No more Twinkies or wonderbread?

[Dion]

“It’s the bakers’ union that hasn’t done its homework,”said Steve Cabot, chairman of the Cabot Institute for Labor Relations, a consulting firm in Palm Coast, Florida. “They want to play brinkmanship. This time, they lost.

The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union had gone on strike Nov. 9 and disrupted production and deliveries, ignoring a managementultimatum to return to work by 5 p.m. Nov. 15. The bosses weren’t bluffing -- they halted production and sought liquidation, warning that brands and their recipes may be snapped up by bargain-seeking corporations, but workers and many antiquated plants wouldn’t be.

The strike starved Hostess of some of the almost $50 million in weekly sales it was reliant on to make it through bankruptcy, as baking ceased in most picketed plants, said a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified because the details weren’t public.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-hostess.html

[SeeBass]

Yes it was the Unions that were the problem but please note what the executives did in late July to their salaries.

Brian Driscoll, CEO, around $750,000 to $2,550,000.
Gary Wandschneider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000.
John Stewart, EVP, $400,000 to $700,000.
David Loeser, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Kent Magill, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Richard Seban, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
John Akeson, SVP, $300,000 to $480,000.
Steven Birgfeld, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Martha Ross, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Rob Kissick, SVP, $182,000 to $273,008.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Yes it was the Unions that were the problem but please note what the executives did in late July to their salaries.

Brian Driscoll, CEO, around $750,000 to $2,550,000.
Gary Wandschneider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000.
John Stewart, EVP, $400,000 to $700,000.
David Loeser, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Kent Magill, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Richard Seban, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
John Akeson, SVP, $300,000 to $480,000.
Steven Birgfeld, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Martha Ross, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Rob Kissick, SVP, $182,000 to $273,008.

Well that's interesting given that Driscoll resigned from Hostress Brands in March...

[Hockey_Ninja]

Went to Superstore to get some twinkies...they where sold out

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Well that's interesting given that Driscoll resigned from Hostress Brands in March...

Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year before. In March 2012, Brian Driscoll resigned from his position as CEO; he had proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million “long term compensation” package.So a guy gets to resign and give himself a double his annual salary package, nice.

Six CEOs in 8 years the company was their ATM.

But please unions you need to take an 8% cut.

Driscoll received his pay raise in January and left in March for Diamond Foods as CEO

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think I've ever had Wonderbread before, but I used to think it was funny when I would see Hutterites in the grocery store loading up on it after I had just bought some homemade Hutterite bread from the country market.

Twinkies are gross.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As to this situation, the union looks pretty stupid as any smart union knows when to back off when the survival of it's employer is at stake. This may just be a one sided version of events though.

Maybe they thought their employer could get a public bailout, like the auto unions got.

The government needs to let these companies go broke so the unions can't prop themselves up at the expense of the general public.

[cal_guy]

If you asked someone to take a 30% wage and benefit cut (after taking a similar size one 3 years ago) there's a good chance that most people would just refuse.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by SebC

Maybe they thought their employer could get a public bailout, like the auto unions got.

The government needs to let these companies go broke so the unions can't prop themselves up at the expense of the general public.

I don't think so. I haven't heard of any more government bail outs and Twinkies is hardly a national necessity. I think someone mentioned that the union was hoping someone would buy the company out of bankruptcy though and like I said that story only gave one side of the situation and I haven't been interested enough to look into it. Twinkies are crap and their loss is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

[ernie]

Those raises to executives look ugly but when it comes down to it they amount to about $190 bucks a year per employee. Bad optics perhaps but in the end they are just noise and have nothing to do with the health of the company. Not getting those raises wouldn't have allowed the company to run for one day longer let alone save it.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by ernie

Those raises to executives look ugly but when it comes down to it they amount to about $190 bucks a year per employee. Bad optics perhaps but in the end they are just noise and have nothing to do with the health of the company. Not getting those raises wouldn't have allowed the company to run for one day longer let alone save it.

Observors should just take it as it is and recognize one union made a pragmatic business decision (the teamsters) and the other made a decision based on principles (the bakers).

The comment from the Teamsters . . .

"Unfortunately, the company's operating and financial problems were so severe that it required steep concessions from a variety of stakeholders but not all stakeholders were willing to be constructive," said Ken Hall, the Teamsters' Secretary-Treasurer. "Teamster Hostess members, based on the facts and advice from respected restructuring advisors, understood what was at stake and voted to protect all jobs at Hostess."

The comment from the bakers union . . .

"Our members decided they were not going to take any more abuse from a company they have given so much to for so many years," Hurt said in a statement late Friday. "They decided that they were not going to agree to another round of outrageous wage and benefit cuts and give up their pension only to see yet another management team fail and Wall Street vulture capitalists and 'restructuring specialists' walk away with untold millions of dollars."

You can't eat your principles. Everyone lost their jobs.

And that's not an anti-union observation.

Cowperson

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think someone mentioned that the union was hoping someone would buy the company out of bankruptcy though

So basically, once the have bled the host (or hostess) dry, they look for a new host. Textbook parasites.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

So basically, once the have bled the host (or hostess) dry, they look for a new host. Textbook parasites.

If someone did buy them out of bankruptsy isn't the union charter broken?

Just because Hostess gets saved doesn't mean that the union will be welcome back with open arms.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by SebC

So basically, once the have bled the host (or hostess) dry, they look for a new host. Textbook parasites.

If you call working for a living being a parasite, have a look at yourself. I think your hate gets in their way of logical thought.

[Vulcan]

It isn't like the union was the only cause for the company's demise.

The company, founded in 1930, is fighting battles beyond labour costs, however. Competition is increasing in the snack space and North Americans are increasingly conscious about healthy eating

http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...ut-of-business

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If you call working for a living being a parasite, have a look at yourself. I think your hate gets in their way of logical thought.

I call bankrupting your employer being a parasite. If you work at a wage rate where both you and your employer benefit, it symbiotic. If you demand a wage that bankrupts your employer, then move on to another employer or the taxpayer and repeat the process, it's parasitic.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It isn't like the union was the only cause for the company's demise.

Sure, and if salaries weren't too sticky then the company would be better equiped to adapt to external factors.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by SebC

I call bankrupting your employer being a parasite. If you work at a wage rate where both you and your employer benefit, it symbiotic. If you demand a wage that bankrupts your employer, then move on to another employer or the taxpayer and repeat the process, it's parasitic.

Well for any worker if it gets to the point that he isn't making a livable wage, there is no sense in carrying on. I don't know the details of their situation but they made their choice and the company made theirs. Who says they are going to repeat the process, that's just your own fantasy?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well for any worker if it gets to the point that he isn't making a livable wage, there is no sense in carrying on.

This is where I have an issue with the union mentality. If the wage cut was below what is a "livable wage" for some, those people could then try to find another job. However in this case, everybody is looking for another job.

Some of those people would have been better off with the 30% cut than to try and find another job. Especially if this closes down a major employer in a given town.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by ken0042

This is where I have an issue with the union mentality. If the wage cut was below what is a "livable wage" for some, those people could then try to find another job. However in this case, everybody is looking for another job.

Some of those people would have been better off with the 30% cut than to try and find another job. Especially if this closes down a major employer in a given town.

Well the workers agreed to an all for one, one for all system. Maybe it didn't work out this one time, so it's news but if you check your history, it works way more than not.