Unions WIN!!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:13 am

:yh_dance YAAYYY!! That'll show those greedy bastages that run, erm, ran Hostess Bakeries. The union went on strike and refused to go back to work until Hostess met their demands ... and the cowards declared bankruptcy. VICTORY FOR THE UNION!!

Let these other mega-corporations beware. The unions are in control here. They'd better step in line or face union wrath .... which union members will have plenty of time to do now ... since they don't have jobs. :-3

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:13 am

Accountable;1410554 wrote: :yh_dance YAAYYY!! That'll show those greedy bastages that run, erm, ran Hostess Bakeries. The union went on strike and refused to go back to work until Hostess met their demands ... and the cowards declared bankruptcy. VICTORY FOR THE UNION!!

Let these other mega-corporations beware. The unions are in control here. They'd better step in line or face union wrath .... which union members will have plenty of time to do now ... since they don't have jobs. :-3

It is the beginning of the end in your area now, also. the unions will fight even harder with demands for the next contract in the area, just to show they can't be intimidated. When that business shuts down or moves, all these folks now sitting around will be discussing how unreasonable and unamerican those businesses were. Then they will complain about the lower paying service jobs they refuse to take, which are the only thing available. They will sit with their giant rats outside of startup businesses that dare to hire contractors who are affordable(non union).

Trust me... I've lived through it here.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:22 am

The guy that owns the Denny's name (if I understood it correctly) is going to "decrease his workforce", have a 5% surcharge to cover Obamacare and he's instructing his customers to pay less in tips. In other words, he's most likely going to make a big profit at the expense of employees that are paid minimum wage. And you two think unions are a bad idea? Pffft

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:27 am

The unions need to realize that they must partner with the business owners, but focus on making certain that employee interests are truly the priority.

It's not about more pay, anymore, and with Obamacare, it's not even about benefits. But guarding the employee from abusive managers and helping to guarantee a quality workplace, while assuring production.

The confrontational collective bargaining must be a thing of the past. But, at the same time the sweatshop attitude of the 19th century must also be a thing of the past.

It can be cheaper for management to close a plant where the cost of production is high, and letting a new, more modern production facility somewhere else take over.

If unions want to survive, they must evolve.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:31 am

SnoozeAgain;1410557 wrote: The guy that owns the Denny's name (if I understood it correctly) is going to "decrease his workforce", have a 5% surcharge to cover Obamacare and he's instructing his customers to pay less in tips. In other words, he's most likely going to make a big profit at the expense of employees that are paid minimum wage. And you two think unions are a bad idea? Pffft

I believe Denny's owners are Darden Foods, a public company.

And if the average Denny's customer cuts back on tips, the average Denny's worker will find another job, leaving the average Denny's even more lacking in average food and mediocre service.

Then Darden's stock will wither, and there will be no more Denny's.

No skin off my nose. I eat at Waffle House.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:36 am

Yeah, I wasn't too fussed about Denny's or Papa John's pizza but both of the owners of these businesses are hugely rich... I mean HUGELY rich... and they're trying to f**k over their employees before Obamacare has even gone into effect.

Guess the guy is a "franchisor" of Denny's but he owns a pretty good size chunk of the restaurant business in West Palm Beach Florida as well as some sprawling waterfront property there.

John Metz, Denny's Franchisee And Hurricane Grill & Wings Owner, Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare - US Business News - CNBC

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:39 am

Is this going to affect Ho-Ho production???? :yh_cry

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:41 am

SnoozeAgain;1410562 wrote: Yeah, I wasn't too fussed about Denny's or Papa John's pizza but both of the owners of these businesses are hugely rich... I mean HUGELY rich... and they're trying to f**k over their employees before Obamacare has even gone into effect.

Guess the guy is a "franchisor" of Denny's but he owns a pretty good size chunk of the restaurant business in West Palm Beach Florida as well as some sprawling waterfront property there.

John Metz, Denny's Franchisee And Hurricane Grill & Wings Owner, Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare - US Business News - CNBC

Oh, him.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:35 am

Reading more on this,

Hostess Brands closing for good due to bakers strike - Nov. 16, 2012

Hostess has been in trouble for years, and already in bankruptcy.

The Teamsters agreed to a new contract which would have 1. kept the jobs at Hostess plants, and 2. reduced the cost of operation, and 3. provided for new salary structure, and ownership to employees.

The bakers union failed to be a part of the solution, and called for a strike.

So, this cannot be blamed entirely on "Unions"

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:20 am

tabby;1410564 wrote: Is this going to affect Ho-Ho production???? :yh_cry

Methinks maybe somebody will step in and buy the products... somehow, 'cause

in this land of obesity, those things are still good sellers.

The reports around here have said that the bakers were forewarned this would

happen, so they can't say they didn't know anyway.

