Hostess closing

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Sure. When you make yourself indispensable to the company, you can ask for whatever you want and most likely get it.

No one is indispensable.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But that will never be the majority of people. Most people, then, should be happy for whatever the job creators give them? Is it ever possible to structure income in a way that's immoral?

Indispensable is a pretty high standard but I don't think you have to be that high to avoid being a slave with no choice, and "happy for whatever job creators give you" I've quit probably 10 jobs since high school to move to a better jobs, and I'm hardly indispensable, or even a go-getter. I think most people have pretty similar job histories.

[JPhillips]

The more I read the more this looks like an excuse to liquidate and take the profits. The court filings only show a minimal loss due to the strike, but a greater loss in Sept. not due to the strike. The company claims about 1 billion in assets and had sales of 2.5 billion last operating year.

A one week strike didn't close Hostess.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Most people, then, should be happy for whatever the job creators give them? Is it ever possible to structure income in a way that's immoral?

Philosophically, I'd say it's pretty damned difficult, short of literally putting a gun to their head & forcing them into literal slave labor.

Don't like the offer then don't accept it, go find somewhere else with a better deal.

One of the very first - and most important - lessons I learned when entering the job market was this: the basic agreement is that you will do X to the best of your ability and in return you will receive Y as compensation. That's the moral contract between employer & employee. If you are no longer able or willing to live up to that agreement then you either renegotiate the terms or you part ways.

What's it immoral is being a slackass employee - effectively stealing from the employer by not even attempting to meet your responsibility - or failing to pay the agreed upon wage while still expecting the same work (i.e. short pay without notice/renegotiation)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Are you guys even looking at that picture? Forget cutting back wages by 8%, they need to cut back the ugly by about 75%.

You're falling into the familiar trap of looking at faces (which I did after absorbing a first impression).

[GoldenEagle]

The real tragedy here is zingers.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Indispensable is a pretty high standard but I don't think you have to be that high to avoid being a slave with no choice, and "happy for whatever job creators give you" I've quit probably 10 jobs since high school to move to a better jobs, and I'm hardly indispensable, or even a go-getter. I think most people have pretty similar job histories.

You're at the high end of the scale, as are almost all of us here. There is an attitude that employees shouldn't be guaranteed anything they can't negotiate. In Mitt's 47% speech he decried a guarantee of food. My questions are aimed at those people that think all the power should belong to management and a select few employees that have advanced skills. If there is no balance to that model won't the eventual end point be an even more unbalanced society?

Personally I prefer the German model of strong worker representation at the board level. I like partnering the workers with the owners so that everyone has equal information and a stake in the future growth of the company during negotiations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Personally I prefer the German model of strong worker representation at the board level. I like partnering the workers with the owners so that everyone has equal information and a stake in the future growth of the company during negotiations.

Least common denominator.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Philosophically, I'd say it's pretty damned difficult, short of literally putting a gun to their head & forcing them into literal slave labor.

Don't like the offer then don't accept it, go find somewhere else with a better deal.

One of the very first - and most important - lessons I learned when entering the job market was this: the basic agreement is that you will do X to the best of your ability and in return you will receive Y as compensation. That's the moral contract between employer & employee. If you are no longer able or willing to live up to that agreement then you either renegotiate the terms or you part ways.

What's it immoral is being a slackass employee - effectively stealing from the employer by not even attempting to meet your responsibility - or failing to pay the agreed upon wage while still expecting the same work (i.e. short pay without notice/renegotiation)

So you'd be fine with a system where every employer pays one dollar a day with no benefits? We won't get there with the current laws, but that's the end point of a system where nothing balances the desires of owners.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But that will never be the majority of people.

Nope.

Most people, then, should be happy for whatever the job creators give them?

Yes. If people choose not to educate themselves and develop a set of skills that are in demand, they should be happy with whatever time card punching no skill set required job they can find.

Edit: And before you start talking about the cost of college, I'm talking about on the job learning. Learn why it is you do your job. If you work at a machine all day, learn how the machine works. If you work at a computer, learn how to debug and fix common computer problems. There's plenty of ways for people to help their position by just learning about the ins and outs of their job and the equipment they use.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

The real tragedy here is zingers.

coconut raspberry.....

[RainMaker]

Does anyone else think Hostess products went to shit a little while back? I used to like Twinkies and cupcakes but they just aren't that good anymore. Obviously cut back on something years ago to save on costs.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No one is indispensable.

Ok, you can play the semantics game if you want, but it's a common word to use when talking about employment.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's one of the explicit tradeoffs of unionized work though. In exchange you get (theoretically) better working conditions, an advocate for benefits, etc.

