- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Hostess threatens to lay off 18,000 employees unless strike ends
TULSA - Hostess Brands, Inc. is telling its 18,000 workers to either get back to work by 5 p.m. Thursday or face unemployment.
In a statement found on the company's website , Hostess threatened to "liquidate the entire company if enough striking employees do not return to work" by the given time.
“We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike,” said Gregory F. Rayburn, the Company’s Chairman and CEO.
This isn't good... I guess the question for the union workers is:
Is a job with a cut in pay, better than no job at all?
Read more: Hostess announces possible liquidation
"Suck it, Big Boss Man, Obama won!!!"....oops
On the plus side, whoever buys Hostess will likely make them cheaper to reinsert the brand into the market......I better stock up on Ding Dongs though......
I think if you went out and asked individuals who have lost their jobs and are still unemployed that many of them would say a pay cut would be better than no job at all.....I don't know what kind of wages these people have but I'm sure if they are union it is more than minimum wage or an unemployment check.
And this is why unions exist. So that those who have money and power cannot exercise that power over everyone else with impunity.
And this is why unions exist. So that those who have money and power cannot exercise that power over everyone else with impunity.
Hostess is in CH 11 right now and these cuts are part of that agreement. If they don't get these cuts then they can't complete the reorganization which only leaves the option of liquidation. The union is cutting off their nose despite their face but, frankly, it's the free market at work and I'm all for letting them reap the results of what they have sown.
The company has made it clear, that there is nobody waiting in the wings to buy them, nor anyone even offering to do so.
But market analyst believe there will be several people interested in buying their brands. I don't care who makes them, just as long as their goodness returns to the marketplace. The employees get what they deserve trying to hold an already bankrupt company Hostage.
It's not just that 18,000 jobs will be lost, but that 18,000 more people will be going on the government dole and collecting up to 99 weeks of public money to support them, when these people voluntarily pissed away a decent paying job.
But market analyst believe there will be several people interested in buying their brands. I don't care who makes them, just as long as their goodness returns to the marketplace. The employees get what they deserve trying to hold an already bankrupt company Hostage.
This isn't good... I guess the question for the union workers is:
Is a job with a cut in pay, better than no job at all?
Read more: Hostess announces possible liquidation
Hostess to Liquidate if Strikes Impede Normal Operations Past 5 p.m., EST, Thursday
November 14, 2012
Irving, TX – November 14, 2012 – Hostess Brands Inc. announced today that it will file a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on Friday to liquidate the entire Company if enough striking employees do not return to work by 5 p.m., EST, Thursday to enable the Company to resume normal operations. The strikes were called on November 9 by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union (BCTGM).
“We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike,” said Gregory F. Rayburn, the Company’s Chairman and CEO. “Therefore, if sufficient employees do not return to work by 5 p.m., EST, on Thursday to restore normal operations, we will be forced to immediately move to liquidate the entire Company, which will result in the loss of nearly 18,000 jobs. It is now up to Hostess’ BCTGM represented employees and Frank Hurt, their international president, to decide if they want to call off the strike and save this Company, or cause massive financial harm to thousands of employees and their families.”
Who's going to buy them? The "Twinkie" may well be an American icon but it's also a relic of the days when sugary globs of fat were all the rage. In today's market you have to have something "healthy" in your lineup or you're done. Besides, as we move more and more toward a single payer health care system the likelihood of the product simply being banned becomes more and more realistic.
If anything, the dissolution of Hostess will open up some C-Store shelf space for regionally produced treats.
What I'd like to know is what kind of cuts the executives are facing. Is the idea of shared sacrifice dead in America, or is it all a "we win, you lose" mentality?
I'd certainly be suspect if there's still executives up the wazoo raking it in and asking the workers to take the cuts. For example, does the CEO's secretary have a secretary? You can laugh if you want, but trust me this sort of **** happens. Then they blame their own mismanagement on the employees. Union or not.
What I'd like to know is what kind of cuts the executives are facing. Is the idea of shared sacrifice dead in America, or is it all a "we win, you lose" mentality?
I'd certainly be suspect if there's still executives up the wazoo raking it in and asking the workers to take the cuts. For example, does the CEO's secretary have a secretary? You can laugh if you want, but trust me this sort of **** happens. Then they blame their own mismanagement on the employees. Union or not.
From their website:
What kind of union plays this kind of chicken with their employees' jobs? The article went on to say that they will file a motion tomorrow to liquidate, hopefully get it approved by Monday and shut down on Tuesday.
Whose interests are being served here? Whose? One might say "the union's." But they lose 7,000 dues-paying members.
Why should the Hostess executives take pay cuts? You don't see other executives taking pay cuts.
Last July, the court documents said, the compensation committee of Hostess's board approved an increase in then-chief executive Brian Driscoll's salary from to $2.55 million from around $750,000. The company had hired restructuring lawyers in March 2011, the creditors said, and filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 11.
Mr. Driscoll is no longer with the company and wasn't reached for comment.
Why in the hell would they strike under those conditions, especially if they want to keep their jobs? It strikes me as insanity.
What I'd like to know is what kind of cuts the executives are facing. Is the idea of shared sacrifice dead in America, or is it all a "we win, you lose" mentality?
I'd certainly be suspect if there's still executives up the wazoo raking it in and asking the workers to take the cuts. For example, does the CEO's secretary have a secretary? You can laugh if you want, but trust me this sort of **** happens. Then they blame their own mismanagement on the employees. Union or not.
Why is it always about what the other guy makes, rather than what you make?
My mother always taught me that what other people have is none of my business, and to just worry about myself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?