A local grocery chain just had their first strike in their 77 year history, and it only

lasted a few days, they reached an agreement. So unions worked in that case,

and thank goodness, I hate the other store option in my area!

(Union I worked for had a no strike clause. Yay. Still, I did pretty good, and in

about 6 years will get a nice chunk of change every month for my retirement.

Guess you could say that makes me pro union!)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:08 pm

LarsMac;1410574 wrote: The bakers union failed to be a part of the solution, and called for a strike.
And how are they better off now? I'd love to hear how that vote went down on the local level.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:26 pm

Accountable;1410596 wrote: And how are they better off now? I'd love to hear how that vote went down on the local level.

You don't think that I implied anyone at Hostess is better, do you?

I'm just saying that this was not all the Unions' fault, here.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:50 pm

LarsMac;1410605 wrote: You don't think that I implied anyone at Hostess is better, do you?

I'm just saying that this was not all the Unions' fault, here.
No, I didn't read any judgment at all. I'm just venting about the employees' apparently cutting off their collective nose to spite their collective face. Do they think it's worth the gamble that the brand is iconic enough that another company is willing to buy it and negotiate a better contract? I just don't see the wisdom.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:58 pm

Accountable;1410607 wrote: No, I didn't read any judgment at all. I'm just venting about the employees' apparently cutting off their collective nose to spite their collective face. Do they think it's worth the gamble that the brand is iconic enough that another company is willing to buy it and negotiate a better contract? I just don't see the wisdom.

I doubt they thought that far ahead.

The Teamsters are not at all happy with the Bakers.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:44 am

So we have a butternut bread outlet in town. It has become quite popular over the years as factories have moved out of the area and household incomes have dropped.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:04 pm

The article left out the fact that the CEO of Hostess gave himself a 300% raise and did the same to other top execs, during the contract negotiation process. It also left out the US sugar tariff that forces the use of sugar costing more than double the world commodity rate - thank congress for that one.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:50 pm

As an almost totally disinterested onlooker who has done minimal research, it looks to me like some heavy handed wheeler dealing by management.

My take on it would be that the bosses are conservative die hards who believe they are making a statement by cutting their noses off to make a point. Suspect the products are old favourites that are liked but not at the top of shoppng lists and probably need remarketing or updating to refresh sales.

The work force possibly think they have jobs for life with stable long term brands, but who's work practices are outdated, the same as the management's.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:45 pm

Wandrin;1410672 wrote: The article left out the fact that the CEO of Hostess gave himself a 300% raise and did the same to other top execs, during the contract negotiation process. It also left out the US sugar tariff that forces the use of sugar costing more than double the world commodity rate - thank congress for that one.
Do you ever cite anything? You should consider it, just out of courtesy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:45 pm

Bruv;1410673 wrote: As an almost totally disinterested onlooker who has done minimal research, it looks to me like some heavy handed wheeler dealing by management.

My take on it would be that the bosses are conservative die hards who believe they are making a statement by cutting their noses off to make a point. Suspect the products are old favourites that are liked but not at the top of shoppng lists and probably need remarketing or updating to refresh sales.

The work force possibly think they have jobs for life with stable long term brands, but who's work practices are outdated, the same as the management's.
That's probably a very fair assessment.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:06 pm

Accountable;1410680 wrote: That's probably a very fair assessment.

And you really want to knock all their heads together ?

We have the same sort of thing happen over here........Woolworths on every high st as an example went pop

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:46 pm

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 pm

SnoozeAgain;1410736 wrote:

I am disgusted by far-right attempts to blame the bakers and in turn all workers who are demanding livable wages & working conditions. I have been calling this phenomena 'the Revolt of the Ruling Class'. If I saw management taking an active part in trying to save it's investment I couldn't say that. They are not. It is a Bain Capital example, whether they're involved or not. Bain is here in spirit.

"A Hostess worker said: ""Hostess is a corrupt company," he said, "and is attempting to shut their plant down because we are not willing to conform and take slave wages. We won't do that...............................

They're a big business who's mismanaged the company and made all of us suffer................The compensation the company was offering its workers was something they were no longer able to live with", he said."

Read more: Bakers Union Member: Hostess Was No Longer A Baking Company - Business Insider

Thanks for the delicious graph. If I only knew Twinkies had a chocolate filling version!

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:46 pm

I just had a Twinkie this week, before this news came out. It didn't taste as good as I remembered, so I'm not really going to miss them. Little Debbie does some delish chocolate cakes that are much better than Hostess.

I get irate when I see people bashing the unions. That whole Wisconsin thing funded by the Koch brothers screams bigger corruption than even the Teamsters could dream of.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:56 pm

SnoozeAgain;1410751 wrote: I just had a Twinkie this week, before this news came out. It didn't taste as good as I remembered, so I'm not really going to miss them. Little Debbie does some delish chocolate cakes that are much better than Hostess.

