[Freedman]

Hostess, the makers of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread, is going out of business after striking workers failed to heed a Thursday deadline to return to work, the company said. “We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike,” Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn said.

Officials for the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union say the company stopped contributing to workers' pensions last year which was unacceptable so their members refused to back down. "Although this is a set back for a few of our individual members we see it as a victor for not only our Union but for all Unions. Hopefully this will send a message to other operations, if they walk away from negotiations we will shut them down".

You can bet this will make other businesses sit up and take notice. If you refuse to negotiate and pay fair wages, workers will come together and shut your greedy asses down. Let the war begin:P

[BilboBagend]

Pensions should be taken out of the hands of companies. Government has poorly regulated pensions, especially after Bush passed the two pension protection acts which allowed corporations to raid pension funds in order to apparently improve the bottom line and certify executive bonuses.

1) Pensions should be treated as delayed wages, especially in any action reorganizing or bankrupting a company.

2) Pension funds should be held outside any company influence in a totally separate financial pension corporation.

3) We should migrate from the current model where companies provide benefits into a system where employees can or must put a fraction of their income away for health benefits, pension benefits, etc. In that migration, all funds companies presently put into benefits should be mandatorily converted into wages. Employees could then buy benefits either from private providers, the state, or the federal government in an open market.

[Freedman]

Just heard Holder is appointing attorneys to oversee how the money from the liquidation is divided up to insure the 18,000 employees losing their jobs receive the money. Hostess is trying to argue that share holders should receive the liquidation funds but Holder says it would be wrong for the workers to be left out in the cold since the liquidation is nothing more than an attempt to avoid legally binding Union contracts.

Folks I think we're seeing a new trend, workers' rights are no longer being ignored by our Government, if a company wants to close their doors they can no longer take the money and run, revenge is just around the corner, hang in there.

[BilboBagend]

Bankruptcy rules are well defined.

Pay out goes in the order of

1) taxes
2) wages
3) debtors
4) ...


Pensions, etc get screwed
Executives get special treatment for their cooperation or the execs simply steal everything.

[Freedman]

Yes but Holder is insuring that the obligation Hostess has to it's employees are counted as" debt owed" to insure they aren't left out as been the case in the past. Pensions and future loss wages are being classified as "debt", that Holder will not allow to be written off, it's about time.

[BilboBagend]

I'll wait and see how that works.

[BilboBagend]

Filing in White Plains, NY.

Now what can Eric Holder have to do with this case? What is the U.S. Attorney General got to do with this case?

[Shimmer]

The thing is that the company had continually declining sales and only emerged from their first bankruptcy in 2009. The current bankruptcy court agreed that the final offer to the union was the best that they could possibly do, and all the other unions including the teamsters made the concessions necessary to preserve the jobs of the workers. The bakers fought hard to get more than there was to get so they wouldn't loose wages and benefits, and ultimately their 5000 members kicked a total of 18,500 people out of work. So much for those wages and benefits. Holder needs to stay out of it and just let the judge distribute the money from the sale of assets as determined by the current laws on the books.

[Freedman]

Holder needs to stay out of it and just let the judge distribute the money from the sale of assets as determined by the current laws on the books.

I respectfully disagree, worker's rights need to be protected and if that means our elected leaders need to step in, so be it. Time to send a message to businesses that their workers aren't slaves, treat them fairly or there will be consquences.

[Leroy]

The company has been bought and sold many times, trying to keep it afloat. The workers were the single largest cost the company had. I have no sympathy for the striking workers, one of them, on TV, said that they didn't want to work for less, that they would rather shut the company down - and now, because of their greed, we have to support them.

Ask yourself what is better, working for Minimum Wage (which is not what was asked) and doing an honorable days work, or screwing your neighbors by making them pay for your needs and family? One is the Union/Liberal mentality, the other is Free/Honorable.

