Slashdot Mirror
Hostess To Close; No More Twinkies
RenderSeven writes "In a press release issued today, baker Hostess Brands asked a bankruptcy court for permission to close all of its plants and sell off their assets, immediately laying off 18,500 workers. Citing high labor and rising health care costs, increasing competition and growing consumer awareness of healthy foods, Hostess says it can no longer operate without union concessions. A crippling strike has already shut down operations at all facilities, and while the Teamsters Union has ratified a new contract to keep Hostess in business, the Bakers Union has refused saying they would rather see the company closed than accept pension cuts. The Teamsters union is urging the bakers union to hold a secret ballot on whether to continue striking; citing its financial experts who had access to the company's books, the Teamsters say that Hostess' warning of liquidation is 'not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic' but a certain outcome if workers keep striking. If your late-night programming is fueled by Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Zingers, better stock up now."
[Editor's note: A whole bunch of users submitted this news. I worry about our readership's cholesterol levels.]
Tallahassee said to be inconsolable.
s/[stupid comments]/[intelligent discourse]/gi
Or bail them out?
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Talk about unexpected events! I would expect the investment to be rolling in with the recent wins for pot legalization. I mean, isn't that the old joke? If pot were ever legalized, Hostess would clean up?
What will the people of colorado do?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Not.
I wonder what these idiots were thinking.
I am certain someone will pick up the assets and consumers will still get their food products.
Twinkies are already pretty valuable in the post apocalyptic world.
Now they're rare too? Who needs gold when you got a twinkie warehouse!
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Bimbo Bakery, a 10 billion dollar Mexican multinational conglomerate baking company, is looking to purchase them (for the second time.) in fact, Bimbo could have easily purchased the entire thing while hostess was on the ropes, as hostess is only worth 2.7 billion in revenue, but hostess (headquartered in texas) declined to do so.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Little Debbie better watch out. She's about to get a bunch of pasty, fat, basement-dwelling boyfriends.
What will Zippy put his taco sauce on now?
Nooooooo!!!!!
P.S. I hate the lameness filter.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Actually if you read some of the comments from the CEO. He admitted at townhalls with the employees that there was plenty of blame for the company's current circumstances to go all around (including management and the unions.) He was brought in during the bankruptcy to restructure the company and get it back on its feet. It was hemorrhaging money and he laid the case out for everyone. Surprisingly the Teamsters actually agreed to the pay cuts because they understood they'd be without jobs entirely otherwise. The bakers refused to acknowledge that the company was in such dire straights. They seemed to think management was bluffing, well in this case management wasn't.
That being said, I've been on the receiving end of a pay cut before and it sucks. But, it was better for me at that time to have a pay cut and search for another job than to have gone entirely without a paycheck. As much as it would've hurt financially the bakers should've seen reason. 90% of a paycheck is definitely better than no paycheck.
but the 2-packs of orange cupcakes... ahhh! The only time I ever see them (fortunately) is backwoods gas stations on road trips.
Back on topic, seems the BCT union would rather be unemployed than take a pay cut.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
We have to depend on inferior foreign imports..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The Teamsters feel its a living wage. This has happened a few times in my memory were small unions push a company to bankruptcy. Often times its the dumbest union that ruins it for everyone.
Look at the Northwest airlines deal 10 years ago. All the various different unions got on board with cuts and changes to keep them in business, except the mechanics. The mechanics where represented by a small local union that lacked the understanding of Northwests business, their mantra was more more more more. When told no, they said, we will burn down the company! They all are unemployed. The company moved on without them and successfully merged with Delta creating a large profitable business.
Small unions should have learned this lesson, if those plants close and assets sold they get nothing. The jobs wont come back, they will move somewhere else under new ownership. Their pensions will be slashed to a fraction of what they expected when the pension guarantee fund takes over, the stubborn uneducated union employee loose the most, the union bosses go on to live nice lives. Its a scam.
What are we going to eat after the nuclear fallout from world war III?
For us in Washington. Thank God there still making Doritos.
Way to go, Hostess management. Don't let the door hit you in your partially hydrogenated ass on the way out!
Considering that their product has a shelf life best measured in geologic terms, and is often functionally identical to substances used in ancient Egyptian mummification practices, I think that nothing of value was lost.
Except the jobs themselves, that is. It's going to be *such* a merry Christmas for their workforce this year.
Can't stop the Beta? Time to evacuate to ##altslashdot at webchat.freenode.net - Slashcott in effect.
While I have some nostalgia over Twinkies, the fact remains the stuff is utter garbage.
Honestly, this stuff makes other junk food like Cheetos and Pop Tarts look healthy in comparison.
what happens to those pensions? They will be cutted anyway I suppose? Does not sound like the Bakers Union have a clue.
The Twinkie is a symbol of steadfastness, of resistance to change. No matter the environment, it remains obdurate and unimpressed. The recipe has not changed in decades. This must be Obama's first step towards his promises of change! Next targets: the McDonald's french fry and The Legend of Zelda.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
I know this is being framed as a unions / management story, and that's fine and at least partly true, but really: Hostess is losing money because their products are horribly unhealthy and people are wising up about it. People wonder why Americans are fat, and the reason is always because companies like Hostess haven't gone out of business sooner.
When people learn about junk like healthy eating, companies like Hostess need to either reform or get replaced. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with a company being replaced.
I want to be clear that I don't dislike Hostess, but it appears that they have served their purpose.
If not them, then someone else will buy those brands.
Thank you, but I top off with a pulled pork sandwich or plate of deep-fried pepperoni when needed.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos?
Twinkies suck. Ho-Hos are where it's at. I freely admit though, I haven't eaten a Ho-Ho since... maybe my early 20s. I have many fond memories of them from childhood though. Oh, the sweet, savored pleasure of unwinding them. The thin layers of chocolate that would flake off the outside. That last bit of thin cake and cream core...
Alas, the desire for extreme sugar waned with youth. Health consciousness took the front seat. Would it be so bad to take a walk down that aisle just one last time? Maybe not; but it's raining today. Besides. That shit's bad for you.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Just like "The Sharper Image" and "Circuit City," the Twinkie name will live on. It is a name that is worth probably around half a billion dollars per year to a company that is able to manage it correctly. There may be a few months in which Twinkies are off the shelves, but they'll be back.
The twinkies available now will be good for most of the next 657,000 years due to all the preservatives.
They'll just get a bit crunchier after the first millennium or so.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It's this kind of attitude of unions in the US which makes me say most have outlived their usefulness and something I had to explain when I lived in Germany to the Europeans that the union in the US are nothing like the unions in Europe. Many of the unions in the US are basically racketeers with a bully complex. In Europe if jobs had to be lost, usually the Union would step in and help provide those members with job training to find a new job. If that's what unions did in the US, I'd probably be more supportive.
What union really thinks that it's better for a company to go out of business and everyone in the union lose their job than to try and save as many as possible? Because a union worker making $0 isn't contributing any dues.
When the hostess brand gets bought, do the unions think the new owners are going to do? Maybe they'll keep the old benefits, but only hire back half the workers.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
It's as if 90,000,000 fat sweaty nerds all cried out at once..... and are still whining.....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Remember Twinkie, The Kid? R.I.P.
Enriched wheat flour, sugar, corn syrup, niacin, water, high fructose corn syrup, vegetable and/or animal shortening – containing one or more of partially hydrogenated soybean, cottonseed and canola oil, and beef fat, dextrose, whole eggs, modified corn starch, cellulose gum, whey, leavenings (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate), salt, cornstarch, corn flour, corn syrup, solids, mono and diglycerides, soy lecithin, polysorbate 60, dextrin, calcium caseinate, sodium stearoyl lactylate, wheat gluten, calcium sulphate, natural and artificial flavors, caramel color, yellow #5, red #40.
RIP!
Fried Ice Cream Fried Snickers Bars Fried Bacon Fried Pickles Fried Avocado Fried Coca Cola Fried Key Lime Pie it doesn't really end....
I would be more worried about carcinogens and blood sugar level myself
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Hostess has been a major arms dealer in the war against diabetes in the US. It's great to see them finally fail.
Next up: McDonalds? Dare we dream?
The US gov't should be heavily taxing food this unhealthy or subsidizing food that is healthy. Neither of these is happening, and it's fucking ridiculous.
Hostess (like Kodak), maybe they should have considered the same couple decades ago with more emphasis on healthy eating? That's a tough call (tougher if executives wanting to pad themselves with million dollar bonuses). OTOH in someways it doesn't seem in real practical terms we are working on more healthy eating as US population getting more obese. But maybe it depends on what culture (higher ups as compared to working stiffs in urban cities). I cannot help but think of a PBS show few years ago which this person described how society emphasizes unhealthy eating habits by constant promotion of fast food that is loaded with way too much protein and fat in easy to get quantities. He suggested a national program to discourage eating unhealthy foods like programs that discourage smoking. Fast food is a huge industry so that's a big lobby to deal with. However, circumstances can put a big company out of business.
There was a time when camera film was The Thing and Kodak ruled. But along came digital technology that made film irrelevant. What should Kodak have done? Some say as far back as 1980s use their huge cash reserves to buy new technology startups and get into something besides film. I was reading Richard Elkus' book "Winner Take All" which it described there were people way back when looking into digital cameras (they didn't call it that but were considering emerging technologies i.e. ICs, video recording, etc. and how it can be put together).
It seems Hostess was a large infrastructure with a lot of people that have gone down the drain like what used to be in Rochester NY. A significant loss.
mfwright@batnet.com
That grocery store was fully stocked. It was odd that they ran out of one particular item. Now, however, it makes perfect sense! Twinkies were discontinued, then zombies showed up, and now Tallahassee can't find any.
I made this pic when I heard the news today:
https://i.minus.com/jbbRIi8sgiGgHs.jpg
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I fear for what this world has become is a company is so inept that it can't make money selling fat, lard, and chocolate to Americans...
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
But what is the alternative? Accept the paycut and you'll be at the same table 6 months later, only this time it won't be a 10% pay decrease, it will be 50%.
Why not demand the owners of the company step up and invest a few million into it? Or that instead of the workers giving up their pensions, the management returns all the money it's been paid since the company started losing money?
Now, how exactly does this company going out business benefit anyone
It will help every American by putting a tiny dent in our spiraling healthcare costs.
Even my Indian wife who’s never eaten a twinkie knows what “twinkie” implies in terms of inflexible industrial weirdness, post-modern food culture, and unimaginable chemistry and preservatives.
We’re losing that, and because of the shared loss of context, I grieve.
Not to mention, I would definitely think twice about hiring someone who has Hostess on their employment history, knowing they did that to their last employer.
Not only do they now have no paycheck instead of 90% of one, but they might have more trouble now finding a new one.
If they could have held on until more states legalized pot they could have been bigger than Apple.
It creates a market vacuum and a cheap labor influx. Now another company can fill in the diminished market Hostess is out of, with a smaller operation that's not so expensive and lumbering and more fitted to market forces. These employees can get non-union jobs where they'll be offered more than they were making but less than their prior wages, which were garnered for union dues (i.e. $19/hr minus $5/hr = $14/hr, you get $16/hr instead which is $2/hr more), which thus lowers the economic waste spent in wages but increases the salary delivered to the worker, which increases wealth rather than simply shifting it around (and inflated labor costs actually decrease wealth). It increases wealth because after you hire 6 people at $16/hr rather than at $19/hr, what you have is 6 people receiving total $14/hr more, and enough money to hire another worker at $16/hr, and $2/hr left over in the corporate coffers to spend on economic growth to create more jobs.
You'll notice that the initial situation is that there is less demand in this market, so market forces caused shrinkage and poverty. More unemployment. This restructuring as outlined removes the unions and shows an end where less money is spent to produce a product, while workers receive more in pay. The role of the unions here was to erode wealth (via wage inflation, which becomes general inflation); removing them may generate a larger or smaller swing than I've shown (I've seen $50/mo union dues on $5000/mo salaries and I've seen union dues where you make $20/hr and you get $14/hr with the rest going to the union), but it'll always eliminate a waste element no matter how small. There is a short-term cost here now: more unemployed labor. The market is, however, now slightly more flexible and new jobs can grow.
