UPDATE: Bankruptcy Judge Approves Hostess Liquidation - Page 2 - Basketball Forum : Professional and College Basketball Forums

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

It does when the guys who got to keep their jobs now get to point at the evil business owners, and act like they're sad about their peers who lost their jobs.

Classic ****ing unions.

Actually, what's even worse here is that about only 6,000 employees belong to the BCTGM union...the other 12,000 or so losing their jobs belong to other unions, or no union at all.

So they get to suffer because one smaller union is so much into power that they are willing to sacrifice their 6,000 members and 12,000 others to retain power in other sectors of the baking industry.

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

Was on another message board. But now that you're making me verify

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49853653

So Hostess and a couple Bain Capitals get ****ed. Everyone else is fine. OBAMA!!!!!

What you are failing to comprehend is that in order for Hostess to survive, they had to have the BCTGM union members adhere to the court-ordered concessions, and they refused to do so.

So the company had no choice but to go under.

I think the best example of the union screwing this deal up is that the union chief is pointing fingers at Hostess and blaming them for everything, while the CEO went on Today this morning and basically stated he felt there was plenty of blame to go around.

I'm not seeing the union making such admissions. All they accomplished today was getting 18,500 people fired.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:13 AM

Hostess declared bankruptcy 8 years ago and was already planning on shutting down huge portions of its operations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCTGM

“Our members are on strike because they have had enough. They are not willing to take draconian wage and benefit cuts on top of the significant concessions they made in 2004 and give up their pension so that the Wall Street vulture capitalists in control of this company can walk away with millions of dollars.”

Over the past eight years since the first Hostess bankruptcy, BCTGM members have watched as money from previous concessions that was supposed to go towards capital investment, product development, plant improvement and new equipment, was squandered in executive bonuses, payouts to Wall Street investors and payments to high-priced attorneys and consultants.

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from$375,000 to $656,256.

Over the past 15 months, Hostess workers have seen the company unilaterally end contractually-obligated payments to their pension plan. Despite saving more than $160 million with this action, the company continues to fall deeper and deeper into debt. A mountain of debt and gross mismanagement by a string of failed CEO's with no true experience in the wholesale baking business have left this company unable to compete or survive.

They were already apparently blaming the strike for the shutdown of some bakeries despite the fact that they told people they were shutting them down (including the mayor of St. Louis) before the strike even happened. Despite what the anti-Union crowd says, Nimreitz has it right... the Union's interest is in protecting their members, and that includes their jobs. The striking members voted at a 92% clip to reject Hostess' last offer.

pulled from this article: http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/ne...ility-closings

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

It is the company's news release that is blaming the union, not exactly an objective source.

I quoted it as an information source, but their are plenty of AP and other news stories out there is you want to read it.

The facts basically remain the same, and they are accurate in the piece I quoted.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

Was on another message board. But now that you're making me verify

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49853653

So Hostess and a couple Bain Capitals get ****ed. Everyone else is fine. OBAMA!!!!!

If the workers are of any worth, they will find work. And if they didn't like their wages or anything else work related, they should have found another job.

If someone owns a business and wants to pay their upper management 90% and the other 10% goes to the workers, that's their right. The workers have the right to quit and go work somewhere else. Unions served their purpose in the past, but these days they're a disgusting example of everything that's wrong with America.

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

Hostess declared bankruptcy 8 years ago and was already planning on shutting down huge portions of its operations.

They were already apparently blaming the strike for the shutdown of some bakeries despite the fact that they told people they were shutting them down (including the mayor of St. Louis) before the strike even happened. Despite what the anti-Union crowd says, Nimreitz has it right... the Union's interest is in protecting their members, and that includes their jobs. The striking members voted at a 92% clip to reject Hostess' last offer.

pulled from this article: http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/ne...ility-closings

Then how come they no longer have jobs? Not only did the union fail in this endeavor, but they also cost the jobs of 12,000 other employees who are not members of their union.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:16 AM

R-Star arguing the opposite of the truth... the lack of Unions are what's wrong with this country... it is no coincidence that as union participation has fallen the working and lower middle classes have taken a bath.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

Then how come they no longer have jobs? Not only did the union fail in this endeavor, but they also cost the jobs of 12,000 other employees who are not members of their union.

