4 ms·

What a crock. The whole bankruptcy was just a union busting maneuver to escape the contracts they had signed. The company was deliberately run into the ground t

by ebbv 10y ago

What a crock. The whole bankruptcy was just a union busting maneuver to escape the contracts they had signed. The company was deliberately run into the ground to restructure and now it's making the executives rich while all the workers have been tossed aside. To hell with Hostess and all the people profiting off this upcoming "IPO".

adventured 10y ago
What's your argument in favor of claiming the people working there were perpetually entitled to their jobs?
- ebbv 10y ago
  Holy straw man Batman. That's not at all what I said. What I said was the executives pulled shenanigans to get rich and the workers pay the price. That's the reality of the situation. As to a better way to handle the situation; how about negotiate with the union in good faith instead of pulling shenanigans in order to invalidate the contract for starters? It may not have been possible to keep all the workers on staff, but given that the company came back and is making tremendous profits and expecting to be valued at $2 billion and looking towards an "IPO" that seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely they just saw a potential for greater profits and bonuses for themselves and decided to do whatever it takes no matter how reprehensible and how many lives were ruined.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Would it be fair to say that you feel the company should have continued to pay low-skill workers for jobs that didn't need to be done because that would be better for the people?
    - ebbv 10y ago
      No that wouldn't be fair to say at all. Please re-read my comments. I don't think you could come to that conclusion if you read them fairly.
  - worldburger 10y ago
    Your point isn't without merit. It's also important to remember that it's usually only under great pressure (like successive bankruptcies) that creative solutions like this level of automation can occur. More so in a stale industry like baking. Re your better way to handle the situ: if a business can operate with larger fixed upfront cost but significantly less operational labor cost, why would you not take this route? Probabilistic thinking would have you believe the union would not negotiate anywhere near the labor cuts Hostess was able to accomplish with the bankruptcies. I'm not talking bonuses and profits, their decisions look like sound decisions, albeit sterile and perhaps insensitive.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      "Your point isn't without merit." His point is entirely without merit. Far from "executives getting rich", the investors in the old Hostess lost all of their capital.
      - angry_octet 10y ago
        The investors may have lost their money (aka the business was overvalued and there was a correction they did not foresee) but that does not mean executives lost out. Executives were likely remunerated well until the end, even if their negotiation strategy was poor and they were against spending on R&D and innovation.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    "As to a better way to handle the situation; how about negotiate with the union in good faith" The Teamster's union (not exactly noted for being pushovers in negotiation) audited the books and agreed that there was no more money to be had. The baker's union disagreed. The baker's union is the one that was negotiating in bad faith (or perhaps "stupid faith" would be a better term). "given that the company came back" No, the company did not "come back". The brands were sold off and the stockholders of the original company lost their money. This is a new company that purchased the right to use the brands in the bankruptcy sale.
    - ebbv 10y ago
      > The baker's union is the one that was negotiating in bad faith (or perhaps "stupid faith" would be a better term). Maybe so, I'm skeptical. > No, the company did not "come back". The brands were sold off and the stockholders of the original company lost their money. This is a new company that purchased the right to use the brands in the bankruptcy sale. It has new owners but how much of the executive staff have been replaced beyond the very top level? I couldn't find any details.
  - adventured 10y ago