A single incident like this would be just a straight loss. Constant incidents like this are typical of economic shifts. This may or may not require retraining. For example, Hostess cites competition with the current trend toward 'healthy' food. People perceive organic foods as healthy, as well as whole grains. So the bakers may move to small bread shops producing more artisan breads with unbleached, unmodified dough. Such a shift would of course then weaken the major bread mass producers; however they're highly automated and would likely have production scalebacks that resulted in reduced expense and less in reduced staffing. They would get fewer major machines, less maintenance, and thus the machine manufacturers and maintenance staff and management would shift out (in smaller numbers), which then moves the economic changes out of the baker's micro-economy and into pressure on the machinist economy. The machinists will supply wind turbines and other such stuff in the growing renewables economy, and so on.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The only reason Hostess decided to close is to use bankruptcy law to attack the unions - and replace them with employer-supported unions such as contract workers from staffing agencies. This usually comes from companies based out of the South where workers are to "know their place" and businesses are to not be questioned.
Get rid of the provision that voids union contracts on bankruptcy and make Right to Work apply to contractors and part-time labor.
It's what Romney wanted for the auto companies. He said the unions were the problem so let them go through bankruptcy.
What company has to close if workers are on strike for a WHOLE WEEK? The company doesn't have to pay hourly workers who don't show up to work...
This looks to me like a corporate version of "suicide by cop"--run your company into the ground (6 CEOs in 10 years, many executives getting big raises, company owned by hedge funds and venture capitalists, company has big debt), and then keep cutting workers pay until they have to say "enough". And then blame the unions.
If you're a company, which is failing and cannot be saved, and you have union workers, how else do you expect the company to finally close up shop? This is what it looks like--try to blame the unions.
The union says they already had half their members laid off, have already cut their pay to below industry average, etc. The union website before the strike started said the following (see http://bctgm.org/PDFs/HostessFactSheet.pdf):
Hostess is not and will not be viable: If Hostess emerges from bankruptcy under its present plan,
it will still have too much debt, too high costs and not enough access to cash to stay in business for
the long term. It will not be able to invest in its plants, in new products and in new technology.
---
I hope someone buys Drake's.
If only this had happened 34 years ago...
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
The only reason Hostess decided to close is to use bankruptcy law to attack the unions - and replace them with employer-supported unions such as contract workers from staffing agencies. This usually comes from companies based out of the South where workers are to "know their place" and businesses are to not be questioned.
Get rid of the provision that voids union contracts on bankruptcy and make Right to Work apply to contractors and part-time labor.
I was under the impression that Hostess were out of money, no longer profitable, and could no longer afford to pay the earlier negotiated wages and benefits. So you're suggesting that Hostess was doing just fine, but the whole bankruptcy was just a conspiracy to screw the unions?
Please tell me if I understand what you're saying: Hostess did not offer ALL of their employees a package that would allow them to get credit from the bank and continue operations, without laying off their entire workforce? Hostess didn't offer a package that their (larger-than-the-baker's-union) Teamster union agreed upon? If they had plenty of money and were still profitable, how would a bankruptcy court (and their auditors) grant them the status of chapter 11? Chapter 7? Or...in the case of a legitimate Chapter 7 bankruptcy, how can Hostess replace their former union workers with contract workers from staffing agencies when they are no longer in business?
I think that we may have different understandings of how bankruptcy works. They are liquidating - Hostess is no longer a company. Their assets (e.g. brands, recipes, factories) will be sold to pay off their debt. This will be overseen by the courts - and Hostess' creditors will likely be paid back a fraction of what they are owed. The private shareholders will be the last to get paid out of the liquidation, and it is very likely that they will get nothing. Am I wrong about this?
If we have such different understandings of how bankruptcy works, I'm not sure that we will agree on how (or if) it should be reformed. I suggest reading up on bankruptcy. If we're talking about the same thing, it will be easier to have an informed discussion.
-Turkey
I'm a huge Hostess fan, but their prices were always ridiculous in compares to competitors.
Hostess creme filled chocolate cupcakes are heaven, but with Little Debbie being 2/3's the price, it's a no brainer.
The Hostess unions and management went through their negotiations. The workers found the company's terms unacceptable and went on strike. The company couldn't function and decided the best decision was to cease operations and liquidate the company's assets. The union understood that this was a possibility.
What about when government unions strike? Are we going to close down a school, sell off the assets and return the wealth to the taxpayers? It might not be a bad idea, but I can't see it actually happening. Until that outcome is a genuine risk, government unions have way too much leverage over the taxpayer and shouldn't be allowed to exist.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hostess-Twinkies-1-Box-of-10-Individually-Packaged-Sponge-Cakes-/121021624569?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c2d7370f9
You can always make your own:
http://leitesculinaria.com/71100/recipes-homemade-twinkies.html
This wouldn't have happend if the bakers union had conceeded.
This wouldn't have happend if Hostess had better management.
It doesn't matter if you have the best management in the world, if your workers all at once decide to shut you down.
The workers thought management was bluffing but oddly they really did not have large bags of gold they slept on.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Exactly. Selfish cunts can enjoy their make believe christmas this year.
-- An immediate 100% percent wage cut.
-- Shifting 500% percent more of health care costs onto the workers (for some workers, this would mean an increased cost of $4000 a month or more for medical insurance).
-- Eliminating retiree Medigap insurance, which covers gaps in Medicare.
-- Eliminating Pension altogether
-- Closing ALL plants.
-- Eliminating the eight-hour day, which would mean no time-and-a-half pay after eight hours per day.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sometimes I think pensions should be banned. Or, they should be placed in escrowed accounts and be purely defined contribution.
The problem with your logic is that you KNEW there wouldn't be a pension so you negotiated a salary accordingly. That is vastly different than accepting a lower salary in the expectation of receiving a nice pension. Since most defined-benefit pension plans use a formula that amounts to workers putting in time for 20 years and then accruing all their benefits in the last 10 or so, the company has effectively taken the employee's time, but are now denying the opportunity to accrue the benefit.
The way pensions are generally funded is a big sham - and it has the backing of the courts.
I followed your advice...
Anyone saying the Unions did this is buying the PR line and not looking at FCC filings for the last 3 chapter 11s they issued.
Exactly which part of the spectrum was Hostess licensining for twinkies again? I was unable to find it...
In an unrelated matter, Hostess Brands, Inc. doesn't have a stock ticker, since they are not a publicly held company, so there are no 10-Q or other filings to look at.
