I confess I am not able to follow how this was rational on the part of the union, after the teamsters' statement, but I haven't followed the story carefully. Perhaps somebody else can say why it was. Meanwhile, let us all morn the twinkie.

True.

CF, if nobody else does, I will. As is made known in Family Guy, Twinkies factories are the only ones that can survive nuclear disaster.

Also I misspelled "mourn."

Hostess is too big to fail! Bailout!

I do wanna point out the CEO also got a 300% raise as they were approaching bankruptcy.

Probably also not rational, CF.

Yeah.. probably didn't help with negoations. And the Teamsters had reached a settlement. I was another union employed that hadn't. .

I know, CF. But the Teamsters had looked at the books and told everybody that the company was definitely about to go bust. Once a union has said that, I don't see how it's rational to keep talking about "calling their bluff" when they give a liquidation deadline.

Noc lue I don't know all the facts off hand. But I do know it wasn't the Teamsters stopping them, but another union. So can't blame them. Also, I guess a bunch of the other unions problem was the fact the CEO's wage went from 750k to 2.5mil and other execs got similar raises, but they were expected to take cuts across the board.

Sorry shouldn't blame them. Also the other union should go by what it's members want not what another union necessarily says.

Eh. I don't really see that. I don't see that the Teamsters had any reason to lie. And however irrational the company's decisions, well, 18k people are now unemployed completely. Doesn't seem better than an 8% cut however angry you are.

I prefer Little Debbies anyway. But yeah, kinda sad seeing a business like that biting the dust... like Kodak.

It wasn't just an 8% cut. It was also slashing benefits and they already had their pension fund done away with.

My last comment made me go look at what was going on with Kodak and same old thing with the CEO there as well:
"As Eastman Kodak's (EKDKQ.PK) cash dwindles and its creditors battle in bankruptcy court for repayment, some objected that the photography company's CEO Antonio M. Perez continues putting his own interests first when it comes to compensation."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1012201-kodak-s-ceo-prioritizes-his-compensation-even-amid-bankruptcy

Hogs should be slaughtered. (not literally, but you know)

So the CFO got a raise...is that bad? When GM got bailed out all the debt holders were bent over and fucked while the Unions were given the ownership in a company they legally had no right to....you win some, you lose some.

Beside, apparently the CEO wasn't lying about the financial condition of his company, and if the Unions would have listened to him, they would **still have jobs**. i.e. He was doing his job, was open and honest about the situation, offered a solution to allow the company to survive -- he did what was required of him...the unions just decided to ignore him. It's not the CEO's fault...if the Union would have listened and taken the deal, the CEO would be praised for saving Hostess...and thus worth every dime of his salary to the 18,500 that would still have jobs.

But honestly, the CEO could have given up his salary completely and the company still would not have survived without the union giving concessions...this classist argument that CEO's shouldn't make a decent salary is tired, died up bullshit.

Bottom line: the Union's can't do math, they gambled on the fantasy that they will always win (especially under the current regime)...and they lost the bet. No tears should be shed over this...after all, you could suggest that 51% of the country generally backs unions...including most here on this site...so this is a **great** outcome. Why? Becuase the union was told *point blank* what would happened and the Union **made the choice** to kill Hostess. It wasn't an accident, and it wasn't done in the dark -- it was the union's *CHOICE* to kill Hostess, so everyone should be cheering....

And, after all, Michelle Obama and NY's mayor would prefer you not eat this vile food anyway....so again...cheer this demise of an evil killer company.

In place of your twinkies, you can all suck on an savor the hypocrisy of the left. It isn't quite a lip-licking and filling as your twinkie was, but it will *never* go away.

Oh I know, but I should say I'm pro-union in cases where the union makes a difference. For example totally feel that UPS needs a union after working there.. don't think Starbucks does though.

You tell them Krellin! Unions are scum! Real company men post on Webddip during work hours!

Never said there shouldn't of been concessions but from both sides, not just the union side.

Seriously, you've got to be the worst CEO in history to run the company that makes Twinkies into the ground in the richest, fattest country.

Well this is the second time this decade where Hostess has had to file for bankruptcy.

"Never said there shouldn't of been concessions but from both sides, not just the union side."

But that's not the choice the unions had, CF. It was concessions on their side, or lose their jobs. They chose to lose their jobs, and I still don't see that as a good move.

I have to agree but I'm not in that union so I can't don't know how those workers feel.

Fair enough.

abge.....maybe the fattest country, but apparently it's off of: fast food, gigantic pops, "energy" drinks (for people sitting on their asses), potato chips, excessively large portions at every meal, sitting on their asses, processed food instead of fresh fruit and veggies, etc...I honestly don't know anyone that has had a twinky in their recent memory...they are actually quite disgusting as I recall.

I think America is in no eminent danger of slimming down with the death of Hostess.