By that measure we should all just be happy that we have jobs and never fight for a fair wage, right?

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

What you are failing to comprehend is that in order for Hostess to survive, they had to have the BCTGM union members adhere to the court-ordered concessions, and they refused to do so.

So the company had no choice but to go under.

I think the best example of the union screwing this deal up is that the union chief is pointing fingers at Hostess and blaming them for everything, while the CEO went on Today this morning and basically stated he felt there was plenty of blame to go around.

I'm not seeing the union making such admissions. All they accomplished today was getting 18,500 people fired.

The union gave up 100m a year in pension benefits for its membership 8 years ago. There was nothing left to give. Hostess had a lot of its debt bought up for pennies on the dollar by exploitative hedge funds, and then was squeezed hard. The only way for them to meet those obligations was to try **** their workers even more, which the union didn't accept for obvious reasons. Don't blame unions. Blame the companies that buy up Hostess' debt for $.05 on the dollar and then squeeze them to repay it all or force them into bankruptcy.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:18 AM

also, the concessions weren't "court ordered"... they were approved in the sense that the employer declared that there was an impasse... in that situation the employer has the right to implement and the employees have the right to strike, which they did.

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

Hostess declared bankruptcy 8 years ago and was already planning on shutting down huge portions of its operations.

This is simply not true.

They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January of this year. Chapter 11 is to reorganize operations, and the bankruptcy was being monitored by a federal judge. They could have filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation), but they chose to continue to try to salvage the company.

If they wanted to "shut down huge portions of its operations" they would have done so years ago, instead of bleeding money all these years.

**R-Star** · 11-16-2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

R-Star arguing the opposite of the truth... the lack of Unions are what's wrong with this country... it is no coincidence that as union participation has fallen the working and lower middle classes have taken a bath.

Yea, or it could be that it coincides with the second biggest recession in modern history.

Nimreitz · 11-16-2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

If the workers are of any worth, they will find work. And if they didn't like their wages or anything else work related, they should have found another job.

If someone owns a business and wants to pay their upper management 90% and the other 10% goes to the workers, that's their right. The workers have the right to quit and go work somewhere else. Unions served their purpose in the past, but these days they're a disgusting example of everything that's wrong with America.

Do you know the concept of supply and demand? How about the concept of the bait and switch? You can't pay people nothing because no one will do that job. It's also unfair to lure someone into a job and then **** them over. I think part of this is probably exactly what you're saying: the union had been pushed past the point that was acceptable for them to continue in this job. It became a better deal for them to just do something else.

**Dornado** · 11-16-2012, 09:19 AM

Also, the employer could have simply continued working under the old contract while negotiations were ongoing... blaming the Union is a really upside-down way of looking at this

**Ron** · 11-16-2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dornado

also, the concessions weren't "court ordered"... they were approved in the sense that the employer declared that there was an impasse... in that situation the employer has the right to implement and the employees have the right to strike, which they did.

If you want to discuss semantics, we can do that...but the bottom line is those employees struck themselves right out of a job.

11-16-2012, 09:16 AM	#22 (permalink)
Dornado Community Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: WI Posts: 10,335 Rep Power: 10609191	Re: Hostess Liquidating Its Business R-Star arguing the opposite of the truth... the lack of Unions are what's wrong with this country... it is no coincidence that as union participation has fallen the working and lower middle classes have taken a bath. __________________

11-16-2012, 09:18 AM	#25 (permalink)
Dornado Community Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: WI Posts: 10,335 Rep Power: 10609191	Re: Hostess Liquidating Its Business also, the concessions weren't "court ordered"... they were approved in the sense that the employer declared that there was an impasse... in that situation the employer has the right to implement and the employees have the right to strike, which they did. __________________

11-16-2012, 09:19 AM	#29 (permalink)
Dornado Community Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: WI Posts: 10,335 Rep Power: 10609191	Re: Hostess Liquidating Its Business Also, the employer could have simply continued working under the old contract while negotiations were ongoing... blaming the Union is a really upside-down way of looking at this __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)