There will be no executive staff. Hostess is dead. Pushing up daisies. It is an ex-company.
I think the general concern is that while the shareholders will lose all their money, the people who are effectively running the company have extracted that value through fees/etc. It sounds like a variation on hollywood accounting - the company is worth nothing, but the people running the company extracted all the value and can now make the company bankrupt to discharge all kinds of liabilities, then use the money they accumulated to either buy back the assets and repeat, or they can go do the same to some other company.
But what is the alternative? Accept the paycut and you'll be at the same table 6 months later, only this time it won't be a 10% pay decrease, it will be 50%. Why not demand the owners of the company step up and invest a few million into it? Or that instead of the workers giving up their pensions, the management returns all the money it's been paid since the company started losing money?
You suggested that the workers demand that the owners step up and invest a few million - that multi-million dollar has to come from somewhere. Just because the company has management and owners, it doesn't mean that they have a few million dollars in cash kicking around. They may not have money to give back, which doesn't matter - the suggestion seems unreasonable for other reasons altogether. The pay cuts were an across-the-board percentage - it wasn't just the union that was getting the shaft.
Typically, money like that comes from banks who agree to extend credit to the company based on a plan to bring the company back to profitability. In this case, the creditors reviewed (and approved) the plan to make the company solvent and agreed to loan money to allow reorganization and eventually recover from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The larger union (the Teamsters) also reviewed and accepted this plan. That plan also set pay rates back to their current levels over 4 years (not cut 50% in 6 months, as you suggested). The problem is that the bakers union (the smaller union) either didn't understand or didn't believe the plan...so they decided to strike. They also didn't believe that if they failed to return to work, that the company would close down. They were wrong on all counts. This small union took the entire company down...and it was needless. What a shame - they screwed themselves and everyone else at the company out of their jobs.
-Turkey
Commodity prices are on the rise. In a weak market with cash-strapped consumers, producers have little flexibility to pass price increases onto their customers. That means shrinking margins, and if the margins get too slim, it means cutting costs.
What did Hostess really have besides some brand recognition to differentiate itself from the dozens of other junk food producers? Seems like unions and management were fighting over their share of a shrinking Twinkie.
This was a really nice explanation. Well written, well reasoned, and not the typical /. "wrong, and you're an ass". Too bad my mod points expired yesterday. Why can't there be more Slashdotters like you?
-Turkey
Ah! BLACKLISTS. That'll teach them thar unions!
I see. However, there is no company anymore. Those who were running the company couldn't have extracted much, could they? Any assets they had in the company are gone. This also wasn't a case of a holding company gutting a company by selling off the assets and running off with a whole bunch of money...all under the guise of a bankruptcy court. I do not believe that there are any facts to back a scenario like that (but if there are, feel free to show me that I'm wrong).
The existing union contracts were part of what was killing the company - of course, there were many other factors. While I have not read their Chapter 11 reorganization plans, I'm sure that these other factors were addressed; otherwise, no bank would have lent Hostess Brands the money to reorganize and recover. Now, rather than preserving the unions, a competitor (presumably without the same union contracts) will buy their brands and continue production of their products with more efficient factories.
-Turkey
Pensions are caps on the lifespan of an organization.
You can't promise to pay someone 80% of their salary until they die AND let them retire at 50.
Just ask all those CA cities choking on Pension plans.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Who is John Galt?
And that there is the core of problem.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Apparently Hostess brands in Canada are unaffected - you'll be able to import twinkies... ;)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/snack-giant-hostess-shuttering-us-business-but-canada-unaffected/article5365001/
BlackNova Traders
In one fell swoop you've shown how ignorant Americans can be. Good show old chap, good show.
with the 80% raise that they gave themselves recently?
But stereotyping is cool *if you are not an American*. Got it.
I haven't eaten anything branded Hostess in 19 years, and the last time 19 years ago was an isolated atypical incident. The world can do without one corporation that concentrates wealth and makes its customers directly unhealthier while doing it.
Now my Twinkies Cookbook is going to be useless... :(
When someone says, "Any fool can see
get their friends to set their salaries like the CEO does? If not, then the hypocrisy is on your side.
I hope the union learned a valuable lesson from this but I bet they didn't. All those anti-big business morons who think they're entitled to 1 and only 1 job in their lifetime with amazing pay regardless of skill or performance better wake the hell up. Big, evil bosses can work people for 16 hours at crap pay but unions can hold a whole company ransom and then drive it straight into the ground. Power is power and it can be evil on either side of the coin. So if people ask if I'm anti-union or anti-corporations, I just say I'm actually anti-asshole on both counts.
how will he ever make do with the multi-million dollar raise he gave himself.
the company's been in bankruptcy twice so far. the only people making any money are the executives that are bleeding the company dry. Then again, you actually are sense enough to believe this even when you aren't corporate whoring.
why make the effort to even appear to care when you can just screw over everyone for your own personal benefit. And you appear to actually be morally bankrupt to think that is a good thing.
He admitted at townhalls with the employees that there was plenty of blame for the company's current circumstances to go all around
Did he offer to take the same pay cut labor was going to suffer? Did he extend that offer to the rest of the executive staff? If not, he's far more to blame than the bakers. You can't blame the bakers for refusing an unfair offer.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So the answer to "people are more aware of what is healthy" is to close up shop rather than making something healthy?
or else!
Marijuana is becoming more legal in more places and NOW the go out og business.
Man, bad timing.
really they suffer a branding issue.
They weren't aggressive against dispelling the myths, and they need to jump on the retro bandwagon and use 1950 post war packaging
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hostess has recently had some of the highest priced snack cakes in the supermarket. Their sales have fallen off. There is competition in the free market. The union wanted a bigger slice of pie from a smaller pie. The company knew it couldn't survive a labor strike. The union was not recognizing the situation. The company cut the losses instead of bleeding to death and is putting the assets on the market.
Fast forward to the new soak the rich plan Obama has for what 1.6 Trillion Dollars? The pie they plan on bleeding will rapidly vanish. The high income folks will no longer make high income here with the high overhead. Businesses will shutter and the capitol will rapidly move to more friendly to business markets.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/share-this-massive-list-of-post-election-firings-and-layoffs-with-everyone-you-can
Is your employeer leaving town? Why would they stay. Those dependant on the government will stay and sign up for all the bailouts and handouts they can get. Those stuck with the skyrocketing bill will move assets elsewhere.