[justdoit]

The problem here is and I think we need to maybe focus on Mangement

If the workers take a cut, it only slows the sinking of the Uss Hostess Titannic. That ship will sink by itself or if it's broken up into pieces and then sank, but the wage issue is an excuse not the problem.
What new snack food that sells has Hostess brought out in the last 10 years. Look on store shelves, eye level theres the products that are making a profit, protein bars, low calorie snack bars, Sams club bulk buying, Not some 1950 era twinkies sold at the local 7-11. And is Hostess mangement pushing trends demand? No their busy telling us its the workers fault by not taking min wage so that hostess can continue on its course to that looming Iceburg.
If I remember "Luna protein bars" are doing a pretty good profit, made in Boulder Colo by people making more than min wage? Why is that? Maybe their mangement can see and follow trends......
Its not 1958 any more......

[RealJustme]

And is Hostess mangement pushing trends demand? No their busy telling us its the workers fault by not taking min wage so that hostess can continue on its course to that looming Iceburg.

They were asking them to accept $18.00 an hour as starting wages plus a benefit package worth another $25.00 an hour for a total cost to the company of $43.00 an hour for a new employee. Hostess said they would raise the hourly rate if the Union agree to cuts in benefits, they wouldn't agree to it. The court is the one that determined that Hostess could not continue operating unless the union agreed to the $43.00 an hour costs, they woldn't agree to it so the court agree to the liquidation. Now the union workes are free to go work for a company that is willing to pay more than $43.00 an hour for a new employee...happy hunting.

Carlos

[Leroy]

They were asking them to accept $18.00 an hour as starting wages plus a benefit package worth another $25.00 an hour for a total cost to the company of $43.00 an hour for a new employee. Hostess said they would raise the hourly rate if the Union agree to cuts in benefits, they wouldn't agree to it. The court is the one that determined that Hostess could not continue operating unless the union agreed to the $43.00 an hour costs, they woldn't agree to it so the court agree to the liquidation. Now the union workes are free to go work for a company that is willing to pay more than $43.00 an hour for a new employee...happy hunting.

And for $18/hr + Benefits, they are willing to KILL a company because of greed. While I'm sure that Hostess products are good, I'm just as sure that fewer and fewer people are eating them - hell, even Odumbass tells people to not eat that crap type food.... If the workers want to have a job, in the USA, in a declining market, one that even the POTUSA is against, they are going to have to be competitive and take a pay-cut. Just imagine how much they could save if they (employees) dumped the Union.

[BilboBagend]

Lousy products. Out of touch with today's market. A great combination. The free market is speaking.

[Leroy]

And yet they could survive with what the company offered and the company would not have to close down - another case of UNION GREED.

[RealJustme]

Lousy products. Out of touch with today's market. A great combination. The free market is speaking.

Yep the Union parasites killed their host...way out of touch with today's market. Expecting a company to pay more than $43.00 an hour for the bottom employee to make a product on the decline, insane!

[justdoit]

I would sugest those accusing the union employees of refusing $18 dollars / hr starting wage do a bit more research in their figures.
I believe the union is refusing 11.25/hr for senior employees. But I guess in this country 11.25 an hr is acceptable to live on. Tell me, not trying to pick on anyone but who here lives on $11.25 an hr. Just wondering . Thats what 23-24 k a year.
Now as those greedy union bastards are refusing wage cuts to to 11.25/hr lets look at top mangment of the company and the pain their feeling this year, you know the company this mangment ran into bankruptcy in 2004, and now again in 2012
ceo- $750,000 to 2,550,000 this year, nice raise, I could live on it better than 11.25 an hr.
1 evp- $500,000 to 900,000 this year
2nd evp-$400,000-700,000 this year
3rd evp -$375,000-650,000 this year
4th evp-$375,000- 650,000 this year
I could go on but I think you get the picture. Dems some pretty good raises for those boys. The rest of the employees should join that union, a whole new defination of greedy parasites!!
My problem here is the symbolism of the whole fucking mess. How can those in power at this company tell anyone they must take a pay cut while they themselves rape the company before the doors close. And yet some say those greedy union parasites....

[Leroy]

Justdoit - what you seem to be missing, as I'm guessing that you're a liberal and blind to anything that isn't given to you/others, is that the employees have two choices:

1) Take concessionary cuts and keep a job that still pays more than Minimum wage, still offers benefits, still offers a pension.

2) Stay on strike and kill the company and go against the other two unions that have already accepted the concessions.

