sherm03;1321991 wrote:Do you work at a job where you have sick time and vacation time? Do you enjoy those perks?

You can thank unions for that...

Thank you unions, for the work you did in the 1880s through 1950s, when labor laws did not exist. Thank you for helping establish those laws. Now we can all enjoy our work environments BECAUSE OF THE LAWS IN PLACE.

We'll hang a plaque on the wall in remembrance of you. But your work here is done. You no longer serve a good purpose to this country. And if you go away, I'm pretty certain my sick time and vacation will remain.

Thanks unions!

sherm03;1321991 wrote:Do you work at a job where you have sick time and vacation time? Do you enjoy those perks?

You can thank unions for that...

Yeah....but I also haven't missed a day this year. The one time in 15 years I needed them they went with worthless. Thank You unions.

Pretty sure my wife has had 3 different jobs the past decade and they all had sick time and vacation time.

Again, thank you unions for not having school in the summer???? or school 260 days a year.

Point being, if it weren't for unions those perks probably wouldn't have happened.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything a Union stands for. I can see both sides to this argument.

But when it comes down to it, I don't think it's such a bad thing to give employees a little more leverage over the big dogs at corporations when it comes to coming to agreements on wages, benefits, etc.

I love when companies go out of business and try to blame unions or government regulations. If you can't maintain a profitable business within the confines of the law AND the contracts you've signed and agreed to, you're either dumb, a terrible businessman, or both.

This isn't defending unions, whose purpose has passed a long time ago, but I certainly don't blame Hostess going out of business on unions for one single second.

I feel the same way about the companies that are QQing about Obamacare and they have to do this and that or shut down. Fine, do all of that and see of you can still maintain a profitable business. If you can, good for you. You win! If not then sorry, you lose, you're terrible at running a business. Quit crying about it to the press though. It makes you look like a baby.

Mooney44Cards;1322206 wrote:I love when companies go out of business and try to blame unions or government regulations. If you can't maintain a profitable business within the confines of the law AND the contracts you've signed and agreed to, you're either dumb, a terrible businessman, or both.

This isn't defending unions, whose purpose has passed a long time ago, but I certainly don't blame Hostess going out of business on unions for one single second.

I feel the same way about the companies that are QQing about Obamacare and they have to do this and that or shut down. Fine, do all of that and see of you can still maintain a profitable business. If you can, good for you. You win! If not then sorry, you lose, you're terrible at running a business. Quit crying about it to the press though. It makes you look like a baby.

yeah lets blame those rich, greedy bastards employing America. Its their fault for starting a business.

Mooney44Cards;1322206 wrote:I love when companies go out of business and try to blame unions or government regulations. If you can't maintain a profitable business within the confines of the law AND the contracts you've signed and agreed to, you're either dumb, a terrible businessman, or both.

This isn't defending unions, whose purpose has passed a long time ago, but I certainly don't blame Hostess going out of business on unions for one single second.

I feel the same way about the companies that are QQing about Obamacare and they have to do this and that or shut down. Fine, do all of that and see of you can still maintain a profitable business. If you can, good for you. You win! If not then sorry, you lose, you're terrible at running a business. Quit crying about it to the press though. It makes you look like a baby.

You have valid points. Hostess has been in bad shape for a while. But the union didn't help anything, and likely was the nail in the coffin.

Pick6;1322211 wrote:yeah lets blame those rich, greedy bastards employing America. Its their fault for starting a business.

Who else do you blame for not being able to run a business within the confines of the law?

I suppose we should feel bad for all those companies who went out of business when the government started regulating pollution and environmental impact of businesses. "Yes it's better for the environment but won't somebody think of the poor rich people running the business and the ppl who will lose their jobs because we can't dump chemicals into drinking water anymore!" QQ

Anyone saw the price of Twinkies on Ebay???

All of the assets of the company will be liquidated. Including the rights to the products Hostess sold. And guess what, they'll need factories to make the products they've just bought the rights to. And what better than the factories already setup to make the products they've just bought the rights to. And the factory will need workers to run the machines, and what better than the ones that already know how to make the product they've just bought the rights to.

Quid pro quo.

ccrunner609;1321880 wrote:unions that want $20 hour jobs for people that should be paid $10 is why they can go Away. auto unions are worse.

cc, its not all just about money...You have people fighting for you over sexual harassment, supervisor and employee personality conflicts without the fear of being fired. And that does happen in a lot of "non-union business's". Even the military, White-House, Congress.ect.ect.ect.
So, if we do away with unions...Do you think the "$20 hour jobs" are going to people that deserve $10??? Who gets the other $10??? You if your the business owner right? So you get richer in half the time and everyone of your workers have to work maybe two jobs to keep even.

