Unions kill the twinkie?

[Steve]

So,
year 1 : -8%
Year 2 : +3%
3: +3%
4: +3%
5: +1%
====
Net gain +2%


Well, what they got is this:



and


Oh, and for their suppliers, who are also going to get hosed, who will have to deal with this, and who may end up cutting jobs to keep afloat:

This presumes the company was bargaining in good faith. They had already cleaned out the pensions and written off those debts under the bankruptcy, as well as cuts in pay with promises to increase pay in years to come, so the employees had heard promises like this before. My sense is that this was another in a series of cuts with promises to make it all good at some later date.

 

[Xue Sheng]

It was just a stall tactic so they execs could give themselves another 80% raise, bleed the company dry, and blame the Unions next year :uhyeah:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It was just a stall tactic so they execs could give themselves another 80% raise, bleed the company dry, and blame the Unions next year :uhyeah:

I was going to say how do they do that when the company no longer exists and no one, including the executives, have a job?

However, new information:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/1...idation-on-hold-orders-talks/?intcmp=trending

Judge puts Hostess liquidation on hold, orders talks
The liquidation of Hostess has been put on hold after a federal judge ordered the company and union officials to come back to the table for more talks, Fox Business Network reported.

The union that brought the 85-year-old baker of Twinkies and Wonder Bread to its knees was holding out hope that a buyer will salvage chunks of the company and send the union's members back to work, even as Hostess Brands Inc. had geared up for a fire sale.
...

I don't know what is going to happen next, but I do not understand logic that insists that people are somehow going to keep getting big executive bonuses AFTER the company is out of business. Gone is gone. No jobs is no jobs. For anyone. Where would they get money to give executives money if they don't make or sell any product?

 

[Steve]

I was going to say how do they do that when the company no longer exists and no one, including the executives, have a job?

However, new information:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/1...idation-on-hold-orders-talks/?intcmp=trending



I don't know what is going to happen next, but I do not understand logic that insists that people are somehow going to keep getting big executive bonuses AFTER the company is out of business. Gone is gone. No jobs is no jobs. For anyone. Where would they get money to give executives money if they don't make or sell any product?

The execs will use their money and their resumes to gain positions of leadership in another company and repeat the cycle. It's a completely different paradigm.

We presume, as most rational people would, that the goal is to create a healthy, prosperous company. That is not the goal of the corporate prospectors. Like a traditional prospector, they are mining the company for what value it can offer, and when the lode is mined out, the company is abandoned. That's the business model. It's more akin to termites eating the foundation out of one house after the next until the entire neighborhood is gone.

 

[Sukerkin]

How do you build a reputation for success as a high-level executive? It is so easy and so dumb it beggars belief ...

... you take the position at a struggling company with the remit to return that company to profitability. So you wield the corporate axe, sack a lot of talented and loyal people to reduce costs and, et voila, a balance sheet in the black for a year or so. You take your bonus and leave and the next year the company folds as they no longer have the staff with the talent and knowledge to produce whatever it is they are supposed to be doing.

Repeat that enough times, especially with multi-national corporation zombies to gobble up the remains to falsify their accounts 'health' and pretty soon you have an eviscerated economy with a huge under-class and a tiny over-class who hold nearly all of the money ... oh wait ... why does that sound familiar?

It should be illegal and executives should be held accountable but they do not play by the same rules as a working man. If there is not another manufactured large scale war soon to distract everyone then civil dissolution is on the horizon.

 

[arnisador]

No unemployment for strikers? I'm OK with this--they made the choice--but that is harsh news for them.

 

[WC_lun]

Strikers do not get unemployment from the state. You can only get that if you have been fired or laid off, you don't get it for not showing up for work. The unemployment strikers get are paid by the union itself.

 

[arnisador]

[h=1]Hostess, Bakers Union Agree to Mediation [/h]

Seeking to save more than 18,000 jobs, a bankruptcy judge surprised Hostess Brands Inc. and its warring union Monday by delaying the company's bid to close its 85-year-old bakery business and sell off its factories, brands and other assets.




Instead, Judge Robert Drain asked both sides to join him Tuesday for a mediation session where he will try to broker a new contract. If Tuesday's long-shot session fails, then the company will be able to return to court Wednesday to try to move ahead with its plans to close down.

 

[shesulsa]

Strikers do not get unemployment from the state. You can only get that if you have been fired or laid off, you don't get it for not showing up for work. The unemployment strikers get are paid by the union itself.

Strikers get pay? My old man's never been on a strike, but I've never heard of this.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

 

[arnisador]

Strikers get pay? My old man's never been on a strike, but I've never heard of this.

My father used to get part of his salary from the Teamsters' strike fund while on strike.

Not being eligible for (govt.) unemployment pay has to weigh on their minds when they are in a case like this, though!

 

[WC_lun]

Shesulsa, it depends upon the union contract with thier members. A lot of unions do partly subsidize thier members' pay during a strike. However, the state pays no money to anyone just not showing up for work, as is the state's view of those striking.

 

[Sukerkin]

Some American unions don't pay their members strike pay?!

That is one of the reasons for having a union in the first place - so that you have the option of withdrawing your labour to pressure management into reconsidering some action or decision taken that adversely affects the workers (whilst usually benefiting themselves). Over here it is not a legal requirement that unions pay their members when on strike but the government operates on the assumption that they do (and so they do not get any state benefits whilst on strike).