It doesn't matter how much anyone else makes, even if it seems ridiculous to you or me, the only thing that matters is if you can work and keep a job instead of screwing your neighbors. Sure, it may be a LOT harder on people to take a $6/hr pay cut, but, that's still more than Minimum Wage, still includes benefits (on top of that wage) and still provides more than sitting on your ass on public assistance - that only screws your neighbors.

So, again, it doesn't matter of the CEO makes 50,000,000,000 and wants concessions from the workers, it's about the WORKERS, some of them, saying they won't accept the concessions that the other unions have already accepted and destroying the company that pays 18,000+ workers because a few won't accept a cut.

[justdoit]

Leroy
Yes I'm pretty liberal, and truthful and proud to say it. And no leroy i'm not blind to whats given nor whats earned. Are you? I'm also not clueless to personal attacks. So lets do as they say and "stick to business" and leave the personal attacks to the kids, ok?
Let me ask you a question, have you ever read "The Grapes of wrath" by Steinbeck?? If not, try it its a great book. After reading it you will pretty much understand my line of thinking As to what pay cuts can and do lead to.
What employees earn durning a downturn of a company should directly be related to thats company's profits. As should be upper, lower, all management of said company. No mangement deserves a pay raise when a company goes through bankrupcy in 2004,2009, and 2012. Does it matter> yes it does in my eyes and as I'm sure your aware a good Ceo leads, a good manager leads, a good supervisor leads. They do not push. Workers respond when they are lead, not pushed. If a company (hostess) cannot survive is more of a problem of stagnet inovation, money/asset manipulation than workers pay. Workers pay is pretty much a given from company to company, they all need/use that burden. One cog in the wheel, not the only cog. Other cogs are respect, moral, and ability to be able to read then move on trend movements in the market. Those are directly related to mangement, that very mangement that took huge raises/bonuses while demanding paycuts from the rank and file.
This country has the highest amount of production per labor output of any country in the world, yet the base pay of the average worker is dropping. This should not be a fight of how to raise prduction levels, thats already the highest. This should not be a fight of how low we can take workers pay. This should be a fight of how we can be the best at inovation, and to best utilize that inovation in a world market. Dropping workers pay is easy, just a few quick clicks on the calulator and bingo its done, but its not the answer. Its a short term quick fix. And if thats the best that Hostess can come up with, cutting wages on workers while giving boneses to management, then again, it doesn't keep the USS Hostess from hitting that iceburg.

[RealJustme]

That union sure showed Hostess! The union workers who lost their jobs may be losing their homes, medical benefits and income but the union bosses flexed their muscle and shut the business down, not to mention the union bosses will keep their jobs...that's all that matters. A great day for the union bosses.

[Leroy]

Justdoit - that's where you fail, it's not your right to mandate how a company provides compensation for any employee, that's completely up to the employee.

As I've mentioned before, the employee sets the wage they are paid, but, as most "employees" don't understand this, as most people are quite willing to screw their neighbor, they don't understand the power they have and don't care enough about their neighbor to flex that power - they, most employees, are a ALL FOR ME mindset as we've seen in Unions. Unions are not about the collective, they are about the ME, what can I get and how can I use the Union to force the company to give it to me... like socialism/liberalism - forcing others to give to YOU so that you don't have to do/try as much.

The reason that Socialism is wrong is simply the way you think - you don't have to work at a company that you don't like, you don't have to buy their products, you don't have to accept any wage offer that you don't like, but, you (most people) don't have the integrity to do that, instead they just bitch and complain and keep supporting those same companies.

The fact is that the company, even if it's making record profits, doesn't have to give the workers anything more than they've already agreed to - and since there are three unions that are involved, since two of them have already reached agreement, since it's only a minority of workers that are screwing the collective, I can clearly understand how a company won't be held hostage by another corrupt union with greedy workers that would rather take tax payer money than work for more than Minimum Wage and Benefits.

If the workers don't want the Jobs then they should step aside and let the thousands of people that will take them have them.

[elklindo69]

The strike makes no sense.

They should have taken the lower wages, and looked for a job somewhere else while they were still working.

[DarknLadyJedi]

Hostess' attitude makes no sense. They should have just decided to remove any worker that wasn't coming to work and opened up the positions at whatever new pay level they wanted.