    You claimed the company was run into the ground on purpose to void the union contract/s so they could fire the workers. 1) You'd have to prove such a dramatic claim. I don't see where you've presented a single shred of evidence. Given the size of the claim, to then not back it up with any proof, more than throws the credibility of the claim into question. 2) You're simultaneously claiming the company was fine as it was (and or at worst needed a mild adjustment perhaps), and that it didn't need to so significantly restructure its labor costs. You also didn't provide any proof of that claim either. How do you know the company could continue to operate with seven times as many employees as it has now? What financial statements is that claim based on? 3) If it was run into the ground on purpose, and that somehow violated the agreements they had with the unions, then there would be a very large recourse for the unions. That clearly wasn't the case given the outcome so far. They clearly found no more evidence for that premise that what you have, which is to say: none. How is it you're in a position to know so much more than what the unions have been able to prove? 4) What makes the workers entitled to anything beyond the contracts they signed via the unions? The workers aren't going to keep going in to work if they don't get paid. Why should the owners keep operating a business if it's in an impaired condition and is going bankrupt? 5) Your premise is that the former owners intentionally ran the company into bankruptcy, so they could sell it for $410 million, all so that somebody else could get vastly richer by rebooting it over just a few years to be worth $2.3 billion. That's wildly illogical. It blows a hole in your theory a mile wide. You may think my question was a straw-man - it was intentionally leading actually, to set-up these following points. You proclaimed a dramatic and empty theory with nothing backing it up.
    - ebbv 10y ago
      > You may think my question was a straw-man - it was intentionally leading actually, to set-up these following points. Bullshit. I could have just as easily responded with "No." Give me a break. Of course I can't present any evidence I didn't work for Hostess, where am I supposed to get evidence from short of a whistleblower? My point isn't that I'm saying 100% this is what happened, I'm saying I'm skeptical of the story being sold that the union is at fault and the executives did all they could to save the company, etc. I'm not interested in any more discussion with you, so this will be my last response.
Ataraxic 10y ago
I mean if you engage in agreements with unions that are fundamentally impossible for the company to meet, I wouldn't exactly call that union busting. In fact from what I remember about this bankruptcy specifically, in order to continue operations they absolutely had to negotiate a new contract with all the unions. Every union but the bakers agreed. Because the bakers walked, they had to file bankruptcy. I feel like this is an example of the failure of unions. It also seems selfish that given that if you know bankruptcy is coming, one union would bankrupt the company when all the others were for it. If you hated the job that much, you can leave. In the end, it didn't save jobs, it didn't protect their livelihood, and I think it's quite possible that it delayed what is obvious now: automation was inevitable and layoffs were necessary. Their workforce of 8000+ is now ~1200 and only now are the becoming profitable again.
- ebbv 10y ago
  You can choose to believe that narrative, but I think that's what the Hostess executives fed to the media. I believe they deliberately negotiated in bad faith with the goal of declaring bankruptcy and restructuring. Some layoffs may have been necessary, but given how much profit they are making now I'm not sure I believe that all 6800 were. Plus, we aren't given details about how were these layoffs distributed? Were they all at the labor level or was anyone from corporate laid off? Did any executives take pay cuts? Are they all getting bonuses now? How much do they stand to profit from the upcoming public offering? My point being; the media was fed a narrative about the union being unreasonable and the bankruptcy and layoffs being "unavoidable" and they eat it up uncritically, and then the public does too. I don't think it's that simple. Unions are human institutions and like any human institution they can have issues, but they have served an important purpose in this country in creating the middle class. It is no coincidence that over the last 40 years unions have been systematically undermined, busted and halted everywhere and at the same time middle class wages have stagnated, with benefits that could have been expected at a middle class job in the 60s now being basically unheard of at a middle class job today.
  - seibelj 10y ago
    What is your calculation for the proper amount of workers at the Twinkie factory? Modern technology allowed 1200 to do the work of 8000. How many workers would you mandate work at the Twinkie factory in your ideal vision of the world?

