What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

No more Twinkies????

Re: No more Twinkies????

Priceless said:
The [sic] union already agreed to concessions up the wazoo and the company still cratered. Exactly how much do you think workers should give up? Should they work for free? For minimum wage? How much is enough for management?
Click to expand...

um, which union do you mean by "the"?

There are two unions involved. The Bakers' Union made it clear ("in multiple public filings") that they see the problem for Hostess to solve is one of distribution costs and restrictions, not their own wages and benefits. Management also made it clear ("in multiple public filings") that the Hostess' brands would be profitable under the existing Bakers' Union contracts if they were able to devote resources to marketing and sales, provided that they could use modern delivery techniques.

So the Bakers' Union and management both agree that the brands could be profitable for BOTH of them if the distribution problem could be solved. It's been widely reported in many media sources that the Teamsters' contract forbids drivers from helping load trucks, for example; and the Teamsters' contract places severe restrictions on how products can be delivered (I read somewhere that Twinkies and Cupcakes had to be delivered to the same stores on different trucks, for example).

The Bakers' Union and management both agree that, once unshackled from these onerous restrictions, they'd both be far better off. The Bakers' Union would be just fine under a different distribution system; management would be just fine under a different distribution system. The only solution available to both of them is to sell off Hostess' divisions to other buyers who then could use their own distribution systems or outsource distribution entirely. it doesn't matter which newspaper you cite, they all tell the same story.

It makes much better sense for the Bakers' Union to want the company broken up and sold for parts, as long as (a) the existing Bakers' Union contracts are honored, and (b) the buyers are able to use a different distribution system.

You seem to have completely overlooked the fact that the investors are going to lose money (again, widely reported in multiple media sources).

it sounds like you have a narrative to push, despite all the inconvenient facts to the contrary.

I find it much more interesting to let the story tell itself: one union's well-being is threatened by another union's stranglehold.
 
Last edited:
Re: No more Twinkies????

We're crying over spilt milk. Hostess is in its death agony and awaiting somebody to call it.

It's nobody's fault. It's everyone's fault. A lot of people are now unemployed.
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

joecct said:
We're crying over spilt milk. Hostess is in its death agony and awaiting somebody to call it.

It's nobody's fault. It's everyone's fault. A lot of people are now unemployed.
Click to expand...

think of it (Hostess) as an organ donor. All its brands will live on. the Bakers will all be employed. many of the office personnel will remain employed and merely get their paychecks from the new owners. only the Teamsters will be losers, long-term; and that's just how capitalism works. The Teamsters' contract is an artifact of delivery by horse-drawn wagon. We now have modern logistics.

None of us lament the demise of typewriter manufacturers, do we?
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

Priceless said:
So $4.6M would solve their problems? And how much did the executives drain out of the company?
Click to expand...
What $4.6M? By my calculation that wage reduction would be approximately $57M - I even wrote out the math for you. 18,000 bakers * 2000 hours per year * $1.60 per hour = $57.6M.

Their word is as solid as the creme filling of a Twinkee. They have promised numerous times that if the union just gave them a little more the company would be fine. So, how much would it be next year? Oh, and that money that's due in the retirement fund? I suppose we just write that off?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess you must be right. They've probably been lying on all their SEC filings and annual reports going all the way back to 1991 when they first became a public company. They've probably never been audited by a reputable accounting firm. The company was probably fine, making money hand over fist, and they should have just given the workers everything they asked for and free ponies, too. They probably completely snowed every bankruptcy court they've ever been to, including the most recent one who agreed that the company was in so much trouble that it was best for them to discontinue their operations rather than try to find a trustee to manage the company. :rolleyes:
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

LynahFan said:
What $4.6M? By my calculation that wage reduction would be approximately $57M - I even wrote out the math for you. 18,000 bakers * 2000 hours per year * $1.60 per hour = $57.6M.
Click to expand...
My mistake. Didn't notice you had put the math you meant in a different post.

Yeah, I guess you must be right. They've probably been lying on all their SEC filings and annual reports going all the way back to 1991 when they first became a public company. They've probably never been audited by a reputable accounting firm. The company was probably fine, making money hand over fist, and they should have just given the workers everything they asked for and free ponies, too. They probably completely snowed every bankruptcy court they've ever been to, including the most recent one who agreed that the company was in so much trouble that it was best for them to discontinue their operations rather than try to find a trustee to manage the company. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, they lied to the union when they told them the concessions they gave up last time around would fix the problem. That doesn't bother you at all? The $160M that never made it to the retirement account doesn't bother you? If your employer did that to your retirement account I'm sure you'd just chalk it up to a rounding error and laugh it off.