While I am a firm believer that we need to stop stupidity at the surface by making company execs accountable the fact is that the stockholders continue to position these failures in their spots and the stockholders own the company.

The workers can either except the pay offered or be terminated and replaced with people who think $11+ is better than the $6/hr job they currently have. Hell at least they had benefits and where keeping full time jobs.

[justdoit]

Hmmmm
I have not read, when the contract was modified to lower pay scales at Hostess was it at the end of a contract, or was it a contract broken into under bankruptsy laws.
Leroy
I left my employment under those exact terms you indicated, they (mangement)broke into an agreed and signed contract with the employees, gave us a take it or leave it offer, and I did, I left. They (the company) had played the bankruptsy game for the third time. They also "legally" broke in the the employee pension plan,(paid for equally by the employee and the company),used some of that money to give upper mangement grand bonuses for the money they saved and handed said employees retirement plans over to to the govt to pay via (pbgc). Under pbgc there is a max amount the monthly payout will be. If a person's retirement benifit was higher, so sorry, it was simply reduced, even after they (the employee) had retired and had been retired for years. I heard of retireed employees retirements cut in half, and more!, so much for signed and agreed to contracts.
For me, eary retirement was in my grasp and I took it. I had saved enough that I left at age 55, and thus far never looked back on that dark stain of my life.
Jedi
When some here say, the employee should just take it or leave it. Thats is indeed a way to think of the problem. But its not quite the way life is. The laws are made in favor of the company. In the case of bancruptsy, the law gives them (the company) the right to break signed agreements of pay, retirement, and other agreed and already paid for benifits. Its pretty easy to find numerous examples ie, anything with a" Frank Loranzo" attached to it. Being from Fl you have prob heard of that name. Crantract talks can be dirty business from both sides. I was involved in a few, a game of chicken can develop. A who's gonna blink first. Its stupid but somtimes a line is crossed before is discovered where the .proper placmen of that line should be? Overly simplestic but thats the way it is.
I have no idea of your age, health issues, etc. But I do know of people that are not able to leave a company as easy as you might think. Health insurance can put some almost in the position of not being able to leave.
I guess my problem to all this is at what point is there a bottom reached? When its your neighbor thats dropped to min wage and is forced into the emergancy room for their basic health care needs, or your brother in law's house forclosed on due to pay cuts at work, or if it's you? At which point do we in this country say Its not alright to play the bancruptsy game to break into contracts, take away agreed to benifits. Many, all it can be argued of those benifits have paid for by the employee. Is that right? Its not in my mind.
p

[DarknLadyJedi]

Just, I probably should have included that I think the change in rules that allowed companies to use funds from pension plans was a terrible idea and it should be that they can not touch such plans.
But as for people having health issues or some other reason they "have" to stay at a company? If what they are offering is better than what you need then it is still above what you need.
The ability of a small group to close a business and put all of it's workers out of jobs shows the stupidity of the current set up.

[Leroy]

Just - I'm in my 50's, own my own company, started it almost 12 years ago. I started it with no planning, on a whim, without any money, but I did quit a great paying job, making 6 figures, as a director with an expense account and lots of employees... I paid for COBRA to ensure that my family had insurance, that cost me about $1200/month, later I bought family insurance that cost about the same, but it didn't provide near the coverage (basically Major Medical with some additional coverage), and after a few years my wife went back to working in the school system (after the kids were older).

I've been on all three sides of this:

1) Worker in/not in a Union (been a member of several unions in my life)
2) Manager/Director in charge of thousands of developers
3) Business owner that started with nothing and now has a number of employees as well as being financially well off because of my business and technical skills

What I've seen is that a Union kills a company, it kills worker productivity, worker morale, worker creativity, and individualism.

In the case of the Hostess workers, the ones that have chosen to not accept the contract (since two other unions did accept the new contract) - they put greed and self before their families, before their friends, before the company, and they are screwing the tax payers in the process. They chose to close the company, knowing full well that it would happen, and live on public assistance instead of working, even for less compensation, because the are stupid and greedy. Working for $12/hr + benefits is better than working for $7.75/hr without benefits - but, not working and getting public assistance, screwing their neighbors, seems to be what they want.