The truth shall set you free!
If hostess was addictive, they wouldn't have a problem.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hostess snacks are not made with animal fats, but hydrogenated vegetable oils. They are therefore cholesterol free. It's you crazy people on low-carb diets that have the cholesterol problems. Us twinkie fans just have obesity induced diabetes.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Well the owners could have sold some of their shares on the stock market, then put that money into the company. I'm guessing the shares are still worth something, even if the company is near bankruptcy - they would be giving up some of what they have in exchange for a chance that the company will survive.
As for the deal the workers were offered, what made it different from the one they had before (the one that set their old salaries)? If the management kept up like in the past, the company could soon face the same situation again - and any deals would be null and void 'for the good of the company'.
Why weren't the workers offered a share of the company instead - work for less, but you get these shares.
Well the owners could have sold some of their shares on the stock market, then put that money into the company. I'm guessing the shares are still worth something, even if the company is near bankruptcy - they would be giving up some of what they have in exchange for a chance that the company will survive.
AFAIK, the company was privately held. There were no publicly trade-able shares to sell. If the company was in Chapter 11 for re-org, all shares were void anyway - this is part of contracts being voided out by bankruptcy.
As for the deal the workers were offered, what made it different from the one they had before (the one that set their old salaries)? If the management kept up like in the past, the company could soon face the same situation again - and any deals would be null and void 'for the good of the company'.
I can't answer that. If workers had no faith in the company, they did have another option than torpedoing the company...like working somewhere else. However, when a company is hampered by contacts and debts, bankruptcy offers a method of freezing debts and other obligations to reorganize the company and return to profitability. This is how it works, and was a way to eliminate stuff like debtors prisons.
Why weren't the workers offered a share of the company instead - work for less, but you get these shares.
According to the articles that I read, the workers were offered a share of the company. This is one of the reasons that the Teamsters bought into the deal (but the smaller bakers union that ultimately brought down the company did not).
-Turkey
I literally lol'd. Thanks for a needed laugh.
What will they do without Twinkies? :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
As part of a recent bankruptcy settlement the unions agreed to wage and benefit cuts. Once out of bankruptcy, the management proceeded to pay themselves huge bonuses instead of reinvesting in the company.
Here's the thing: the products produced by Hostess--especially Twinkies, Ding-Dongs, Ho-Hos, etc.--still have very strong product recognition. As such, the bakeries where these products are made could be snapped up VERY fast by a number of bidders.
Hillshire Brands, the former Sara Lee minus the beverage operation, may make a bid for the Wonder Bread operation. And there maybe others bidding for other parts of Hostess' operation. However, don't expect Bimbo Bakeries USA, the US division of Mexico's gigantic Grupo Bimbo, to make any bids--Bimbo Bakeries USA is already hugely dominant in the US market with a large number products well-known in US supermarkets and any attempt to take any part of Hostess' property may be considered anti-competitive by the FTC and/or Justice Department Antitrust Division.
From what I've heard, it's less "larger slice of a smaller pie" and more that they didn't want 8% pay cuts and 20% health care cost increases while executive compensation skyrocketed, in a company with a recent history of contract violations, multiple bankruptcies and chain of six incompetent, looting CEOs in under a decade.
It seems to me that once the workers got fed up with the perpetual mismanagement and looting of a company being dragged down and called a strike, the executives saw the perfect opportunity to cash in one last time and blame the unions for it.
Same here. I really didn't like the damned things. Too much sugar and not much else. At least tastykakes have some flavor.
I'm talking about the ultimate buyer of the assets of the company, not the now-scuttled company.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
While it takes the whole company out, they didn't do it on strict financial grounds. See American Airlines for a case of strategic bankruptcy, albeit on slightly better financial grounds.
I provided solutions, modbombers register only their hate of them. In fact, I even recognize that there is a problem on the employer end where it solves a major problem with Right to Work - that it does nothing against employers that form unions.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
but you lack the moral backbone to admit it.
or do you just whore this BS knowing that nobody is ignorant enough to believe you.
since the company is filing for bankruptcy. Of course, we already know that even you consider your attempted explanation to a a bunch of impotent distraction. That's why you tried to bring in a minority to scapegoat.
FYI, they did go through bankruptcy under Obama.
The difference under Romney was that the government would be higher up in the list of people to be repaid.
Ask yourself why there are no American cruise lines and then go look up the real cause. Unions are a 20th century artifact and no longer serve any purpose except to milk the remaining drops out of a dying cow. Every unionized industry not dependent on public support is either disappearing or already dead. Argue all you want about the noble cause of unions, but this story and a thousand others illustrate the opposite.
It is going to be a long 4 years for a lot of people, not all of whom really deserve it.
Non-governmental unions are weaker because the industries that they took over no longer exist or are a shadow of what they used to be. The cruise ship industry was mandated by a Democratic congress to be unionized and disappeared virtually overnight. Sure, there are still Americans working cruise liners, but they are all foreign owned.
My Grandfather worked his way into management of a steel mill. He used to tell me stories of unionized mobs lynching scabs and harrasing the families of management. It is no wonder that so many unions were infiltrated by organized crime, they weren't that much different to begin with. The steel industry survives, but mostly in the non-unionized south.
Unions for being greedy in a depressed economy "Suits" for being greedy in a depressed economy The only one who benefits will be Michele Obama, who doesn't want anyone eating twinkies in the first place LOL.
A CEO who destroys his company gets a HUGE compensation package by taking the golden parachute he setup and getting out before the company collapses. It has been done time and time again. Really kid, READ something. ANYTHING. Get a chewable book and improve your mind.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
First the cockroaches, now the Twinkies. Is there ANYTHING that will survive our inevitable nuclear annihilation?!?
As you say, the management has been stealing everything that isn't nailed down, while the workers have had to agree to multiple cuts.
The reason to say NO and risk your job is because it isn't ONE pay cut, it is pay cut after pay cut. While the CEO's get raise after raise. A 20% paycut is HUGE for most people who already need to spend their entire paycheck. You are going to say to your kid, sorry, you got to come back home and stop university and get a job because the management considers their own raises more important then the future of the company?