One more thing cc, you don't know the qualifications (unless you're in a union) for a union pay scale. And if you are in a union, QUIT if you don't like it. I'm sure there is a nice long line to take your place!

"And the factory will need workers to run the machines, and what better than the ones that already know how to make the product they've just bought the rights to."

Well maybe ones that wouldn't allow the product to cause the business to go into bankruptcy. This isn't highly skilled labor.

"You have people fighting for you over sexual harassment, supervisor and employee personality conflicts without the fear of being fired. "

In my experience with family members in unions and working with various business, this benefit is highly inflated. When there are legitimate workplace claims the union lawyers are rarely to be found. Both of my NEA union family members had legit claims (one involved a forced grade change, the other involved after-work harassment). The NEA was WORTHLESS!

This is 2012, and let's be honest. Unions are there for the benefit of the unions - which means benefits for the union heads and a certain political party that these latter-day socialists (and that is what they are) put its clout behind. Any benefit to actual union workers is peripheral. I don't see the heads of the Teamsters or the AFL-CIO starving, despite that they continue to grow their idiotic "union mustaches." They prey on the foolish and weak, and are just as bad as management in many circumstances.

Manhattan Buckeye;1323162 wrote:They prey on the foolish and weak, and are just as bad as management in many circumstances.

I'd say they are oftentimes in bed with management as long as they are free to pick the pockets of those they allegedly represent.

Sykotyk;1322998 wrote:All of the assets of the company will be liquidated. Including the rights to the products Hostess sold. And guess what, they'll need factories to make the products they've just bought the rights to. And what better than the factories already setup to make the products they've just bought the rights to. And the factory will need workers to run the machines, and what better than the ones that already know how to make the product they've just bought the rights to.

Quid pro quo.

On the contrary - the factories Hostess was using are, by and large, ten to twenty year obsolete - chronic lack of profits equals no funds to update capital equipment. Someone who has or can attract the capital will buy the brand, move the production to new or updated facilities, and shift the distribution function out to logistics companies.

The existing labor force has already indicated that they weren't making enough to make it worth their while to work for Hostess - they won't be interested for working for less.

The existing factories and labor force were enough of a negative to shut the company down - this isn't a reorganization, or a ploy to dump retiree/severance benefits like the General Motors bankruptcy.

^^^Excellent post. Pretty much nailed it.

When profits start to dwindle and investment gets cut, the writing is on the wall. And the problem with unions is it can be extremely difficult to cut wages to what it takes to be competitive. That then becomes a model for private equity - it doesn't make sense, financially, for the owner to go into bankruptcy. He sells to a PE firm to get what he can, and then they take it into bankruptcy to restructure in a way to make the business competitive.

And I don't begrudge the union for deciding they don't want to work for Hostess at those wages. Fully within their rights - and they've never been prevented from going somewhere else that pays them more. Just as it's fully within the owners rights to sell or declare bankruptcy.

Walmart is gearing up for a similar fight (but obviously they are in no danger of bankruptcy). Walmart workers want a living wage. Perfectly understandable. However, I might also say that Walmart isn't exactly a place to make a career. There are actually companies out there that can deal with turnover because they are so efficient and structure in terms of SOP's that anyone can come off the street and get up to speed on an unskilled job quickly. When you have millions of unemployed who would be happy to step-in to your $10/hr job you don't have any leverage.

gut;1324037 wrote:^^^... Walmart workers want a living wage. Perfectly understandable. ....

What people want isn't nearly as important as the market value of their service. There are plenty of retired/second job and young student age people willing to work at a wage that isn't a "living wage". that drives the market value of retail service pay down.

Did anyone really expect a company that makes Twinkies, Ho-Ho's, and Ding Dongs to survive in the 21st century with little else driving profits? Like it or not, people are more health conscious than ever despite being fucking fat asses.

To be honest the only real valuable brand they have that could survive in the 21st century is Wonder Bread and even that has to have been doing poorly lately with pretty much every nutrition expert declaring that white bread has little to no nutritional value.

But yes, its the union's fault.

Con_Alma;1324075 wrote:What people want isn't nearly as important as the market value of their service. There are plenty of retired/second job and young student age people willing to work at a wage that isn't a "living wage". that drives the market value of retail service pay down.