The Bakers' union is willing to swallow more concessions (and kiss benefits good bye) but the Teamsters aren't willing to take more concessions. Maybe if the company had been more honest when they had hired the workers they wouldn't have this problem. Maybe if they had been more honest the last time they wanted concessions it might have helped. No, that can't be it. It must be all the fault of the greedy employees and their demands for actual wages and benefits.
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

Priceless said:
It must be all the fault of ....
Click to expand...

Maybe it's not anyone's "fault"? sometimes things happen outside of any one person's control. technological change has disrupted many industries before and will continue to do so. you're not sitting at your desk pounding away on an Underwood on a mimeograph template that you'll attach to a spinning drum full of ink and then sticking up flyers on lampposts all over town, are you?
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

Priceless said:
My mistake. Didn't notice you had put the math you meant in a different post.


No, they lied to the union when they told them the concessions they gave up last time around would fix the problem. That doesn't bother you at all? The $160M that never made it to the retirement account doesn't bother you? If your employer did that to your retirement account I'm sure you'd just chalk it up to a rounding error and laugh it off.

The Bakers' union is willing to swallow more concessions (and kiss benefits good bye) but the Teamsters aren't willing to take more concessions. Maybe if the company had been more honest when they had hired the workers they wouldn't have this problem. Maybe if they had been more honest the last time they wanted concessions it might have helped. No, that can't be it. It must be all the fault of the greedy employees and their demands for actual wages and benefits.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that a person is going to be able to retire based upon the existence of a company match?! :rolleyes:
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

FreshFish said:
Maybe it's not anyone's "fault"? sometimes things happen outside of any one person's control. technological change has disrupted many industries before and will continue to do so. you're not sitting at your desk pounding away on an Underwood on a mimeograph template that you'll attach to a spinning drum full of ink and then sticking up flyers on lampposts all over town, are you?
Click to expand...

Captain Fingerpoint is in full force, though. It doesn't matter to find a solution, it only matters who to blame.
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

FreshFish said:
Maybe it's not anyone's "fault"? sometimes things happen outside of any one person's control. technological change has disrupted many industries before and will continue to do so. you're not sitting at your desk pounding away on an Underwood on a mimeograph template that you'll attach to a spinning drum full of ink and then sticking up flyers on lampposts all over town, are you?
Click to expand...

Quite simply, the ownership and the labor could not agree to a value where continuing things was worth it for either of them. Given that, it is within both sides' rights to walk away from the company and go elsewhere, which is what both sides ultimately choose.
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

French Rage said:
Quite simply, the ownership and the labor could not agree to a value where continuing things was worth it for either of them. Given that, it is within both sides' rights to walk away from the company and go elsewhere, which is what both sides ultimately choose.
Click to expand...

But what about the union working damsals in distress? :p
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

FlagDUDE08 said:
So you're saying that a person is going to be able to retire based upon the existence of a company match?! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying... :confused:


I would agree that this is is a problem where everyone shares a bit of the blame for the failure of the company. My argument has been that just to point at the Teamsters and say, "It's all their fault!" (which is what certain people in this thread were doing) does not pass muster. I fail to see where this is a case of technological change impacting a company. We're talking about a dessert/snack cake here...people still want snack cakes. It's not like the market evolved and as a society we no longer want sponge cake with creamy filling. It was a company that went through management teams like they were going out of style and burned cash like an internet startup.
 
Re: No more Twinkies????

Priceless said:
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying... :confused:


I would agree that this is is a problem where everyone shares a bit of the blame for the failure of the company. My argument has been that just to point at the Teamsters and say, "It's all their fault!" (which is what certain people in this thread were doing) does not pass muster. I fail to see where this is a case of technological change impacting a company. We're talking about a dessert/snack cake here...people still want snack cakes. It's not like the market evolved and as a society we no longer want sponge cake with creamy filling. It was a company that went through management teams like they were going out of style and burned cash like an internet startup.
Click to expand...

So the union people were fine and it's all the handcuffed CEO's fault... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top