And sometimes you get overreach and lay-offs across the board because your co-workers won't compromise. It's not like there was an option between being a unionized or non-unionized worker here, and thus the significant percentage of the current workforce that was willing to compromise (as well as the unemployed people who would have been willing to take those jobs) are now completely out of work.

I have no problem with skilled people organizing themselves into guilds - a.k.a. we have skills, we're setting baselines so we're not competing with each other - but when it becomes a monopolized union it reduces flexibility on both sides (and leads to corruption and violence at the fringes to maintain the monopoly).

When you're working in a replaceable job and you don't like it, go find a new one. If there isn't a better one out there, there are reasons for that and maybe you should take the hint instead of demanding things from your current company.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But doesn't that eventually lead to an almost feudalistic society? Is it ever permissible to ask for more or should we always be thankful that at least management hasn't gotten rid of us?

It's relative common sense in this case. You have a company that had already declared bankruptcy and was in bad shape. You can't get what's not there.

There are plenty of times when union demands are helpful but sadly those times have been shrinking as unions are now their own little corporation the way they are run. The people running those unions are paying for their BMW's through the blood and sweat of the workers and are no different then the companies that they are "fighting" in many times.

Sadly the workers allowed the union to lead them to slaughter in this case. It's not much different than a majority of the voters who really had no idea what any of the issues were but only believed what the ads told them or some stupid comments flying around the internet.

I went several years without a raise and taking other cuts without pushing for anything better because I knew the company was in trouble and it would be a stupid time for a power play. It's all about timing and knowing what else is going on that affect your circumstances.


Since we're on a football based message board: It's like being 4th and 25 on your own 10 in the second quarter with your backup quarterback in. You punt and wait for a better time to try to strike.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The union didn't push the nuclear button because it was just the fun thing to do. They did it because they were pushed into a corner, all the while the fund managers were openly sticking it to them. At some point, people get pretty tired of having their faces rubbed in shit and fight back. This was, in essence, a big "fuck you" to management - and from what I understand, the management deserved it big time. The door swings both ways.

When whoever buys the Hostess assets decides to reopen some of those plants, at least some of the employees will get their jobs back, likely at better wages. In the meanwhile, some people will get better jobs, some will get worse jobs, some will get equal jobs and some won't get any jobs at all.

I don't see the new owners pay $20 a hour and similar health care benefits in the future.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news...ex.html?iid=EL

The Chairman and CEO on CNBC this morning said the union bosses were in agreement with the proposed deal and tried to get the members behind it, but it got voted down by the union members.

More details on the proposed deal:

http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...16&id=15805307

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So you'd be fine with a system where every employer pays one dollar a day with no benefits? We won't get there with the current laws, but that's the end point of a system where nothing balances the desires of owners.

No, it's not, unless there's something preventing people from starting competing businesses.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Does anyone else think Hostess products went to shit a little while back? I used to like Twinkies and cupcakes but they just aren't that good anymore. Obviously cut back on something years ago to save on costs.

I thought it was that I was just getting older. Really sweet or otherwise crappy food that I loved as a kid I hate now.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't think - based on reading the linked articles - that's exactly how this one worked.

Teamsters Union represents the non-baking employees & they approved a deal. Union that represents the baking employees rejected it ... which basically made Teamster approval meaningless. Not much to sweep up, deliver, etc. if there's nothing baked.

Bankruptcy court ordered all employees to comply with a revised contract offer -- one that added two directors seats for union reps, likely in response to the bakers union rejection including their expression of an extreme lack of confidence in the current management's ability to salvage the company -- union for the bakers refused by going on strike and at that point Hostess followed through on their blunt assurance that a strike would lead to liquidation, which had to be approved by the bankruptcy court (hence the month or so delay that gets us to November)

Aaah - maybe I misread the timeline/misunderstood. I thought that the new contract had actually been implemented.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

There's way more than two, and I think there's a lot more smaller ones than they used to be. That's not necessarily a terrible thing. It's a little odd to see so many liberal pro-labor people mourning the loss of a giant corporation. Maybe the economy did its job here and it did it well.

Of course there are - it's just weird to see the #2 in difficulty. Particularly a well-entrenched #2.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The more I read the more this looks like an excuse to liquidate and take the profits. The court filings only show a minimal loss due to the strike, but a greater loss in Sept. not due to the strike. The company claims about 1 billion in assets and had sales of 2.5 billion last operating year.

A one week strike didn't close Hostess.

Sales doesn't necessarily mean profits...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The more I read the more this looks like an excuse to liquidate and take the profits. The court filings only show a minimal loss due to the strike, but a greater loss in Sept. not due to the strike. The company claims about 1 billion in assets and had sales of 2.5 billion last operating year.