They could have accepted the contract, looked for other work, taken time to reposition themselves, taken time to learn a new trade, new skill, to remake themselves, but they chose the childish and selfish way instead.

When Clinton screwed the Nation, started the economic decline, I saw it heading from the West Coast to the East Coast - I made changes to my skill set, looked for a business model that would work in the bad times, for a model that would provide a living and be in demand, I did this because I didn't sit blindly by and expect to be taken care of - I've never been one to "be taken care of" like most union members have the mentality of. Anyone not looking and planning on the company they work for failing and them being out of a job is an idiot - plan now, while you still have a job, so that you don't become a burden on your neighbor later.

[elklindo69]

As far as I am concerned.

1. Hostess was completely mismanaged.

2. Unions miscalculated.

3. Raw material costs have been rising.

4. People are more health conscious.

Eventually someone will acquire the brand, recipes, etc.

[RealJustme]

Hope everone had a great Thanksgiving, man I'll be eating turkey sandwiches for days...now down to business.

In the case of the Hostess workers, the ones that have chosen to not accept the contract (since two other unions did accept the new contract) - they put greed and self before their families, before their friends, before the company, and they are screwing the tax payers in the process.

The Hostess workers on strike were just pawns of the Bakers Union. Although a tragic loss for strikers and Hostess the Bakers Union is using the shut down as an example of their power if a company refuses to give in to their damands. The Bakers Union is stronger than ever and is already organizing more strikes, they don't give a damn about the individual union members, they're expendable for the cause.

[DarknLadyJedi]

As far as I am concerned.

1. Hostess was completely mismanaged.

2. Unions miscalculated.

3. Raw material costs have been rising.

4. People are more health conscious.

Eventually someone will acquire the brand, recipes, etc.

Absolutely. Especially #1 and #2.

[Freedman]

In a war a few must always sacrifice. Those Hostess employees who lost their jobs and will have to work for another company led the charge and sent a clear message- "you don't treat workers right, we'll shut you down"

It's time for more workers to step forward forward the good of the masses.

[Leroy]

Freedman, only the tax payers and union members lost - the business owners will come out of this with even more money than if they had kept the business running, and the tax payers will pay for the union members on public assistance. So, this is a win for the business owners, and a loss for the Union members and Tax payers.

[elklindo69]

Freedman, only the tax payers and union members lost - the business owners will come out of this with even more money than if they had kept the business running, and the tax payers will pay for the union members on public assistance. So, this is a win for the business owners, and a loss for the Union members and Tax payers.

Can anybody here explain how a bankruptcy is a win for business owners???

So if you lose 2 billion and make 1 billion, is that a win or something???

[Shimmer]

I won't speak for every circumstance but in bankruptcy (Chapter 11) normally they first try to restructure debts to keep a business open and the demands of creditors held in the background as they try to make it work. The operations are under court control and some debts are paid off over time with others possibly being cancelled by the court with ownership transferred to the creditors whose debts were cancelled. If it goes into the second stage (Chapter 7) then they cease operation and liquidate assets with the proceeds going to the creditors and anything left over going to the original management/owners. Sometimes rather than selling off every individual chair, computer and paperclip, they can sell off a whole division for a better price which allows the workers to stay employed with the original owners receiving some cash to pay off debt. So if XYZ company owns ABCD Corporation and it can't pay it's debts, through bankruptcy they get out from under them either with restructuring that will take them back to profitability or liquidation which allows them to walk away. If they have structured the ownership properly then the parent company carries on without an overwhelming debt load on the books and they can move back into profitability regardless of what happens to the subsidiary. It's a lot more complicated than that but that's basically how bankruptcy can help a company, by taking overwhelming debt away from them.

[RealJustme]

Can anybody here explain how a bankruptcy is a win for business owners???

So if you lose 2 billion and make 1 billion, is that a win or something???

I agree with you Elk, those strikers sure showed that business who's boss. Now the strikers aren't tied down to jobs just because of pay checks. Big win for those strikers. The business owners are now probably in food lines while those strikers are partying hard this Christmas season, plus those strikers now have more time off than they would have had if the business didn't shut down, BIG WIN for the workers.

[justdoit]

A race to the bottom is the answer in your opinion? Thats the way this country not only is headed, but should go? The workers take at least one more round of pay cuts for little result. The Ceo's pay tripled in the past 10 years. But maybe one more round of cuts to the rank and file will fix the problem?
At what point, or is there a point at which you would say enough is enough. For you, as a citizen. The loss of insurance, vac, sick leave, drop to min wage, cut to 30 hrs a week, made a contract employee? At what point are we not able work enough to live in this country.
Yea as an employee you can quit, but sometimes a person just needs to take a stand. There can be a time, and place this might have been it for these employees. And that stand might have more power as a force striking, not as an indivdual quiting.
This company shut down, but who's to say it would'nt have anyway, in two months, three? I havn't a clue and neither does anyone here. A cut in pay would have just lead to another cut, a cut in their competitors employees pay so that they could compete, and then another competitors. So mybe this company shuting down will keep many other employees out off food stamps.

[RealJustme]

At what point, or is there a point at which you would say enough is enough. For you, as a citizen. The loss of insurance, vac, sick leave, drop to min wage, cut to 30 hrs a week, made a contract employee? At what point are we not able work enough to live in this country.

With the American public giving us four more years of Obama, businesses "are" saying enough is enough. More businesses like mine are being forced to reduce workers to less than 30 hours a week to avoid Obamacare, increased beneifts and restrictive regulations that come with full time employees, sometimes people get what they vote for. The alternative is to close up shop like Hostess did.

My recommendation for people looking for a long term job, get a public one paid for by the tax payers, avoid private jobs because we will be laying off and reducing work hours...we don't have an endless budget like the Government does. The tipping point will be when there are more public workers than private workers and no one to pay the public workers' salaries.

[justdoit]

Realjust me
Remember why "Obama care" was brought about. It wasn't because the administration had nothing better to do one afternoon. It was brought about from out of control health care costs and rise by millions of uninsured. Health care costs were rising at triple the rate of inflation. "Obama care" wasn't the administrations first proposal, it was a compromise between the dems and reps, not the best in my opinion, a compramise. So the reps don't have lilly white hands here.
Let me ask you a question, I am interested in your answer
Go back to before Obama was elected, maybe ten years before- 1998-2008 How much did your health care costs rise in those years, for your employees, your business, you? How was your business affected, when would it have gotten out of control? At triple the rate of inflation even my math say's it either had hurt your business, or soon would, "Obama care" or not.

[RealJustme]

"Obama care" wasn't the administrations first proposal, it was a compromise between the dems and reps, not the best in my opinion, a compramise. So the reps don't have lilly white hands here.

Compromise??? Name one Democrat that read Obamacare or one Republican that voted for it?

Buy gold and avoid private jobs! Those in the private sector will be the ones first effected as businesses are forced to lay off and reduce hours to stick to a budget. Public employees will be better off for a period of time as the Government continues to write bad checks on borrowed credit as we've been doing for the past 6 years. When the balloon explodes most will lose everything they've worked for all their lives for, the redistrubtion of wealth will be complete...the only ones who will do well are Obama's croonies and those who have invested in gold.

[justdoit]

What happened to "single Payer" as was first proposed, oh thats right a compromise, in which the reps then rejected after forcing said compromise. The Obama admin was duped, got egg on their face. Not fot the last time either.
This whole fiscal cliff business should be interesting about those thrown eggs and whose face they land.
But I am sorry, this topic started with hostess Twinkies. Realjustme, ever thought about cornering the market in collectible twinkies. Remember ya heard it here first. Look at ebay, its a hoot!

[BilboBagend]

Single Payer Health Care: a plan that will totally eliminate the burden and competitive disadvantage American business people now have in our complex and ineffective health insurance industry.

[RealJustme]

Single Payer Health Care: a plan that will totally eliminate the burden and competitive disadvantage American business people now have in our complex and ineffective health insurance industry.

Yeah right, just look at the public school system for an example of what happens when the government tries to run something. If the Government took over the health care system, health care would drop like a rock while costs would climb like a rocket. The only Government agency I would trust to run the healh care system is the military...but only if the politicians with their greedy pet projects and greasing of hands stayed out of it.