I completely agree. I'm just saying, I don't begrudge someone who wants a living wage. It's a free market, they are more than capable of getting paid for the value they add.

What's really at play here is an economy that doesn't create enough good paying jobs. When you have persistently high unemployment there's no bargaining power (even collectively, in many cases). You won't see wage inflation until you get full employment. And that's the dirty secret of socialism - you suppress economic growth which then requires MORE redistribution. The govt is subsidizing wages but there's no value being created for which to pay for those subsidies.

gut;1324089 wrote:I completely agree. I'm just saying, I don't begrudge someone who wants a living wage. It's a free market, they are more than capable of getting paid for the value they add.
....

Not begrudging people wasn't the focus of my point. I have zero interest in what people want. I wouldn't give employees what they want ever whether others begrudge them or not. Begrudging peoples want's doesn't mean a thing.

There market value means everything even if they provide more value than you are paying them . Find someone who provides similar value that will aggree to less money when there are millions of them out there.

Mooney44Cards;1324079 wrote:Did anyone really expect a company that makes Twinkies, Ho-Ho's, and Ding Dongs to survive in the 21st century with little else driving profits? Like it or not, people are more health conscious than ever despite being ****ing fat asses.

I don't think that's really the case. The junk food market is still ginormous. The big problem we are seeing with all these companies (and the Big 3 are no exception) is rising legacy costs making their products uncompetitive and unprofitable. In the ponzi scheme that are pensions (and SS), you have to continue to grow to pay for a larger and larger retiree base.

All these deals that ultimately are doing in these companies were negotiated years ago when union and mgmt alike just saw endless sustainable growth. These markets did not continue to grow at those assumed rates, and competition also eroded share. So you simply can't make good on those promises. Thus you renegotiate more competitive wages & benefits or you go bankrupt. It's not a case of horrible mismanagement as many are claiming

Con_Alma;1324094 wrote: There market value means everything even if they provide more value than you are paying them . Find someone who provides similar value that will aggree to less money when there are millions of them out there.

I'm not sure where we are disagreeing. All I'm saying is that I'm not assuming they were being paid a market wage (Walmart might be a better example). But if they weren't, they were always free to go somewhere else that would.

I think a union does a massive disservice when it throws in the towel in such manner - it's not for the union to piss away those jobs, if the workers don't like it find something else.

gut;1324098 wrote:I don't think that's really the case. The junk food market is still ginormous. The big problem we are seeing with all these companies (and the Big 3 are no exception) is rising legacy costs making their products uncompetitive and unprofitable. In the ponzi scheme that are pensions (and SS), you have to continue to grow to pay for a larger and larger retiree base.

All these deals that ultimately are doing in these companies were negotiated years ago when union and mgmt alike just saw endless sustainable growth. These markets did not continue to grow at those assumed rates, and competition also eroded share. So you simply can't make good on those promises. Thus you renegotiate more competitive wages & benefits or you go bankrupt. It's not a case of horrible mismanagement as many are claiming

So you're not willing to accept that Hostess's upper management is simply incompetent?

They ran this place into the ground. They don't know how to plan production. From this plant alone, they overproduced $30,000 of product every week that they had to discount and send to thrift stores right away. That $30,000 loss could cover a lot of wages.

During the recession, when other companies cut prices, they raised theirs! What kind of sense does that make? In this plant, they appointed an engineer to run the bakery. Why not a baker, who really knows how to run a bakery?

There are union rules that dictate that you must produce x product with x amount of workers. Nice try though.

What union do you work for?

Mooney44Cards;1324105 wrote:So you're not willing to accept that Hostess's upper management is simply incompetent?

No, I reject that the answer is that simple. Companies that survive the long haul are able to adapt and change, but when you have a labor intensive business and labor costs that are inflexible (because of unions) your options are limited.

In most cases, the issue you site where people overproduce and take a loss is because reduced volume costs them MORE money because of guarantees to union workers. I know at one point a laid-off UAW worker would get 95% of their take home (something like making up the difference vs. unemployment, obviously before 2008). Idling or closing plants have costs associated with them, so often the lower cost alternative is doing exactly what you are siting as evidence of mismanagement.

I'm not saying management was good or even not poor, but it's a fallacious assumption to think you can just turn a wage structure put in place over decades on a dime to be more competitive with a changing marketplace.

In more serious news:

You wanna see a union with some power then be a Teamster. I swear a supervisor looks at me funny and his a** is grass. My buddy switched to management a few months ago and said, "You're right, I did lose all my power when I got promoted". I mean the only thing they can do is tell me where I'm needed basically