Cookaholics Bulletin Board

Cookaholics Bulletin Board

Shop, cook, eat, drink, post, repeat.
 
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:48 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:43 am
Posts: 1426
I just read where a crippling union strike will cause this company to close and lay off 18,500 workers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:50 pm
Posts: 2062
Really? I just heard a union rep say that poor decision-making on the part of Hostess' management is going to cause the company to close. ;)

At any rate, I can't wait to hear about this on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me this week. Paula Poundstone should have a thing or 8 to say about it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:54 pm
Posts: 1165
Location: New York
Hostess also owns Drakes which means no more coffee cakes jrs, ring dings, yodels, devil dogs, funny bones - the treats of my childhood!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:45 pm
Posts: 1531
Location: Ottawa, ON
With revenues of over $2B, I rather suspect that someone will purchases the names/products and manufacture them elsewhere. Or possibly, purchase the plants. sell the plants (possibly to a subsidiary), restart the plants and then contact the manufacture of the "food" to these plants. This kind of scheme can have tax, liability and labour advantages for the owners. For the rest of us, the benefit might be debatable, but that would be a political discussion probably best reserved for other places.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:43 am
Posts: 1426
Either way, it's sad that these people have to lose their jobs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:10 pm
Posts: 1060
Location: PA
Collectively it was their decision to lose their jobs rather than accept the conditions that would have kept the company open.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 2305
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
And the health of America soars! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:45 pm
Posts: 1531
Location: Ottawa, ON
Kathy's Pete wrote:
Collectively it was their decision to lose their jobs rather than accept the conditions that would have kept the company open.


Well.... yes, clearly, that is true. However, you are implying that they were being unreasonable (or at least seem to be implying that). That is not necessarily the case (note necessarily). They may feel that the company is able to afford their demands, but the company is unwilling to sacrifice a certain amount of profit. Or the company simply see an opportunity to exit the food manufacturing business and sell the brand. I've looked hard at a few cases and it isn't always clear cut one way or the other (who is being more unreasonable), which makes sense as if it was obvious who was being unreasonable, they would probably compromise. It is all very easy to proclaim that these guys chose to lose their jobs but clearly they believed that the company could meet their demands and remain in business. Whether you are pro or anti union, etc, it is clear that working folks to not intentionally put themselves out of a job. So give them some credit that they had some kind of case. They might have been wrong, or not. The companies story is not particularly more credible then the unions.

I'm always curious about these cases; clearly the workers would rather work for a fair wage that is sustainable, and they clearly believe that their demands can be met. Just as clearly the company believes that they would be better served by selling their assets instead of continuing operation. Where does this pretty fundamental difference of opinion come from? (note: Rhetorical. We might know in a couple of years when it is a case study). And how does a company get in the position where the employees believe so strong they are being ripped off that they are willing to risk unemployment? The NFL strike had similar issues, as does the current NHL strike.

It is important to remember that both sides here are adding a lot of spin. The union makes a nice target for a companies woes, and proclamations of corporate greed are common fodder for unions. Don't fall for the simple story; you can be sure when a multi-billion dollar company gets to this point, there is a lot more going on. I'd love to see a good analysis of it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:27 pm
Posts: 526
Location: Finger Lakes Wine Country
The most curious thing I've found Googling around is that neither the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union nor the 18,000 employees of Hostess appear to have any interest in tendering an offer for the company assets. It also looks like the union and\or the employees are walking away from an offer of 25% of the company as part of a settlement offer.

If there was ever a situation that called for employee ownership of a company, this is it. I too would be interested in hearing the rest of the story.

_________________
Jim
Weights of Baking Ingredients


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:03 pm
Posts: 1149
If they hadn't given quite so much compensation to the executives, there was more than enough money to cover the employee requests. Instead of chopping the bonuses of the people who mis-managed the company into bankruptcy, they are letting 18,000 people lose their jobs. It's like giving away 2 million pizzas and complaining that 17 cents per pizza is too much to pay for employee healthcare.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum