That depends on whether or not you believe the Union line of hoping the new owners, after liquidation, would provide better contracts/benefits. As that is why they say they would not agree to the current proposal.I really don't think the union acted in the best interests of those members.
T
Your sad little tirade is quite typical of you, so full of fury and so lacking in substance. Its borderline baiting with the stereotyping and the trained animal reference. Your mistake is thinking you are being rational, you are rationalizing your behavior and can't find the difference.
Start with the title of the thread…
Why? You don't...
Oh, I'm not saying management didn't do totally unethical things. But for the union to recommend that their members strike the company out of business (if that is, in fact, what happens....and they aren't given another opportunity to change their minds), I just don't think that was the right advice. Do you?
It's my understanding they'd seen the books. They knew the bankruptcy judge had agreed with the imposition of an altered contract. They'd been offered the same as the Teamster's -- a 25% interest in the company -- and, if I recall, the company was willing to sign a promissary note for $X millions.
I really don't think the union acted in the best interests of those members. If they should get another chance (which, I think, could happen), and they turn it down -- no sympathy from me. But I think the union convinced them the company was bluffing. And I don't think that was in their best interests at all.
Now that was not very nice.
What is sad is your personal attack upon me.
You are new here. Allow me to illuminate the darkness for you: Pavlov's bell has rung and the creatures of the right which hate unions as a matter of knee jerk reflex have salivated and attacked as a matter of course. The details do not matter. the facts do not matter. Reality does not matter.
The only thing that matters is that is is a chance for the warriors of the right to bash unions.
In a week or two or three it will be something else that fuels the rabid anti-union fires. The people defending Hostess here do NOT give a damn about the company, their employees or their products. It is merely an excuse to continue their war on unions.
A corporation isn't a charity. Its about money.
Dont launch broadside personal attacks against union critics then whine when you are called irrational.
This passive agressive crap you keep playing is really getting old.
Just playing the devil's advocate here because I think that most modern unions blow, but from the labor perspective -- big picture -- you don't have much bargaining power if you demonstrate 100% of the time that you will cave in and accept management's demands.
They would tell us when a grievance had real merit.
That's what's gone today, I think. Adversarial 125% of the time. And that's why most people think they're ***holes.
And employees dont work for free either.
How does making a personal attack against me negate the vitriolic attacks made against unions in this thread?
Before you cry your little head off about a personal attack, go back and examine everything I said--I am attacking your behavior and posting habits. YOU can end the criticism by being a better poster---stop doing stupid **** and Ill stop calling you out for it.
And employees dont work for free either.
How does you making repeated personal attacks upon me provide any intelligent substitute for a lack of any evidence or foundation for you failing to refute the actual views I presented in my posts?
Originally Posted by haymarket
You are new here. Allow me to illuminate the darkness for you: Pavlov's bell has rung and the creatures of the right which hate unions as a matter of knee jerk reflex have salivated and attacked as a matter of course. The details do not matter. the facts do not matter. Reality does not matter.
The only thing that matters is that is is a chance for the warriors of the right to bash unions.
In a week or two or three it will be something else that fuels the rabid anti-union fires. The people defending Hostess here do NOT give a damn about the company, their employees or their products. It is merely an excuse to continue their war on unions.
Maybe because your view, is in fact, a wide based personal attack. You begin providing an intelligent rejoinder and Ill provide you with an intilligent response.
Dont launch your own attacks and then call the waaaahmbulance when I put on a helmet and start playing hardball.
Reminder for everyone about the post that has Haymarket claiming Im attacking him:
Hostess was going under, regardless. After all that has come out about the venture capitalists that Mafia-style busted-out that company, it's amazing to see any rational, well-informed person is still pushing the Union meme.
Translation: They would have earned more than $1 for a years work.
While at the same time, demand that their employees take a pay cut and a wage freeze which would take years to get back to where they were.
How many years is it going to take the idiots now?
How many years is it going to take the large amount of individuals willing to accept the court suggested, to my understanding, cut thanks to the idiots who caused them to lose their jobs due to their stubbornness to take any cut?
Somehow, I think it'll take longer than it would've with the pay cut.
How many years is it going to take the idiots now?
How many years is it going to take the large amount of individuals willing to accept the court suggested, to my understanding, cut thanks to the idiots who caused them to lose their jobs due to their stubbornness to take any cut?
Somehow, I think it'll take longer than it would've with the pay cut.
Those fortuities aggravated Hostess's two root problems -- a highly leveraged capital structure that had little margin of safety, and high labor costs. Neither problem was adequately addressed in the first bankruptcy, and neither existed to the same degree in major competitors like Bimbo and Flowers Food (owner of such brands as Nature's Own and Tastykake). On exiting the first bankruptcy, Hostess's total debt load was nearly $670 million. That was well above what it went into bankruptcy with in the first place -- an unusual circumstance that the company justified on expectations of "growing" into its capital structure
The Hostess Liquidation: A Curious Cast Of Characters As The Twinkie Tumbles | ZeroHedge
A long but good read on how Hostess got to where it is today
Here is the answer from the horse's mouth, eloquently.
Daily Kos: Inside the Hostess Bankery
"What was this last/best/final offer? You'd never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go...
1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.
Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in 5 years if I took their offer.
It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.
That $3+ per hour they steal totaled $50 million last year that they never paid us. They sold $2.5 BILLION in product last year. If they can't make this profitable without stealing my money then good riddance."
The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.
Interesting that this guy didn't mention that they were also going to get a 25% stake in the company...just like the Teamster's got and two union representatives on the eight-member board of Directors.
Now, who's right here because this link says this employee's understanding of the wage agreement is totally incorrect:
I suspect the link is correct, and the employee is wrong.
Hostess Brands closing for good due to bakers strike - Nov. 16, 2012
Edit: Combine this information with the fact that the Teamsters negotiated their own contract down and recommended the bakers union accept the concessions, and I suspect the workers were poorly informed. Who is more supportive of unions than Teamsters?
Teamsters: Bakery Workers Should Hold Secret Ballot Vote at Hostess | International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
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?