.

Curmudgeon wrote: In short, just like our government (and the car companies, and etc etc etc.) both sides kept kicking the can down the road. That can only happen for so long.

Well put.

Curmudgeon wrote: ... I can't stand the things.

Blasphemy!

Little Debbie is still smiling

fasted58 wrote: Little Debbie is still smiling

The guy who founded that company drove a 1928 Whippet

I'm not going to blame the union, but trying to say it's 100% management's fault isn't true, either. The entire point of a union is to make labor a scarce commodity and thus drive up the price. Without the union bargaining power, it's almost certain that the large majority of workers would not have the wages nor pensions that they do.

One issue specific to pensions is that people are living much longer than expected when those contracts were agreed to. The expectation was retirement at 65 and then a pension for maybe 10 years after that. Nowadays, that pension is running double or triple as long, and that money is a 100% loss for the company.

This is neither a good nor a bad thing, it just is.

Klayfish wrote: Ahhh, the joys of living in eastern PA. Tasty is king around here. They're everywhere. They're in serious financial trouble too...not sure how much longer they'll survive.

I knew they were in trouble when they took down the billboard on the Surekill that never told the right time

A poster mentions that perhaps if Hostess had anticipated the return to a more healthy diet on the part of Americans, that the company's sales might have been better. (Assuming a more healthy Hostess product line could have been developed?) Then (another?) posting about Krispy Kremes being the next in line to fold.

Interesting, in that in my area, K-K is not doing so well, but Dunkin Donuts seems(?) to be doing just fine. Another case of management not doing it's job?

When I was a kid, I thought I was single-handedly keeping K-K in business...now, I won't cross the street for one of their donuts. Well, maybe a cruller/twist.

Management at Hostess was dying on the vine, and the board/stockholders just looked the other way.

integraguy wrote: Interesting, in that in my area, K-K is not doing so well, but Dunkin Donuts seems(?) to be doing just fine. Another case of management not doing it's job?

DD started marketing coffee.

I used to eat these all the times as a kid.

I'm going out and buying a box of Twinkies tomorrow.

"Contrary to popular opinion, Twinkies DO have an expiration date!"

alfadriver wrote:

madmallard wrote: In reply to alfadriver: nice impossible example. why impossible? because lacking some binding contract, even the stupidest executive teams have/would slash workforce or their pay to compensate long before such a situation could exist.

So blame the workers, who actually make the product, as opposed to the management who don't actually do physical work. Ok.... When I take a job, I negotiate for a fair compensation contract- salary, pension, healthcare. And I'm non union. Probably more non-union contracts here than union at Hostess. Far, far from an impossible example on either end.

The "unions" are not the workers they are the union thugs who strong arm not only the companies but also the workers.

Why couldn't it have been Drake's?

integraguy wrote: Interesting, in that in my area, K-K is not doing so well, but Dunkin Donuts seems(?) to be doing just fine. Another case of management not doing it's job?

i'm glad you mentioned that, Dunkin Donuts is doing well enough they say they're opening stores for at least the next 5 years straight all over the country.

Seems to me the "union" should have had someone keeping an eye on the pension funding. So how did it get to a 944 MILLION dollar defecit?