A one week strike didn't close Hostess.

From activist hedge funds? No wayyy

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Ok, you can play the semantics game if you want, but it's a common word to use when talking about employment.

And an extremely foolish one if you ever consider yourself indispensable. I'm literally the one one in the world who has my combination of skill certifications and I'm not indispensable. It may take 2 or 3 people to replace me with a fair amount of heartburn on their part, but they could let me go this afternoon. I've seen far too many people inflate their real sense of wroth in regards to their perceived skill set and I've seen "lowly" employees who were far more valuable due to what they just knew about the company - even if senior management didn't know it.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Yes. If people choose not to educate themselves and develop a set of skills that are in demand, they should be happy with whatever time card punching no skill set required job they can find.

Edit: And before you start talking about the cost of college, I'm talking about on the job learning. Learn why it is you do your job. If you work at a machine all day, learn how the machine works. If you work at a computer, learn how to debug and fix common computer problems. There's plenty of ways for people to help their position by just learning about the ins and outs of their job and the equipment they use.

Contracting out and self-entrepreneurship (even more so on a small scale than the typical, go big mindset) is going to be the part of the new model of the future. Technology is going to push more jobs out. If self-driving cars become a reality in the next decade or two, that is going to a major game changer as well.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Metro Detroiters hoarding Twinkies, Ding Dongs as Hostess seeks to shutter | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

[Buccaneer]

Trust me, taste buds will change.

Interesting discussion. One of the things that have always bothered me (among many regarding unions) is the demand for job security (not saying it's applicable here), esp. in reducing/eliminating the flexibility of weeding out the incompetent and dead weight. No companies (public or private) should tolerate such employees and there should be no rules forcing them to remain on the job (as I have seen in the past).

[CrimsonFox]

I bet with all the hording people do of the stuff that they will be saved.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I do agree with you, up to a certain point. I have no problems with entry level wages and an employee showing that they are worth getting paid more. The part that I have a problem with (and nothing with what you've said) is, the employers who continue to pay good workers minimum wages, yet expect premium work are then shocked if that employee complains about it. As much as managers love to pat themselves on the back, it's the employees in the trenches that are doing the real work. It's that guy that's making 7 dollars an hour and can't go to his son's school performance because he can't get the time off, but the manager making 20 an hour can? Sounds to me like the guy making 20 bucks an hour is less important to the company overall.

Quite honestly, the more you pay me, the more flexible I am. You pay me minimum wage, good luck getting me to work for you on the weekend or crunch time. You pay me 30 bucks an hour and my flexibility increases quite a bit. It's just like when someone is inquiring about how much it will cost to redo their kitchen. They only want to pay 2K, but, want 10K worth of work and material. No contractor in their right mind would do that. Why should an employee?

Don't get me wrong though. There are plenty of sad sack employees out there and should really not be working anything other than a minimum wage job. Plus, the one thing that really irks me about unions is them catering to the shittiest of union members. Unions should expect their members to be the cream of the crop (and demand it), not the backwash of someones coffee mug. I also have a lot of respect for people who have raised a company from the ground up, even if they weren't successful. That takes a lot of balls to do something with no safety net. I just think it's odd that people complain when other people try and fight for better wages and/or benefits. In a perfect world those people would just find another job that has better wages and benefits, but, we don't live in a perfect world and sometimes people are locked into staying at the same job and can't look for another job. It just becomes an ugly cycle.

So to make a long story a bit longer, I'm really in the middle of this subject. On one hand, I can see managements point of view and they have some valid points. On the other hand, I see the employees point of view and they have some valid points as well. And in the case of Hostess, it sounds like (no pun intended) that management still wanted the whole pie that they've had for years, but, instead of adjusting to a saturated market, they decided to pinch their employees instead and it backfired on them. Now everyone is out of a job or will be soon, depending on how the bankruptcy goes.

You really think union workers were getting minimum wages? What fantasy world do you live in?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So you'd be fine with a system where every employer pays one dollar a day with no benefits? We won't get there with the current laws, but that's the end point of a system where nothing balances the desires of owners.

I have always opposed the existence of minimum wage laws as an unwarranted intrusion on the basic principle of free will.

An employee is worth what an employer is willing to pay, no more.

[molson]

People are selling twinkies on ebay and finding buyers.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

You really think union workers were getting minimum wages? What fantasy world do you live in?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news...ex.html?iid=EL

"" Many production workers earned up to $20 an hour, plus had access to medical benefits, according to Michael O'Brien, a former Hostess employee who had worked at the company for 45 years, in various sales functions, before he was offered a buyout last year.

According to a letter sent to employees, workers will not receive severance pay or pay for unused vacation time. Hostess is directing employees to COBRA for continuing medical insurance coverage.

Striking workers are not entitled to unemployment benefits in most states, but those workers who were not striking will likely have some access to weekly benefit checks.

Meanwhile job opportunities at Hostess competitors are hardly plentiful.

"The industry has overcapacity. We're overcapacity. Our rivals are overcapacity," Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn said in an interview on CNBC. "

"People inside the plants really made a good living," O'Brien said. "I feel sorry for them."

Another 6,700 Hostess workers were represented by the Teamsters, a union that was sharply critical of the Bakers' decision to strike. Those jobs largely include truckers, many who both transported and sold Hostess products.

Trucking is a higher paying field, offering a national average of $22 an hour. Including base pay and commission, Hostess Teamsters workers could have earned between $50,000 to $100,000 a year, said O'Brien."

According to this article, Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business: Thomson Reuters Business News - MSN Money ,

"The company was asking workers to agree to an 8 percent pay cut, a 20 percent increase in healthcare costs, closure of 10 to 12 plants and changes to pension and workday provisions.

Hostess managers have complained that terms of many of the 300 labor contracts that the company has in place have bogged down its ability to be both nimble and cost-competitive.

"The union has been the death of this company," said a human resources manager who recently left Hostess."

[Sun Tzu]

Zingers and Ho-Ho's are my munchie of choice during those munchie moments. This is...tragic.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

The real tragedy here is zingers.

Agreed 100% although Dolly Madison also makes them

Vanilla Zingers are way better than Twinkies

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So management just got a new contract and still couldn't keep them open? Sounds like incompetent management to me.

It doesn't help matters that a box of Twinkies is close to four dollars and a loaf of bread is like $2.50.

The economics just can't work when you can get off brands for less than half of that.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news...ex.html?iid=EL

"" Many production workers earned up to $20 an hour, plus had access to medical benefits, according to Michael O'Brien, a former Hostess employee who had worked at the company for 45 years, in various sales functions, before he was offered a buyout last year.

According to a letter sent to employees, workers will not receive severance pay or pay for unused vacation time. Hostess is directing employees to COBRA for continuing medical insurance coverage.

Striking workers are not entitled to unemployment benefits in most states, but those workers who were not striking will likely have some access to weekly benefit checks.

Meanwhile job opportunities at Hostess competitors are hardly plentiful.

"The industry has overcapacity. We're overcapacity. Our rivals are overcapacity," Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn said in an interview on CNBC. "

"People inside the plants really made a good living," O'Brien said. "I feel sorry for them."

Another 6,700 Hostess workers were represented by the Teamsters, a union that was sharply critical of the Bakers' decision to strike. Those jobs largely include truckers, many who both transported and sold Hostess products.

Trucking is a higher paying field, offering a national average of $22 an hour. Including base pay and commission, Hostess Teamsters workers could have earned between $50,000 to $100,000 a year, said O'Brien."

According to this article, Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business: Thomson Reuters Business News - MSN Money ,

"The company was asking workers to agree to an 8 percent pay cut, a 20 percent increase in healthcare costs, closure of 10 to 12 plants and changes to pension and workday provisions.

Hostess managers have complained that terms of many of the 300 labor contracts that the company has in place have bogged down its ability to be both nimble and cost-competitive.

"The union has been the death of this company," said a human resources manager who recently left Hostess."

That article is whoppingly one sided. I'll pick out some examples:

"Michael O'Brien" - From what I can tell, this guy was a salesperson. He wouldn't know who made what from line employees.

"Many production workers earned up to $20 an hour" - Perhaps with overtime. From what I've heard (though there's obviously not a written source for this), the average wage was less than $14/hr prior to any pay cut (which would drop that to $12.88/hr).

"The company was asking for a 8 percent pay cut, a 20 percent increase in healthcare costs, closure of 10 to 12 plants and changes to pension and workday provisions." - 8%, 30% and the "changes" to the pension included not paying liabilities they've already accrued.

"Trucking is a higher paying field, offering a national average of $22 an hour. Including base pay and commission, Hostess Teamsters workers could have earned between $50,000 to $100,000 a year" - This has nothing to do with the strike and these weren't the employees striking. The entire purpose was to put a big number in the article so people who are scanning it will say "oh, wow, they went on strike when they could make $100k a year!".

Not to mention there's no accounting for the millions pulled out of the company by the hedge fund managers since they bought it out of bankruptcy a few years ago, nor the pay cut the workers took back then. Obvious article is obvious.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

You really think union workers were getting minimum wages? What fantasy world do you live in?