I get irate when I see people bashing the unions. That whole Wisconsin thing funded by the Koch brothers screams bigger corruption than even the Teamsters could dream of.
The taste has cheapened throughout the years. A lot more chemical ingredients or substitutions of ingredients has occured. I first saw a Hostess cupcake live commercial performed on the Howdy Doody Show featuring Cowboy Bob & the Dood. The cupcakes were cut in half but placed together so you couldn't see. Then the Dood said "the ONLY cupcake with the SURPISE inside!", & Bob (cause he was the one with hands) separated the two 1/2's & showed the creme filling! A dramatic moment for tv! Sooooooo, many years of bad eating in my experience!

I have hope people are unable to escape from the facts---that our work deserves a wage that is liveable by the standards we all live under. Also, that we are tired of being disrespected by the ilk of Mutt Robme, a name I hope never to see or hear from again.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:47 pm

SnoozeAgain;1410751 wrote: I just had a Twinkie this week, before this news came out. It didn't taste as good as I remembered, so I'm not really going to miss them. Little Debbie does some delish chocolate cakes that are much better than Hostess.
They deep-fry Twinkies (and just about anything else) at the local fiesta. I haven't had the guts to try one ... because I might not have the guts to digest it.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:49 am

I am sure that soon enough you will be able to purchase some El Twinkies imported from some non-unionized plant in Mexico or somewhere.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:11 am

AnneBoleyn;1410755 wrote: The taste has cheapened throughout the years. A lot more chemical ingredients or substitutions of ingredients has occured. I first saw a Hostess cupcake live commercial performed on the Howdy Doody Show featuring Cowboy Bob & the Dood. The cupcakes were cut in half but placed together so you couldn't see. Then the Dood said "the ONLY cupcake with the SURPISE inside!", & Bob (cause he was the one with hands) separated the two 1/2's & showed the creme filling! A dramatic moment for tv! Sooooooo, many years of bad eating in my experience!

I have hope people are unable to escape from the facts---that our work deserves a wage that is liveable by the standards we all live under. Also, that we are tired of being disrespected by the ilk of Mutt Robme, a name I hope never to see or hear from again.

The taste of everything delicious has been lost over time. I remember what candy bars tasted like when I was a child... I think the big difference is freshness. Oh for the good old days when junk food was made with real ingredients rather than preservatives ..

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:19 am

SnoozeAgain;1410751 wrote: I just had a Twinkie this week, before this news came out. It didn't taste as good as I remembered, so I'm not really going to miss them. Little Debbie does some delish chocolate cakes that are much better than Hostess.

I get irate when I see people bashing the unions. That whole Wisconsin thing funded by the Koch brothers screams bigger corruption than even the Teamsters could dream of.

In this case, even the union is bashing the union. I feel bad for all of the other union folks who tried to work with the company. I can't imagine that whoever buys the product lines will absorb the entire displaced workforce. I think perhaps a third will find work with the new owners who will most likely simply ramp up production with their current workforce as much as possible.

Hostess Bakers Hope Buyer Will Preserve Jobs - WSJ.com

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:21 am

I watched a news report this weekend, they were interviewing the striking workers who are still outside of the Hostess grounds holding up signs to passer by's. The ones interviewed all thought they had done a wonderful thing, they had stuck it to the "man". The management can no longer mismanage the company or over pay themselves.Whatever..

I assume these people were working there because it was the best job they could find in their respective areas. If they could have found a better paying job with like benefits surely they would have taken it?

Now: The company has shut down, they have no jobs, no benefits, the management (or the people in management) are still rich.

Now tell me where they won.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:42 am

YZGI;1410804 wrote: I watched a news report this weekend, they were interviewing the striking workers who are still outside of the Hostess grounds holding up signs to passer by's. The ones interviewed all thought they had done a wonderful thing, they had stuck it to the "man". The management can no longer mismanage the company or over pay themselves.Whatever..

I assume these people were working there because it was the best job they could find in their respective areas. If they could have found a better paying job with like benefits surely they would have taken it?

Now: The company has shut down, they have no jobs, no benefits, the management (or the people in management) are still rich.

Now tell me where they won.

I understand your point, but how much schitt on a stick are we supposed to take?

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:51 am

I don’t know the details of the dispute, it amazing me that is hard economic times when people need work that unions take strike action.

If the union was arguing and acting against the over inflated compensation of the senior executives and were demanding that that get control over the company’s finances that would be one thing, but to be on strike looking for better pay and conditions during times like these just do not make sense.

It looks like plain greed on the Union part as well as at the senior management level that brought this company down.

It is a reminder though in the end of who has the final say.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:27 am

the folks at hostess are assumed to be in it for the money.

how about those union leaders?