And the next pay cut and the next? Because Hostess makes fucking awful products. As a European I took the oppotunity to buy some on a trip to see what this fabled snack was like. Twinkie, seen in so many movies.
IT IS GODDAMN AWFUL.
Europe sure has its share of cheap crap snacks that taste like a chemical experiment gone wrong but they are cheap. Twinkies ain't cheap.
I am not just talking elitist taste, I took some back and bought some "Euro shopper" (Dutch cheap brand in largest super market chain AH) cake snacks to compare. The filling might be the same as in negerzoenen (negrokisses) but isn't and the cake is just bad. Really cheap cake (1 euro for a full sized cake (length and width of a load of bread but not the height) tastes a million times better.
I have no idea about the other products, oddly enough, couldn't find them.I got the idea that while Americans know what they are they have gone from their mind. To me they seemed as something special because for decades I heard of them but never could get any but to Americans it just a not so good snack that is expensive and bad for you.
And so the company dies. And then the class war America is having breaks out, US Unions are unlike anywhere else... well unlike in Europe. The hostility seems insane. In Holland, the Big 11 (biggest employers) wanted the strong unions of a decade ago back because it gave them someone to deal with. The Polder Model is missed by both sides (except government, it was them that sabotaged it because they wanted to set the wages, rather then employees and employers agreeing to higher wages (really, in several sectors agreements were reached and then government insisted on wage freezes)).
I get the feeling that in the US because compromise is unheard of, the battle lines get so hardened neither backs down because both are totally convinced they are right. When you see Romney speaking when he doesn't know the world is listening, you can see half of it. But the unions too seem totally alien from a EU perspective.
Let them eat cake vs chopping the heads of everyone who isn't you. Two sides who can't compromise.
Sad.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So, I can cut of your finger because if you don't let me, I will cut of your head.
Because of course, it ends there.
Oh no, now I want to cut of your hand, or I will cut of your head.
Now a leg, or I will cut of your head.
Now I cut of your torso. But hey, it is still better then having your head cut off.
Also, I wonder if you republicans heard of inflation? If you take a 8% cut and inflation is 3% then you really take a 11% cut because in NORMAL economies, salaries rise to compensate for inflation.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
GM Diesel spun of its locomotive division to Electromotive. Electromotive was bought by Caterpillar. Caterpillar said that they were paying too much in union labour costs. The labour contract was up December 31 2011. Caterpillar locked out the union January 1 2012 and said they could keep their jobs if they took a 33% wage cut. The union said go to hell. Shortly after Caterpillar purchased Electromotive, they spun up a factory in Muncie Ind., with hungry workers willing to work for minimum wage. Caterpillar closed the plant and shifted the jobs south. The union fucked 400 workers so that it could play hardball with the big 3 auto makers in Canada and "win" higher wage jobs for auto workers. Good work CAW.
"Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
If anything, it should reflect on the need for stronger laws to protect unions from those kind of maneuvers. In addition, it means that Right to Work should also apply to employers as well.
hungry workers willing to work for minimum wage
That can be read more accurately as desperate workers contracted out by firms such as Strom Engineering that would rather not be involved in disputes. They use them as leverage much like a Right to Work state uses its false claim of "freedom" to mess with workers.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
He admitted at townhalls with the employees that there was plenty of blame for the company's current circumstances to go all around
Did he offer to take the same pay cut labor was going to suffer? Did he extend that offer to the rest of the executive staff? If not, he's far more to blame than the bakers. You can't blame the bakers for refusing an unfair offer.
From further up, it seems he was on a $1 a year salary, along with his top 3 executives.
But again, why blame the workers for the situation? They were asked to not just give up what they've already earned (their pensions), but to continue investing in the company (by accepting lower wages then what they were entitled to). And all this just a few years after the company emerged from a previous bankruptcy. And why say that they torpedoed the company? Every party in this dispute could have saved it - the creditors could have forgiven debts, management could have done their jobs, owners could have paid off the debts, lawyers could have worked for free,...
Why blame the people who had the least ability to absorb the losses?
Just think of what you'd do, if your boss came up to you and asked you to work for minimum wage from now on, with no benefits. And then, when you'd said no, would blame you for ruining the company in the local paper.
I'm assuming your comment is about Great Britain - the world's capital of crooked teeth and non-american obesity.
It is amusing that for most Americans Britain==Europe while most Europeans see it as the 51st state.
Yeah, blame it on the union, when in reality it was the executives who looted the company to death and asked the workers to foot the bill. It was intentional mismanagement, and the executives belong in prison.
New York City writer Steve Ettlinger, in his book, “Twinkie, Deconstructed,” says that flammable and carcinogenic benzene, plays a major role in the extremely complicated set of chemical reactions that yield the artificial flavouring vanillin. And the chlorine used to bleach the flour in Twinkies is extremely toxic.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Across every world, across every multiverse, the Heroes one, true, effective weapon is gone. The villains are unstoppable. They have won. The end is nigh, and we are all doomed.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Hooray for the working man!!!
Oh, I agree - the situation was not entirely the worker's fault. Clearly, there were a series of management issue; and if you followed the story at all, the management team has accepted significant responsibility on multiple occasions. The issue also came down to changes in the marketplace, as well as factories being run inefficiently (partly due to the unions fearing change and modernization of factories/bakeries). Read the articles documenting this stuff - its pretty well covered by the news media.
Also, understand that creditors don't just forgive debts just like that. Remember that everyone answers to someone, and there is a fair bit of bureaucracy to the whole debt thing (not to mention lots of federal regulations surrounding debt).
However, while everyone in the company (including the larger union; the Teamsters - who accepted the deal) were working to save the company, the Bakers Union worked for themselves to ultimately destroy it. Again, this mess wasn't their fault, but they stepped in at a critical juncture and became the last straw. They could have saved the company; admittedly for how long nobody knows...but it was the Bakers Union that put the last nail in the coffin. This is not an indictment of all unions, but this one didn't do any of the 18,000 people in the company a single favor.
What would I do if my boss came to me and asked me to work for 8% less than I was with a 30% reduction in company contribution for benefits (not at minimum wage, with no benefits - as you suggested) in order to save the company? I would have two choices, as I see it. First, I could agree and move forward. Second, I could refuse and prepare my resume. It's not that hard of a decision. I wouldn't strike when the company was down and had no other choice, ultimately putting the company out of business and 18,000 people out of work.
