CPCFTW Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 See Hostess. Someone can link to an article for me, I'm on my phone. Striking unionized bakery workers just lost 18,000 jobs. Bang up job guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Managerial incompetence lost 18000 jobs is more like it. It's not the employees fault that their employer is too stupid to ensure they have enough money to pay for labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Managerial incompetence lost 18000 jobs is more like it. It's not the employees fault that their employer is too stupid to ensure they have enough money to pay for labour. This to me seems so stupid. At worst case they outsource the work ... sell the brand to someone who can make it work... something. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/why-didnt-hostess-workers-believe-the-threats/2012/11/16/0638138e-302f-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html Or more likely, the union workers kept at the strike because the last time the company had threatened liquidation, it didn’t follow through. During its last stint in Chapter 11, the company said “a vote against its last, best, final offer by either of its two largest unions would prompt an immediate liquidation,” the Journal reports. “But when the bakers union gave Hostess just that trigger, Hostess instead decided to take its case back to the court.” When leaders do that, it’s harder for the people who work for them to take the threats seriously the next time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Could you define what you're replacing with the word "this" in your post, MH? I'm not sure I understand what you'er saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 This to me seems so stupid. At worst case they outsource the work ... sell the brand to someone who can make it work... something.The company is in Chapter 11. I am sure they will sell off the brands to pay the creditors and the brands will likely be worth more now that they are not encumbered with an unreasonable union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 All I know is that if this spells the demise of the beloved Joe Louis Sharkman is gonna freak! When they came out with the double decker Joe, Sharkman's happy place got a lot bigger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Could you define what you're replacing with the word "this" in your post, MH? I'm not sure I understand what you'er saying. The closing of the company... TimG answered my point above anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 All I know is that if this spells the demise of the beloved Joe Louis Sharkman is gonna freak! I would have been right behind you. One of lifes good little treats , a Jos LouisThankfully Vachon makes them.Owned by Saputo, the Montreal firm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Managerial incompetence lost 18000 jobs is more like it. It's not the employees fault that their employer is too stupid to ensure they have enough money to pay for labour. Correct. The company was bought years ago, saddled with debt, Unions conceeded a ton, then the co saddled more debt and asked the Union again. The history of the company tells the real story. Also, it was the Bakers Union, only 5000 of them that toppled this co. to be closed. I wonder how the rest of the union guys get along w the baker union guys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 I suppose the title is supposed to be "ironic", but it just looks petty and uninformed when you take into account what actually happened. Here's a good summary of the situation: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/whos-to-blame-for-the-hostess-bankruptcy-wall-street-unions-or-carbs/265357/ As far as the unions go: You can blame them for not making enough concessions. You can blame the bakers for administering the final death blow. But you can't blame them for management's strategic incompetence, or the decision to try to run a flailing company on debt, hope, and empty calories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 How is it uninformed? The unions cost 18,000 jobs. Whether or not the company was poorly run, they would have continued as a going concern had the unions made the concessions. That means those unionized employees would still have jobs rather than be unemployed is a slow economy collecting unemployment insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 The company was bought years ago, saddled with debt, Unions conceded a ton, then the co saddled more debt and asked the Union again.Well if you want to treat the union as astute business people who decided to pull their investment in a failing enterprise then the union move is rational. OTOH, I wonder how many union people will get jobs with anything close to the pay and benefits that they would have been left with if they had conceded more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Well if you want to treat the union as astute business people who decided to pull their investment in a failing enterprise then the union move is rational. OTOH, I wonder how many union people will get jobs with anything close to the pay and benefits that they would have been left with if they had conceded more. I have not read enough to know for sure, and certainly not to discount what you said, however it is my understanding that the venture caps who bought this were treated right years ago by the unions, on the understanding the co would make improvements with the improved cash flow. Apparently they didnt and they cashed out, and things got tough again.....to this point they are now closing. I am no fan of unions at all, but if this is true, can we blame them? Not to forget it was the 5000 bakers that caused the final shut down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 How is it uninformed? The unions cost 18,000 jobs. Whether or not the company was poorly run, they would have continued as a going concern had the unions made the concessions. There has never been or will be a company that goes out of business if only the employees work for free. "damn, those workers wouldnt cut wages from $15 an hour to 5 cents. We had to close!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Correct. The company was bought years ago, saddled with debt, Unions conceeded a ton, then the co saddled more debt and asked the Union again. Incorrect. The company went into bankruptcy a few years ago, was bailed out, and now finds itself in bankruptcy again. At the wages and benefits the union was asking for, the company wouldn't have been profitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Apparently they didn't and they cashed out, and things got tough again.....to this point they are now closing.An interesting story. Option 1) company closes down years ago because no one wanted it. Option 2) Vulture capital comes in and guts the company using whatever legal means are at their disposal. With Option 1) the jobs would have been lost years ago. With Option 2) the union keeps the jobs for a few years at lower rates. Seems like Option 2) was a better deal for the union.The difference is the vulture capital does not real care that that the company is no more. They made their money. The people that lost their jobs do. The only question is whether it would have been worth preserving them for a bit longer. Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Company demands. Average wages were to drop by about 27% over the next five years... An immediate 8 percent wage reduction and elimination of the eight-hour work day. 401k plan beginning 2015, Employee healthcare cost sharing 20 percent increase, Elimination of the employees’ W-1 (retiree Medigap insurance) and P-Plan (a pension supplement used to pay health and funeral costs); Closure of additional plants (10-12) without reporting reasons to the unions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 People don't work for free. Management was fiscally incompetent. Period. It's not the employees' responsibility to balance the books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 People don't work for free. Management was fiscally incompetent. Period. It's not the employees' responsibility to balance the books.I think the real issue here is a disconnect between the union leadership and the rank and file. Apparently many people were worried enough about their prospects for finding similar employment and were willing to take the deal - but the union would not let them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Incorrect. The company went into bankruptcy a few years ago, was bailed out, and now finds itself in bankruptcy again. At the wages and benefits the union was asking for, the company wouldn't have been profitable. Frankly shady, come on back when you have some credibility. But for now, let me remind you that they were sold 3 times since the 80's , racking up debt all the while selling off proftiable lines. Lets throw in the extravagant raise management gave themselves all the while complaining that the people who made the products were killing them financially. Ten years, six CEO's came and went. They ignored the products, introduced stupid ones, and here they are. Closed. Management has as much or more to be blamed for this demise. To blame the unions, which is what you are doing is well....typical shady . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Maybe it was because people had realised that the product they sold was poison and sales were down. 5000 Bakers? Chemists, more like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 I think the real issue here is a disconnect between the union leadership and the rank and file. Apparently many people were worried enough about their prospects for finding similar employment and were willing to take the deal - but the union would not let them. I can believe that. Its just that with the incredibly poor mngmt they had, 6 CEO's in 10 years, thats bad and speaks a ton as to how bad they were run. As for the workers, I am sure they are saying WTF, Id rather have that wage than none, and yes they gambled and lost but hindisght is what it is, The mngmt should have been able to keep it viable, but the ignored the products and gave themeselves stupid raises even when the writing was on the wall. CAnt say I blame the workers for the hardball, even in light of the result Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 How is it uninformed? The unions cost 18,000 jobs. Whether or not the company was poorly run, they would have continued as a going concern had the unions made the concessions. That means those unionized employees would still have jobs rather than be unemployed is a slow economy collecting unemployment insurance. Interesting how the high paid management always gets credit when companies succeed and unions always get the blame when they fail. That's salesmanship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 A pity....as the workers will not be able to buy Ding Dongs with their food stamps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) The management should have been able to keep it viable, but the ignored the products and gave theme selves stupid raises even when the writing was on the wall.It was a privately held company wasn't it? If it is then if the management wants to loot the company and run it into the ground then they are entitled to do so provided the owners approve. If employees also have a right to say they want nothing to do with the company and move on. Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.