4 ms·

Wow, 18,500 employees let go. I wonder whether or not the unions think that they made the right decision. I can't imagine it's currently easy to find a job as a

by Permit 14y ago

Wow, 18,500 employees let go. I wonder whether or not the unions think that they made the right decision. I can't imagine it's currently easy to find a job as a baker.

traeblain 14y ago
I agree, the quote: > It was an untenable proposal for our people I figure unemployment would be untenable. After spending the past 6-8 months hearing about jobs from the election coverage, stuff like this just bugs me.
- onetwothreefour 14y ago
  What you're saying is people should work because... they should work, regardless of pay, conditions, etc. People have choices. Clearly, the reasons are far more nuanced than what you're going to get from an article. This company has gone through bankruptcy twice before.
bradleyland 14y ago
It depends. It's unlikely that the entirety of Hostess' operation will go unpurchased. In a sell off of the assets, the matter of outstanding debt will be washed away. It may drive the sellers to hold out for a higher price, but by an large, the Hostess brands and capital assets will be separated from their debts. This gives any new owner a more flexible negotiating position from which to bring the workforce back in to the fold. Then again, there's no guarantee that the unions will be welcome at the table. A new buyer may choose to use existing capacity to add Hostess brands to their existing product lines. No one really knows until it shakes out. To more directly answer your question, I think it's hard to see this scenario as a "success" for the unions. The only clear positive outcome is that they set a precident of non-capitulation. In any future negotiations, the counterparty will have to acknowledge that this is a group who is willing to see an action through to the very end. Then again, this may lock them out of future relationships. Uncertainty abounds.

4 ms·

Wow, 18,500 employees let go. I wonder whether or not the unions think that they made the right decision. I can't imagine it's currently easy to find a job as a

by Permit 14y ago

Wow, 18,500 employees let go. I wonder whether or not the unions think that they made the right decision. I can't imagine it's currently easy to find a job as a baker.

traeblain 14y ago
I agree, the quote: > It was an untenable proposal for our people I figure unemployment would be untenable. After spending the past 6-8 months hearing about jobs from the election coverage, stuff like this just bugs me.
- onetwothreefour 14y ago
  What you're saying is people should work because... they should work, regardless of pay, conditions, etc. People have choices. Clearly, the reasons are far more nuanced than what you're going to get from an article. This company has gone through bankruptcy twice before.
bradleyland 14y ago
It depends. It's unlikely that the entirety of Hostess' operation will go unpurchased. In a sell off of the assets, the matter of outstanding debt will be washed away. It may drive the sellers to hold out for a higher price, but by an large, the Hostess brands and capital assets will be separated from their debts. This gives any new owner a more flexible negotiating position from which to bring the workforce back in to the fold. Then again, there's no guarantee that the unions will be welcome at the table. A new buyer may choose to use existing capacity to add Hostess brands to their existing product lines. No one really knows until it shakes out. To more directly answer your question, I think it's hard to see this scenario as a "success" for the unions. The only clear positive outcome is that they set a precident of non-capitulation. In any future negotiations, the counterparty will have to acknowledge that this is a group who is willing to see an action through to the very end. Then again, this may lock them out of future relationships. Uncertainty abounds.