I just don't understand the ethics of a group of people taking an organization down with them. They weren't being forced to work there.
-Turkey
You know, whoever buys the Hostess factories and brands is probably going to need workers to run them.
Whoever buys the recipes probably already has plants and workers.
They may hire a few more, but probably just in a few areas... hostess had something like 30 plants all over the place. With manufacturing suffering it's going to be rough for all of them to find a job.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, it's not just the gross numbers and how much the raises would cost the company in dollars, but also in morale. Do you think the workers morale and trust in the company improved when they found out high level executives were getting raises while their pay was being cut? Even if they have minimal fiscal impact, they have symbolic impact that affects the outcome of worker actions.
And how is their morale and trust doing today, particularly with their union? I wonder how this would have gone down if the Bakers Union members had been allowed a secret vote instead of their leadership simply folding their arms and refusing to deal.
Was management taking a pay cut? Not hardly.
Management received a raise before, yes. But this year the top level executives were given a salary of $1/year to help prop up the company.
And it's not like that mattered since the total amount of those salaries pays for perhaps .01% of the total workforce.
So much for your theory...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, blame it on the union, when in reality it was the executives who looted the company to death and asked the workers to foot the bill. It was intentional mismanagement, and the executives belong in prison.
So:
1. Buy company.
2. Run it into the ground
3. ???
4. Profit!
Interesting business plan.
And what exactly is the difference between 'preparing your resume' and striking? The company could have fired them and found new workers, if that's what they wanted - but the new workers would probably have wanted more then the company was willing to pay.
As for being the final straw, wouldn't it be better to say that they just weren't willing to take quite so much straw from the overloaded camel? They didn't demand more money (like the management that gave itself 80% raises after the first bankruptcy), they just wanted the company to keep it's promises. And they were already loaded down with plenty of straw from the first time the company went bankrupt.
The management could have made other proposals - got better loans, found new investors, hell even sold the company (which they refused to do in the past). But they decided that quitting and blaming the union was a 'cleaner' way out. After all, we all know unions are the source of all evil.
... go ahead and price yourselves out of yet another industry. Then bitch when six months from now your kids are eating Chinese-made Twinkies.
In Reason We Trust
No more twinkies!! But... what will we compare the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area to??
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
And what exactly is the difference between 'preparing your resume' and striking? The company could have fired them and found new workers, if that's what they wanted - but the new workers would probably have wanted more then the company was willing to pay.
I'm amazed that you're even asking this. You're asking the difference between an individual decision and an organized and orchestrated act against a company, ultimately taking the whole thing down? It sounds like we're looking at this from vastly different angles.
The management could have made other proposals - got better loans, found new investors, hell even sold the company (which they refused to do in the past). But they decided that quitting and blaming the union was a 'cleaner' way out
No, they could have not made other proposals, got better loans, found new investors, or sold the company (which is another way of finding new investors). This was their last shot. They were in chapter 11 bankruptcy - it was reviewed and approved by the courts and their debtors. There was no time to make another deal - this was it. The Bakers Union just refused to believe it; they were convinced that management had another card up their sleeve when management simply did not. The Bakers Union was convinced that the management team was bluffing with the threats of closing the doors. They weren't. Have you read the analyses of this? Again, even the Teamsters were behind it. Are you sure that you understand how bankruptcy works? How is closing doors a 'cleaner' way out? Everyone was screwed. There was no money. Nothing. There were no other options. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. However, the belief that there was some sort of nefarious management meeting where it was decided that they could just stick it to the Bakers Union by closing operations, and everybody loses their job is incredibly far fetched.
After all, we all know unions are the source of all evil.
Again, see my comment above - I never stated anything like this here: However, while everyone in the company (including the larger union; the Teamsters - who accepted the deal) were working to save the company, the Bakers Union worked for themselves to ultimately destroy it. Again, this mess wasn't their fault, but they stepped in at a critical juncture and became the last straw. They could have saved the company; admittedly for how long nobody knows...but it was the Bakers Union that put the last nail in the coffin. This is not an indictment of all unions, but this one didn't do any of the 18,000 people in the company a single favor. (Emphasis added). Again, I just don't see the ethics of screwing everyone else over by taking a collective action like that. I also don't understand how you're arguing that this was only a one-sided thing. There was plenty of blame to go around...but the Bakers Union decided to take the ship down with them.
-Turkey
Sure, they will go into bankruptcy, and come out of it under a new corporate name. Then start right back up without ANY union contracts to deal with.
I feel for those 18,000+ workers but the fact is that Twinkies are disgusting and ought not be consumed by anyone ever.
Another purveyor of shit food goes under. That's a victory for common sense.
There is a long list of such companies that need to follow in Hostess' footsteps. Coke and Pepsie. Macdonalds et al, they are all a blight on the general public.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
I really don't see a difference between the strike and individual decisions - most workers decided on their own that they want to strike, but those that didn't could and did go to work. Yes, many didn't - but that is because the company wanted to cut each person's pay. And as you said, you have a choice of preparing your resume in that case - they felt that their jobs weren't worth saving at that level of pay. Should they have stayed there with miserable pay until the company went bankrupt again?
Why didn't the management give the company a personal, interest free loan. The CEO had a salary of about $2.5M, surely he could put that at the disposal of the company, giving it a few more weeks to find a different solution to the crisis, or at least time to convince the union. Or how about the other executives give the company their bonuses (they just asked to court to pay them more then $6M - leading a charge into bankruptcy is worthy of a bonus after all).
So the union's refusal to cooperate was only the last blow, because that's what the management decided. Prolonging the fight might have cut down on the bonus money the company still had.
And there is another reason why the employees might have wanted the company to just die - they are among the creditors. If the company is liquidated now, they might still get some money before it all goes to lawyers and executives. If they give them a few more years that might not happen - the company had more debt at the end of the first bankruptcy then at the beginning.
It appears the bakers got what they wanted...Nothing and no jobs.
I really don't see a difference between the strike and individual decisions - most workers decided on their own that they want to strike, but those that didn't could and did go to work. Yes, many didn't - but that is because the company wanted to cut each person's pay. And as you said, you have a choice of preparing your resume in that case - they felt that their jobs weren't worth saving at that level of pay. Should they have stayed there with miserable pay until the company went bankrupt again?
