Tommy Boy worked for two companies (union shops) that told their workers the same thing: take concessions or we are going to have to close the plant. In each case, the unions said, "You're liars!!" In both cases, the plants closed. On the second one, Tom believed them and tried to talk to other workers. They'd have none of it. Their union said, "Strike!" They struck. The company closed three or four months later. Pensions taken over by the PBGC, retiree healthcare lost . . . what a tragedy.
These workers are foolish, in my opinion. Their unions should be working with the company, not against it.
I think these companies run into the very same thing my small company ran into. As employees stayed with my company longer and longer, their raises finally priced them out of the job they held. After a year, an employee doing a rote job is pretty well trained. After 20 years, why should he be making three times what I can hire a new person for?
Should we really be rewarding longevity alone? Does that make economic sense to you?
I think these companies run into the very same thing my small company ran into. As employees stayed with my company longer and longer, their raises finally priced them out of the job they held. After a year, an employee doing a rote job is pretty well trained. After 20 years, why should he be making three times what I can hire a new person for?
Should we really be rewarding longevity alone? Does that make economic sense to you?
Neither does the fact that Hostess has been put through bankrupcty a few times before in just the recent past. What has management done during the last period, how much if any money did the PE funds take out of Hostess, how did they get a $700 million dollar loan without fixing the problems the last time they went bankrupt. I would not be suprised if alot of money was paid out to the investors
In July, 2012, the New York Post reported that negotiations (lead by Silver Point Capital) with the Teamsters Union were close to a possible agreement that could allow Hostess Brands to cut employee pay and benefits, if the company maintained funding of existing pension plans. In May, all 19,000 workers had been warned (as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) that they could face a mass layoff. In an email to the Appeal-Democrat Hostess spokesman Erik Halvorson said that the May notices were to alert employees to possible sale or wind down of the company, but that "our goal is still to emerge from bankruptcy as a growing company with a strong future." These layoff notices listed the dates as July 7-21, but on July 5 another company spokesman told the Financial News & Daily Record that there were no immediate plans to start laying off Hostess employees.[17] In November 2012, Hostess employees nationwide went on strike. The Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers International union, which represents 6,600 Hostess employees, took the strike action after the latest contract proposal from Hostess Brands was rejected by 92 percent of its members. In response, Hostess Brands issued the following statement:"A widespread strike will cause Hostess brands to liquidate if we are unable to produce or deliver products. If that's the case, the company will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,300-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders. We urge our employees to remain on the job to rebuild the company.
I don't know the details and neither do any of us. But what we do know is that the union recommended a strike that is more than likely going to put this company out of business.
As LowDown says above, the complete adversarial relationship has got to stop. Hostess financials are public record. Their bankruptcy proceedings are public record. The union recommended a strike. Was that the wise move? Time will tell, I guess:
I predict that riotous mayhem will ensue if Americans no longer have access to Twinkies. We may even have a nuclear holocaust.
Sorry - but they've done little to prevent the inevitable over all these years.
They have seen the entire health of the nation shift.
Everyone has taken on new and different snack options.
And they responded by doing what - nothing.
They have had the same snacks and breads . . . they've done little to change with society's interests and preferences.
Change - is essential to keep a business going.
And you know - Twinkies are the only thing they make that I eat - I don't like any of their breads and I don't need ding dongs and hohos (which are just disgusting). Everyone got fat - went on a carb-free diet - or went to fresh fruits and veggies - and abandoned a lot of breaded goods in general . . . and they did what exactly?
They should have slowly shut down and reorganized their business structure over the last 10 years as people became more and more health-conscientious.
Just this one plant closed - this one production facility . . . because everyone went on strike and no one was working.
They have numerous other places still making them.
They are going to liquidate the entire company Nov 20th if the strike doesn't end.
The three closings seem to be a show of how serious they are about the liquidation.
The Union has to suck it up or lose their jobs at this point. Hostess won the right to cut wages in bankruptcy court. That's quite a bit different than the big bad corporation screwing it's employees for the sake of profits.
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?