As for concenssions...again, let's do basic math...there ar 4, 5? people at the top of a company. Their salaries combined, if forfeited, wouldn't make a dent in the company's problems, as opposed to the cost of 18,500 employees with their respective benefits.

And why do people at the top make big money? Because they all sit on each othe's board and vote each other higher wages.....you know, just like unions go on strike and blackmail companies into giving them more than the company can afford.

Why is it that unions stealing from a corporation by demanding unsupportable wage and benefit packages is somehow noble, but if a CEO who worked his ass off through education and uncounted long hours in the office - not getting paid overtime usually while he /she is away from his family - is somehow evil and corrupt?

By the way - ever met a CEO? Most of them don't know their kids, because they spend their life working...it's sad, actually. This notion that CEO and company execs are just rich assholes that were born in to a position is...well, it's just the childish myths of the left playing class-warfare to justify union thuggery....

Annnnnnnd..GO!

I don't have a problem with CEO earning a decent wage.. but how is it smart to give yourself a 300% raise knowing you're close to bankruptcy.. oh and raises/bonuses for all the other CEOS... that doesn't make much sense either.

Was that really the only choice? Or was the choice from the board 'play chicken with the union and if we crash we'll all float to safety in our golden parachutes.' Assisted suicide of a troubled company, and now they can blame it on the union. It is not logical to assume that the only remedy was to follow the board's dictates, nor is it logical to assume that the board had no other recourse but to ask the Union to take the measures in question. Finally, it is illogical to assume that the board was committed to seeing the company survive. You are putting the onus on the Union when you do not know if that is truly the case. Sure the union might have been foolish, or they might have been trying to call the companies bluff and the board, having been called, might have made the decision to take the ball and go home rather than come to a more equal agreement to solve the companies problems. I don't know, you don't know

@Krellin

Why does a CEO deserve a raise *before* he saves a company? Shouldn't he get it after? While I agree his raise alone didn't make a difference, it's a show of bad faith and a piss-poor way to lead. Lead by example. He didn't even need to take a cut, just don't take a raise. That's like the captain taking up two seats in a life boat.

"Was that really the only choice?"

SC, I said it was the UNION's only choice. That much we can know. You're right that we won't know for some time, if ever, whether the board had other choices.

And the Union probably thought that the company was bluffing and attempting to use the situation to low ball them and force them into awful contracts. They called the bluff. And who knows, if the board was behaving in the best interest of the company, perhaps they would have. There is no way the union could know it was truly their only choice or if the board was playing games. And as you conceded the board may have been playing games all along even though they did decide to shut it down

"Why does a CEO deserve a raise *before* he saves a company? "

Oh....I thoughts the way is was done in the US of A. You know....for example...Solyndra gets half a billion dollars of federal money, company execs get fat and wealthy, they order a few solar panels from China (because it's too expensive to make them domestically even with Fed money), Democrats get lots of campaign donations...then company goes belly-up.

That's the Democrat way, isn't it? So what's good for glorious Green energy and the Federal gov'mnt ought to be just fine for Hostess. I don't understand your confusion???

"And the Union probably thought that the company was bluffing "

Right, which made little sense after what the Teamsters had said.

"Assisted suicide" of a troubled company.....sigh....I thought good libs love assisted suicide. Actually, I thought good libs hate greedy coroporations....so again, I don't understand why all this hypocritical distress. If company A makes money, they are an evil corporation. If company B loses money and goes under, they are an evil corporation.....sigh....there is just no winning with liberals.

The company was dying regardless of what money anyone took from it, the CEO, the union, anyone. Single serving junk food has been on the decline for the last 20 years, and as krellin has pretty much said, no one buys Twinkies anymore. I worked retail a few years ago, we sent back far more than we sold and those things have crazy shelf lifes.

Basically, the union tried to hardball the company back, figuring that they'd cave in the best case scenario, or the worst case scenario, fold. The thing is, though, that bakery products and lines get bought and sold all over the place. Look at the history of Hostess or Drake's or any of them, they meander through different companies constantly. The likelihood that those people will legitimately lose their jobs entirely is low, someone's going to snap up the assets and keep running with them. The union believes, and if history is any indication they are correct, that any shutdown will be temporary at best even if the parent company dies.

Sooo, let's interject this conversation with some facts.

Everyone is whining about the CEO raise. My question is when did he get it? This CEO was brought in 11 months ago to fix Hostess. His predecessors ran it into the ground through the structuring of their capital and other measures (they took on too much debt as a way of financing the company as opposed to equity). If his "raise" means he was paid a higher salary than his predecessor, then he is entitled to it in my opinion, since he was hired to get the company out of bankruptcy.