Unions funds are usually quite limited of course, which is why in the protracted miners strikes of the 80's, people like myself would contribute to various funds to help the miners families out. I am guessing that doesn't happen in America from comments I read here on these pages?

 

[cdunn]

I don't know what is going to happen next, but I do not understand logic that insists that people are somehow going to keep getting big executive bonuses AFTER the company is out of business. Gone is gone. No jobs is no jobs. For anyone. Where would they get money to give executives money if they don't make or sell any product?

Dunno, but it's the pattern. They filed with the bankruptcy judge to pay themselves an additional 1.75 million for the work of shutting the company down, instead of doing it at the rates they agreed to get paid. There is income from the sale of the company, and there probably is a reserve from when the vultures took out the mortgage on the company and failed to invest in it.

 

[crushing]

Pabst Blue Ribbon is looking at buying them.

If the PBR deals goes through, they should add bacon and cheese to their portfolio and then they would have the four basic food groups covered!

 

[crushing]

"But in truth there are no black hats or white knights in this tale. It’s about shades of gray, where obstinacy, miscalculation, and lousy luck connived to create corporate catastrophe."

http://dailynewsfinder.com/2012/11/...ly-didnt-know-about-the-hostess-brands-story/

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Dunno, but it's the pattern. They filed with the bankruptcy judge to pay themselves an additional 1.75 million for the work of shutting the company down, instead of doing it at the rates they agreed to get paid. There is income from the sale of the company, and there probably is a reserve from when the vultures took out the mortgage on the company and failed to invest in it.

And then it is over. I fail to understand why you think the executives will continue to draw salaries after the company is shut down. I get that you're hostile to business and hate executives. That's very clear. I'm sure you think companies run themselves somehow and executives are unnecessary. How you think they'll magic themselves paychecks after the company no longer exists is beyond me. Hatred like that, I guess, defies logic.

 

[Sukerkin]

Executives are, in large part, unnecessary. Bill.

Might be different in the States but over here, other than for small companies, it's just Jobs for the Boys - positions assigned according to your birth rather than your worth.

The workers produce the wealth, the middle-management do the organisational work and the CEO's skim the cream onto their plate. They're supposed to steer the company and design strategies to improve performance but, time and again, it has been proven that it does not matter who is in the top seats, company performance is the same. When salaries were limited by convention to a certain multiple of the workers wages it wasn't so bad - now the Fat Cats take millions for doing sweet FA other than firing people now and again as a short term mask for the bad performance of the balance sheet.

Until that changes, Executives earn no respect from me for they are just well dressed thieves.

 

[granfire]

And then it is over. I fail to understand why you think the executives will continue to draw salaries after the company is shut down. I get that you're hostile to business and hate executives. That's very clear. I'm sure you think companies run themselves somehow and executives are unnecessary. How you think they'll magic themselves paychecks after the company no longer exists is beyond me. Hatred like that, I guess, defies logic.

After the corps has been picked clean, they will move on, I am sure after receiving their severance pay out of the bankruptcy assets...

hating management, executives and business?
You hvae to admit that the bad apples are making way too many headlines, and it has not gotten any better!
There is absolutely no accountability in the ranks of top management, they keep their million dollar mansions, boats and luxury cars after the company went belly up, after they pillaged resources and the financial assets and - last but not least - the financial security of the workers, like their retirement funds.
If that does not get your blood boiling, I don't get it.
You are giving these people Card Blanche to rob people who can ill afford to lose a dime!

At least here in Alabama they sold off the play toys of one executive after he was found guilty of running his company in the ground. A drop in the bucket considering the money he squandered, but why do you think it is OK to steal retirement savings and keep your shirt (or freedom for hat matter).

it really puzzles me.

When the company is struggling, the last thing management should do is to agree on raises for those who already make the lion's share of the money. (80% in that pay range is not exactly pocket change)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

After the corps has been picked clean, they will move on, I am sure after receiving their severance pay out of the bankruptcy assets...

hating management, executives and business?
You hvae to admit that the bad apples are making way too many headlines, and it has not gotten any better!
There is absolutely no accountability in the ranks of top management, they keep their million dollar mansions, boats and luxury cars after the company went belly up, after they pillaged resources and the financial assets and - last but not least - the financial security of the workers, like their retirement funds.
If that does not get your blood boiling, I don't get it.
You are giving these people Card Blanche to rob people who can ill afford to lose a dime!

At least here in Alabama they sold off the play toys of one executive after he was found guilty of running his company in the ground. A drop in the bucket considering the money he squandered, but why do you think it is OK to steal retirement savings and keep your shirt (or freedom for hat matter).

it really puzzles me.

When the company is struggling, the last thing management should do is to agree on raises for those who already make the lion's share of the money. (80% in that pay range is not exactly pocket change)

Your hatred is palpable. It's really distasteful.

 

[Tgace]

Where is the "success threshold" where all my hard work, personal investment and sacrifice to start a business turns into my being hated because I make too much?

When did the American dream of working hard to be a business success...making computers in my garage and then become a billionaire...become a punishable offense?

How successful do you have to become to reach the point where your employees have the power to destroy everything you worked to build up?