There is a huge decision between an individual and the collective. If you don't understand, there is no point in supporting the union (e.g. individual bargaining vs collective bargaining). The individuals didn't have a choice - and this is something that I do have a problem with. Employees aren't allowed to choose whether or not to join most unions - when the union decided, everyone had to follow. Certainly you can see a difference.
And Miserable pay? To save their jobs, 8% for the first year, and steady raises for 3 years to get to where it was (plus stock grants)=miserable? Come on. It's a sacrifice for sure, but it is a far cry from what you're mentioning. You've thrown out things like "miserable" and "minimum wage"...not really backing that up with actual numbers (you also suggested that the company should have given the workers a piece of the company, which was offered). I'll continue to provide correct information as these come up...and I'm not even an vested party - I just read the news.
Why didn't the management give the company a personal, interest free loan. The CEO had a salary of about $2.5M, surely he could put that at the disposal of the company, giving it a few more weeks to find a different solution to the crisis, or at least time to convince the union. Or how about the other executives give the company their bonuses (they just asked to court to pay them more then $6M - leading a charge into bankruptcy is worthy of a bonus after all).
The CEO agreed to a $1 salary until Dec 31 or until the company recovered from bankruptcy. However, the executive salary was just a drop in the bucket. Check the numbers on other posts in this story - there were a few people who ran the numbers on executive salary vs the workers at large...this was a drop in the bucket and largely a symbolic gesture. It would not have helped keep the company in business for more than a few weeks if the executives worked for free. Hostess Brand's debt was huge, and it was a huge operation. A few $million would not have been sufficient to keep the company running.
So the union's refusal to cooperate was only the last blow, because that's what the management decided. Prolonging the fight might have cut down on the bonus money the company still had.
And there is another reason why the employees might have wanted the company to just die - they are among the creditors. If the company is liquidated now, they might still get some money before it all goes to lawyers and executives. If they give them a few more years that might not happen - the company had more debt at the end of the first bankruptcy then at the beginning.
They kicked the company while it was down. It was the final nail in the coffin. End of story. There were no other options at that point. I understand that you inherently mistrust this management team - and have thrown out a dozen things that "could have been done". I covered that most of these were either done, or were impossible - backing them up with facts. Please, read just one or two relevant news stories before posting another reply - I'm sure that I can keep citing sources for you, but you would be doing both of us a huge favor by reading up on this stuff. To be clear, I always have held that management team (and the market) are responsible for their part in the situation. However, it was the
-Turkey
Step 3 is "Get as much money out of the company as you can, and saddle it with debt". That's how Romney did it, and it looks like these people did pretty much the same thing. Bonus points for making the company loan the money with which you buy it.
The individuals DO have a choice. They can ignore/resign from the union and go to work. There are laws preventing the unions from stopping them. But given that about 90% of the union voted for a strike, that does not mean much. And yes, the pay decrease wasn't drastic on it's own. But it comes after the decreases they agreed to during the last bankruptcy and the raises they'd given up in the past in exchange for pensions - which would now also be gone.
And yes, the CEO agreed to a salary of 1$ for a few months (after creditors went berserk over the raises) - but that did not stop the company from asking the court to approve bonuses for executives, at the same time the unions were being forced to accept lower pay. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bankruptcy-week-aheadhostess-to-start-liquidation-2012-11-16/
And again, the unions were not kicking the company while it was down, they were the ones being kicked. They were not demanding raises or bonuses or better working conditions. The company was demanding they accept less then what they'd previously agreed to during the first bankruptcy. They weren't even negotiating - they went to the court with their 'cost cutting plan'. What the union did was dodge the kick and the management broke it's foot. And if you think that that is greed, then how do you describe the decision to now ask the court to approve bonuses now that the company is in liquidation? As for the union being un-trusting, the only thing I can say is good for them. Why trust someone that has already betrayed you? And negotiations involve two parties talking, not one party dictating.
And now, it looks like the jobs are moving out of the country.
That turned out really well.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
LOL. You MUST be an accountant.
Being a CEO requires leadership not prayer. Continual "cost cutting" on the bottom line without raising the top line will never save a failing business model. Taking away your employees' living wages, while helping yourself to seconds won't either. Hostess found this out the hard way. They also discovered that they actually *GASP* needed those employees to run their business.
Instead of working with employees from the beginning to save a failing concern drowning in debt and losing mindshare, those in the corner offices helped themselves to a bigger piece of the shrinking pie while asking others to do more with less. Like it or not, their "people" decided they would rather be unemployed than work under the conditions dictated by management. That says a lot about the leadership qualities of management. If you fail to see this obvious evidence, you probably aren't cut out for leadership or management either. Your self interested "cut-and-run" ideology corroborates it.
And the captain doesn't always have to go down with the ship when you hire someone other than Joe Hazelwood to pilot her through the Sound.
LOL. No. Because you STILL don't get it. You are either totally clueless to what I am saying or you are willfully ignorant. You don't seem to understand the difference between a policy decision and a financial one. EVERYTHING is financial to you. You have an accountant's attitude complemented with a self serving, narrow minded disposition. You keep ranting and raving about the (totally self fabricated) numbers but you do not understand that I never disputed the cold, hard, financial situation. Your eagerness to protect the CEO and other management staff that "made out good"(sic) and your suggestion that he would be better off to "cut-and-run" demonstrates that your priority would not be to work with employees to return the company to profitability, which is the ultimate responsibility of the CEO. The primary obligated job of the management team is to increase shareholder wealth, not personal wealth. Failing to understand this fundamental fact is why you would not make a good CEO or perhaps even a leader.
Try to wrap your mind around this: The goal of both management and labor is to make more money. For labor, they want more money for their effort and management wants more revenue and profit. Their goals are aligned. By failing to work together to achieve their goals and creating a bitter adversarial environment, they both failed. The leaders bear the responsibility for cultivating a positive working environment and making decisions conducive to cooperation. With Hostess management's missteps and self indulgent attitude (like yours), nobody can be surprised at the resulting animosity from labor.
Feel free to rant and rave some more about numbers you pull out of your ass, but I am done with this thread.