Oh, and from Wikipedia

"In March 2012, Brian Driscoll resigned from his position as CEO.[21] Gregory Rayburn, who had been hired and named Chief Restructuring Officer only nine days earlier, assumed the leadership position. Fortune reported that unions within the organization had been unhappy with Driscoll's proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million "long term compensation" package. Additionally, the court had discovered that Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year prior. In an effort to restore relations, Rayburn cut the salaries of the four top Hostess executives to $1, to be restored on January 1 the following year"

They are not a publicly held firm, so its board of directors would mostly be made of people from Ripplewood Holdings, the private equity firm that holds the majority stake in Hostess. This is the same Ripplewood Holdings that pumped an additional $30 million into the company this summer to try and keep it afloat. Dumping the old leadership and investing more money into the company shows they wanted to keep Hostess afloat.

The contract that was in question was one that every other union had already agreed to. It would be an 8% cut in salary this year, followed by a 4% raise over the next 3 years. For everyone, including executives. It did cut pensions and health benefits, yes, but it also would have given workers 25% ownership in the company, and labor unions two permanent seats on the board of directors. The workers could have seen a net gain over 10 years through these plans (as compared to their original salaries).

The unions made the decision that they'd rather chance being bought out by another firm because these brands cannot die. The problem with this thinking is that the whole baking industry is operating under capacity right now. If Wonder Bread bought by, say, Arnold breads or something, Arnold may hire a few more people to work in its existing factories, but it would then use its existing warehouses, distribution centers, and outlet stores to distribute the product. The ones hostess has used will not be replaced, the factories Hostess had may not go back online. Overall some of the jobs may be gained back, *but not in the same place they were lost*. The Bakers Union did a good job fucking this up.

So yeah, the company had been mishandled for the better part of the 2000s. But the new management team seemed to be sincere with having everyone make sacrifices to get the company back on track. 13,500 other Hostess workers had agreed to the cuts, but this one union, representing 30% of Hostess workers had to fuck over the other 70%

Bimbo, makers of Arnold, have a more regional scheme than Wonder, and if you're buying Wonder or Hostess in general, you're buying it for its national reach. Most of the players in the baked goods market except for Hostess are pretty regional, so if any of them made a play for the brands (which is likely) they'd also likely need to keep the bakeries and distribution centers in markets they don't currently service. But yeah, the redundant bakeries and distribution centers are likely going to be mothballed, yet increasing capacity by that much would result in some hiring (not enough to compensate for the numbers lost, but some).

Not sure how many redundant bakeries there'd actually be. Most bakeries are set up for making certain products already. I t would depend on how hard it would be make the adjustments to the existing plants.

Interesting. I worked in accounting for a baking products company, but we made mixes, not finished products. So I know a bit about how the distribution end goes of it, and the group of companies in general, but I didn't know how the production of existing products worked.

"... the redundant bakeries and distribution centers are likely going to be mothballed..."


Excellent. More efficiency, lest waste, less green-houses gases to destroy the planet while repugnant Americans continue to expand their waste lies. I see nothing but good in the death of Hostess!

from a facebook friend "For those of you who do not know me that well, my mom works (worked) at the Hostess/Wonder factory in town and is one of the people now out of a job due to the pending liquidation. As such, I've kept tabs on the company since it first filed for bankruptcy some years ago. The current news stories basically take the company's press releases as fact and blames the union for the shutdown. I'd like to add that while the strike surely accelerated the shutdown, it was inevitable and already in the works. The last CEO (and there have been many of them in the last few years) was brought in not as a bakery or bankruptcy-turnaround expert, but as a liquidation expert. The company has been positioning itself in such a way as to make it attractive to sell, not to make it lean and profitable enough to pull itself out of bankruptcy. Make no mistake that the company has not been run well over the last 7-10 years. The workers decided that they did not want to make more concessions when they have had their pay continuously cut by roughly 33% over the years and having their benefits taken away, all while seeing the management's pay increase between 80 and 300%

A 1 week long strike does not break the back of a well-run company. It may be trendy to hate on unions, but it is simply not the truth that they are the sole cause of this sell-off."

....Thus saith the Union propoganda....

the purpose of bankruptcy is not necessarily to liquidate....it is to restructure debt, to restructure contracts and make the company viable. In this case, you had a union that **refused** to cooperate and acknowledge a fiscal reality....MUCH like the citizens of the US, the Congress and the President of the United States...

Many companies go through bankruptcy and emerge stronger...it is accomplished by unions taking concessions. Unions killed Hostess...

One week long strike did not kill hostess...True Statement.

YEARS of unions demanding more and more of the companies wealth for standing in front of a machine pushing the green button for excessive wages and benefits killed the company...True Statement.

@Sic - while I agree that the company had problems long before this and unions weren't the biggest reason they went bankrupt, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. If you look at Rayburn's resume, he's successfully turned around several companies. Yes, he might have been making Hostess more successful, but for an acquisition or merger, not liquidation.