Cookaholics Bulletin Board
https://cookaholics.org/

Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
https://cookaholics.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2680		 Page 1 of 7
Author:  talanhart [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:57 am ]
Post subject:  Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
I just read where a crippling union strike will cause this company to close and lay off 18,500 workers.
Author:  JesBelle [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
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.
Author:  auntcy1 [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Hostess also owns Drakes which means no more coffee cakes jrs, ring dings, yodels, devil dogs, funny bones - the treats of my childhood!
Author:  Paul Kierstead [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
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.
Author:  talanhart [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Either way, it's sad that these people have to lose their jobs.
Author:  Kathy's Pete [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Collectively it was their decision to lose their jobs rather than accept the conditions that would have kept the company open.
Author:  wino [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
And the health of America soars! :lol:
Author:  Paul Kierstead [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
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.
Author:  jim262 [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
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.
Author:  BeckyH [ Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
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.
Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/