by ebbv 10y ago

adventured 10y ago

What's your argument in favor of claiming the people working there were perpetually entitled to their jobs?

ebbv 10y ago
Holy straw man Batman. That's not at all what I said. What I said was the executives pulled shenanigans to get rich and the workers pay the price. That's the reality of the situation. As to a better way to handle the situation; how about negotiate with the union in good faith instead of pulling shenanigans in order to invalidate the contract for starters? It may not have been possible to keep all the workers on staff, but given that the company came back and is making tremendous profits and expecting to be valued at $2 billion and looking towards an "IPO" that seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely they just saw a potential for greater profits and bonuses for themselves and decided to do whatever it takes no matter how reprehensible and how many lives were ruined.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Would it be fair to say that you feel the company should have continued to pay low-skill workers for jobs that didn't need to be done because that would be better for the people?
  - ebbv 10y ago
    No that wouldn't be fair to say at all. Please re-read my comments. I don't think you could come to that conclusion if you read them fairly.
- worldburger 10y ago
  Your point isn't without merit. It's also important to remember that it's usually only under great pressure (like successive bankruptcies) that creative solutions like this level of automation can occur. More so in a stale industry like baking. Re your better way to handle the situ: if a business can operate with larger fixed upfront cost but significantly less operational labor cost, why would you not take this route? Probabilistic thinking would have you believe the union would not negotiate anywhere near the labor cuts Hostess was able to accomplish with the bankruptcies. I'm not talking bonuses and profits, their decisions look like sound decisions, albeit sterile and perhaps insensitive.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    "Your point isn't without merit." His point is entirely without merit. Far from "executives getting rich", the investors in the old Hostess lost all of their capital.
    - angry_octet 10y ago
      The investors may have lost their money (aka the business was overvalued and there was a correction they did not foresee) but that does not mean executives lost out. Executives were likely remunerated well until the end, even if their negotiation strategy was poor and they were against spending on R&D and innovation.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "As to a better way to handle the situation; how about negotiate with the union in good faith" The Teamster's union (not exactly noted for being pushovers in negotiation) audited the books and agreed that there was no more money to be had. The baker's union disagreed. The baker's union is the one that was negotiating in bad faith (or perhaps "stupid faith" would be a better term). "given that the company came back" No, the company did not "come back". The brands were sold off and the stockholders of the original company lost their money. This is a new company that purchased the right to use the brands in the bankruptcy sale.
  - ebbv 10y ago
    > The baker's union is the one that was negotiating in bad faith (or perhaps "stupid faith" would be a better term). Maybe so, I'm skeptical. > No, the company did not "come back". The brands were sold off and the stockholders of the original company lost their money. This is a new company that purchased the right to use the brands in the bankruptcy sale. It has new owners but how much of the executive staff have been replaced beyond the very top level? I couldn't find any details.
- adventured 10y ago
  You claimed the company was run into the ground on purpose to void the union contract/s so they could fire the workers. 1) You'd have to prove such a dramatic claim. I don't see where you've presented a single shred of evidence. Given the size of the claim, to then not back it up with any proof, more than throws the credibility of the claim into question. 2) You're simultaneously claiming the company was fine as it was (and or at worst needed a mild adjustment perhaps), and that it didn't need to so significantly restructure its labor costs. You also didn't provide any proof of that claim either. How do you know the company could continue to operate with seven times as many employees as it has now? What financial statements is that claim based on? 3) If it was run into the ground on purpose, and that somehow violated the agreements they had with the unions, then there would be a very large recourse for the unions. That clearly wasn't the case given the outcome so far. They clearly found no more evidence for that premise that what you have, which is to say: none. How is it you're in a position to know so much more than what the unions have been able to prove? 4) What makes the workers entitled to anything beyond the contracts they signed via the unions? The workers aren't going to keep going in to work if they don't get paid. Why should the owners keep operating a business if it's in an impaired condition and is going bankrupt? 5) Your premise is that the former owners intentionally ran the company into bankruptcy, so they could sell it for $410 million, all so that somebody else could get vastly richer by rebooting it over just a few years to be worth $2.3 billion. That's wildly illogical. It blows a hole in your theory a mile wide. You may think my question was a straw-man - it was intentionally leading actually, to set-up these following points. You proclaimed a dramatic and empty theory with nothing backing it up.
  - ebbv 10y ago
    > You may think my question was a straw-man - it was intentionally leading actually, to set-up these following points. Bullshit. I could have just as easily responded with "No." Give me a break. Of course I can't present any evidence I didn't work for Hostess, where am I supposed to get evidence from short of a whistleblower? My point isn't that I'm saying 100% this is what happened, I'm saying I'm skeptical of the story being sold that the union is at fault and the executives did all they could to save the company, etc. I'm not interested in any more discussion with you, so this will be my last response.

Ataraxic 10y ago

I mean if you engage in agreements with unions that are fundamentally impossible for the company to meet, I wouldn't exactly call that union busting. In fact from what I remember about this bankruptcy specifically, in order to continue operations they absolutely had to negotiate a new contract with all the unions. Every union but the bakers agreed. Because the bakers walked, they had to file bankruptcy. I feel like this is an example of the failure of unions. It also seems selfish that given that if you know bankruptcy is coming, one union would bankrupt the company when all the others were for it. If you hated the job that much, you can leave. In the end, it didn't save jobs, it didn't protect their livelihood, and I think it's quite possible that it delayed what is obvious now: automation was inevitable and layoffs were necessary. Their workforce of 8000+ is now ~1200 and only now are the becoming profitable again.

ebbv 10y ago
You can choose to believe that narrative, but I think that's what the Hostess executives fed to the media. I believe they deliberately negotiated in bad faith with the goal of declaring bankruptcy and restructuring. Some layoffs may have been necessary, but given how much profit they are making now I'm not sure I believe that all 6800 were. Plus, we aren't given details about how were these layoffs distributed? Were they all at the labor level or was anyone from corporate laid off? Did any executives take pay cuts? Are they all getting bonuses now? How much do they stand to profit from the upcoming public offering? My point being; the media was fed a narrative about the union being unreasonable and the bankruptcy and layoffs being "unavoidable" and they eat it up uncritically, and then the public does too. I don't think it's that simple. Unions are human institutions and like any human institution they can have issues, but they have served an important purpose in this country in creating the middle class. It is no coincidence that over the last 40 years unions have been systematically undermined, busted and halted everywhere and at the same time middle class wages have stagnated, with benefits that could have been expected at a middle class job in the 60s now being basically unheard of at a middle class job today.
- seibelj 10y ago
  What is your calculation for the proper amount of workers at the Twinkie factory? Modern technology allowed 1200 to do the work of 8000. How many workers would you mandate work at the Twinkie factory in your ideal vision of the world?