Just read through my entire post and I don't see anything where I said that union workers were making minimum wages. Try again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

"Trucking is a higher paying field, offering a national average of $22 an hour. Including base pay and commission, Hostess Teamsters workers could have earned between $50,000 to $100,000 a year" - This has nothing to do with the strike. The entire purpose was to put a big number in the article so people who are scanning it will say "oh, wow, they went on strike when they could make $100k a year!".

I'm pretty sure that bit was included so people might understand why the Teamsters approved the previous offer & were (reportedly) miffed that the bakers didn't.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm pretty sure that bit was included so people might understand why the Teamsters approved the previous offer & were (reportedly) miffed that the bakers didn't.

And if you're an owner-operator, $50k a year isn't shit when driving a truck.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by stevew

Vanilla Zingers are way better than Twinkies

This +1,000,000

[Honolulu_Blue]

Vanilla Zingers were probably my favorite. And then the Cupcakes.

I can't remember the last time I had any kind of Hostess food. It's all pretty gross.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

The economics just can't work when you can get off brands for less than half of that.

The only name brand cereal I have bought in the last few years is Kashi. Every other cereal, I buy the generic brand because it's 50% the cost of the name brand (and generally tastes the same). I only buy Kashi once in awhile because I can't find a generic version of their cereal.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

The economics just can't work when you can get off brands for less than half of that.

Most of the Hostess junk food is $1/per. How much cheaper could it possibly get?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I do agree with you, up to a certain point. I have no problems with entry level wages and an employee showing that they are worth getting paid more. The part that I have a problem with (and nothing with what you've said) is, the employers who continue to pay good workers minimum wages, yet expect premium work are then shocked if that employee complains about it. As much as managers love to pat themselves on the back, it's the employees in the trenches that are doing the real work. It's that guy that's making 7 dollars an hour and can't go to his son's school performance because he can't get the time off, but the manager making 20 an hour can? Sounds to me like the guy making 20 bucks an hour is less important to the company overall.

Quite honestly, the more you pay me, the more flexible I am. You pay me minimum wage, good luck getting me to work for you on the weekend or crunch time. You pay me 30 bucks an hour and my flexibility increases quite a bit. It's just like when someone is inquiring about how much it will cost to redo their kitchen. They only want to pay 2K, but, want 10K worth of work and material. No contractor in their right mind would do that. Why should an employee?
.

Then all you ever will be is a minimum wage employee. My father taught me at a very young age no matter what you do try your best, because what you put into it is what you get out of it.

People ( not saying you) seem to think all managment was born into it, like their father in law is the CEO or something, and they sit around all day lighting cigars with $100 bills. Most managers work hard to get where thay are at. Either in that industry or through scholing that provided them oppritunity.

If you are willing to work hard also there isn't any reason you can't rise above minimum wage status.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Just read through my entire post and I don't see anything where I said that union workers were making minimum wages. Try again.

Read CLOSER.

The part that I have a problem with (and nothing with what you've said) is, the employers who continue to pay good workers minimum wages, yet expect premium work are then shocked if that employee complains about it

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

For me personally, either I'm respected and paid what I consider a reasonable amount or I'd leave that position - most likely looking to start up my own venture if a position I liked wasn't available.

Announcing "Championship Football Manager I: Footie In 4D!"

[stevew]

Originally Posted by molson

People are selling twinkies on ebay and finding buyers.

I thought food sales were banned on those sites.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by stevew

I thought food sales were banned on those sites.

Calling Twinkies "food" is quite a stretch.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Then all you ever will be is a minimum wage employee. My father taught me at a very young age no matter what you do try your best, because what you put into it is what you get out of it.

People ( not saying you) seem to think all managment was born into it, like their father in law is the CEO or something, and they sit around all day lighting cigars with $100 bills. Most managers work hard to get where thay are at. Either in that industry or through scholing that provided them oppritunity.

If you are willing to work hard also there isn't any reason you can't rise above minimum wage status.

Not just hard, but smart. Select the right degree or school, be willing to take chances, and always, always continue to expand your toolbox of knowledge and skills.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I thought food sales were banned on those sites.

Probably listed as "collectible" instead of food.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Most of the Hostess junk food is $1/per. How much cheaper could it possibly get?

Single serving maybe, but boxes of like 6 are around $4 and change here.
Compare to half (or less) for the WalMart house brand.

I was never really Hostess guy, I'm a 3rd generation Little Debbie man myself, but the Great Value stuff from Wally World kicks the crap out of LD with several of the knockoffs (Fudge Round clone in particular, WM's is a lot better)