Union Facts: Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers (BCTGMI) Profile, Membership, Leaders, Political Operations, etc.

What I found most interesting(after salaries and other benefits) is the steady drop in membership over the last 10 years.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:51 am

Interesting stats, I guess that they have even fewer members now.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:44 am

Some interesting stuff coming out, lately:

Hostess Blames Union For Bankruptcy After Tripling CEO's Pay | ThinkProgress

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:57 pm

Here's another one for those of you still blaming the workers and the union:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:24 pm

Twinkies maker Hostess lives at least another day - Business - Boston.com

Hostess Brands Inc. and its second largest union agreed on Monday to try to resolve their differences after a bankruptcy court judge noted that the parties hadnâ€™t gone through the critical step of private mediation. That means the maker of the spongy cake with the mysterious cream filling wonâ€™t go out of business yet.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:59 pm

What am I bet things go quite a bit more smoothly, now that the union knows

Hostess wasn't bluffing?

I hope they do get something figured out, and can have nice holidays.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:42 am

SnoozeAgain;1410873 wrote: Here's another one for those of you still blaming the workers and the union:

If true then I would agree that the leadership took down their own company.. but again I would agrue what was the objective to the strike?

If they were striking to hold the leadership accountable that is one thing, if they were also just looking for better pay and conditions then they are just as bad as the leadership team, just to a different degree.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:06 am

Mediation didn't work.

I have to wonder what the employees expect will happen, or what they wanted to happen.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:28 am

It's just sort of bizarre, isn't it? I can't for the life of me

figure out how they could not make a deal.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:40 am

LarsMac;1410826 wrote: Some interesting stuff coming out, lately:

Hostess Blames Union For Bankruptcy After Tripling CEO's Pay | ThinkProgress

Stikes me as an attempt to keep the big boys from jumping ship.. although why in the heck a board would want to keep any of such an inept group just boggles the mind of this paycheck to paycheck worker..:-3

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:10 pm

Baseball players belong to a Union, do you support that one?

I can understand the grievance some have towards collective bargaining in government, but not in the private industry. Unions are a natural extension of capitalism. What's the problem with that?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:08 pm

Ahso!;1410998 wrote: Baseball players belong to a Union, do you support that one?

I can understand the grievance some have towards collective bargaining in government, but not in the private industry. Unions are a natural extension of capitalism. What's the problem with that?
I have no problem against collective bargaining, only against permanent corporate entities that call themselves unions.

In this particular case, I'm confused as to the goals of the various parties. If the company was intent on declaring bankruptcy, is there some legal requirement for them to meet with the union? If the union was intent on driving Hostess out of business, what is their end game?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:49 pm

Maybe I'm dimwitted but it seems that the bosses used the strikes as a great opportunity to turn the attention away from their grossly incompetent mismanagement of the company to the alleged greed of the underpaid bakers and the unions that represented them. But what do I know?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:18 pm

Companies this size take a long time (years) to go out of business and everyone associated is aware of the situation. Much of what is in the media may be pr jockeying by both the unions and management, and of course, the media is probably embellishing this from every conceivable angle.

Businesses die sometimes, and in this case, there will a little less poison on the grocery shelves.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:08 pm

SnoozeAgain;1411046 wrote: Maybe I'm dimwitted but it seems that the bosses used the strikes as a great opportunity to turn the attention away from their grossly incompetent mismanagement of the company to the alleged greed of the underpaid bakers and the unions that represented them. But what do I know?
What was the purpose of the strike, if the company was bankrupt?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:57 am

Accountable;1411056 wrote: What was the purpose of the strike, if the company was bankrupt?

OK, I'll bite.

It highlighted the issues and the profiteering of the management (let's grab all the money before the company goes under). Given that the company was, self evidently, going under anyway, what harm did it do?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:15 am

Why do people always fall into supporting one side or the other in such disputes ?

I spent a short time on Google and discovered the company was old and well established, and had passed through a form of bankruptcy two years ago.

I suspect no lessons were learned by the management or employees by that experience.

The management probably failed to modernise it's production, the products themselves, and their attitude to it's staff.

Suspect the staff were working hard with outdated plant, using outdated systems at the lower end of the pay scale, watching the management swanning around in better cars each year, low morale low prospects.

Lack of communication, empathy and foresight, each out to protect their own situation................until those at the very top realised the plan was faulty and took as much out as they could before it all went down the pan.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:22 am

Why would anyone sympathize/support Hostess management instead of the workers? My mind, it is boggled.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:40 am

come on... the guy complains that his 'overtime' has gone down from 45k to 35K???

Twinkies bakers say they'd rather lose jobs than take pay cuts - Yahoo! News

35K is still more than what a lot of people make working regular hours let alone overtime..

I have no sympathy for either side.. they only thing that they did 'collectively' was bring down yet another company.