NBCDFW: Twinkies Maker Hostess Going Out of Business, CEO Blames Union Strike

[twa]

Seems to be the attitude that allows for illegal immigration.

So you support stopping and removing illegals?
I believe in right to work and LEGAL immigration....not your right to a job

amusing it's been illegals competing against me for a long time while the feds wink at it,THEN you want me to protect your job,salary and benefits?

good luck with that

[aREDSKIN]

But don't be so laughably ignorant as to think they haven't been looking.

~Bang

The economic realities of the wealth of nations and comparative advantages was clearly delineated by Adaam Smith in the 1700's. I suspect many have read this or have been expose to the logic thereof. IMO unions, not all but many, have been the catalyst for buisnesses to seek better/cheaper alternatives to homegrown talent in making-offering their products & or services. Many companies CEO are mandated to do this via fiduarciary responsiblities to shareholders.The unions overbearing tactics, some not all, have demonstrably, price themselves and their members out of the market. Much blame to go around I know and unions shoulder much of the balme too.

[twa]

Unions.....supporting fences to keep companies there and competition from other Americans out

Hostess is escaping....sic the hounds on them while playing the pity card

[Bang]

The economic realities of the wealth of nations and comparative advantages was clearly delineated by Adaam Smith in the 1700's. I suspect many have read this or have been expose to the logic thereof. IMO unions, not all but many, have been the catalyst for buisnesses to seek better/cheaper alternatives to homegrown talent in making-offering their products & or services. Many companies CEO are mandated to do this via fiduarciary responsiblities to shareholders.The unions overbearing tactics, some not all, have demonstrably, price themselves and their members out of the market. Much blame to go around I know and unions shoulder much of the balme too.

The above is becoming more and more translated as "It's ok to **** over your neighbor and countrymen so a few people can make gobs more money."

I totally agree that a business is in business to make money, and I agree that it's true that unions can be self serving and greedy. (seems to be a human nature thing among folks who rise to the position of being able to **** people over. They invariably do.)
But the fact is there iS a happy medium in which companies can prosper and workers can earn a wage that will allow them to make a living, and will allow for the top dogs to make more and become rich like they're supposed to. Its worked in the past, and it works even now in some unions..

we have to be careful about blanketly wanting to bust unions (not that you've said so.. but it's a prevailing attitude).. they prvide value, even in industries that may not be union..
Your ability alone doesn't give you security. There's always someone else who can do what you do, pretty much no matter what that is. and if there's complete open competition like that, well, lowest bidder always wins, and there will always be someone lower than you, because it's a small globe nowadays, and what it costs you to live is a lot more than what it costs Pablo or Sanjesh or Viktor or Wei or Kim Pak Soo or whoever, wherever.
The only thing that gives workers any power is their own solidarity, and their ability to hurt a company that tries to hurt them.
If not for that, sweatshops would be normal, and don't doubt it for a minute.

~Bang

[Jumbo]

Hostess wins OK to give execs up to $1.75 million in bonuses

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,1027676.story

Hostess Brands Inc., in the midst of winding down its business, won approval Thursday from a federal bankruptcy judge to give as much as $1.75 million in bonuses to its executives.

The money is intended as an incentive for 19 top-level managers to remain with the Twinkies and Ding Dongs maker to oversee its liquidation.

Hostess, which stopped contributing to its pension plans last year, also told the court that it needed to stop paying $1.1 million a month in retiree benefits.

Hostess has received interest from a wide group of bidders, including Hurst Capital, a Florida investment firm that has made an offer. Also reportedly interested are Grupo Bimbo, which owns Sara Lee and Entenmann's, and C. Dean Metropoulos & Co., which owns the maker of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer.

The company is now "in active dialogue with 110 potential bidders, 70 of which have signed nondisclosure agreements," Ignon said. The baker's investment bankers received 10 calls Wednesday alone.

more at link

[Larry]

Love the mental image of Twinkies being made by Pabst Blue Ribbon.

(Not so hot on the mental image of "we need to reneg on our employee's pensions so we can hand out executive bonuses".)

[AsburySkinsFan]

(Not so hot on the mental image of "we need to reneg on our employee's pensions so we can hand out executive bonuses".)

But then that's the story of this whole thing, cu employee pay and benefits while giving huge raises and bonuses to excutives, and hen blaming the unions. If that's the way capitalism is supposed to work you can keep it.

[zoony]

But then that's the story of this whole thing, cu employee pay and benefits while giving huge raises and bonuses to excutives, and hen blaming the unions. If that's the way capitalism is supposed to work you can keep it.

It is very common business practice to give managers and executives stay-on bonuses to oversee a shutdown and/or liquidation. AKA severance.

The reason it is common is because it makes a lot of sense. My former division just went through this where it was divested... managers HAD to be given stay-on bonuses. Otherwise, wouldn't they just leave? Then who is going to do all the work it takes to shut it down?

Or would you rather the corporation swoop in on December 30th and tell everyone they are out of a job on January 1st and leave their assets to rot and everyone lose and face potential lawsuits from everyone affected by the lack of clean up and divestiture?

Save your outrage on this particular decision. Besides, it was a court of law who looked at it and decided it was the right thing to do.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It is very common business practice to give managers and executives stay-on bonuses to oversee a shutdown and/or liquidation. AKA severance.

The reason it is common is because it makes a lot of sense. My former division just went through this where it was divested... managers HAD to be given stay-on bonuses. Otherwise, wouldn't they just leave? Then who is going to do all the work it takes to shut it down?

Or would you rather the corporation swoop in on December 30th and tell everyone they are out of a job on January 1st and leave their assets to rot and everyone lose and face potential lawsuits from everyone affected by the lack of clean up and divestiture?

Save your outrage on this particular decision. Besides, it was a court of law who looked at it and decided it was the right thing to do.

Yet, they are paying more money to the same people who padded their wallets which led to the problem to begin with.

[DM72]

Why do people hate on unions so much. If not for unions, practically no one would be kept around long enough to get retirement. You ever wonder why Walmart can treat their employees like crap? Because there's no union. People always like to call unions greedy. What do you want, everyone to make minimum wage?

[Bang]

Why do people hate on unions so much. If not for unions, practically no one would be kept around long enough to get retirement. You ever wonder why Walmart can treat their employees like crap? Because there's no union. People always like to call unions greedy. What do you want, everyone to make minimum wage?

People think that if we trust the job creators, sweatshops will become a thing of the past.

People don't need protection from their employers.
Chinese workers are happy at roughly 75 cents an hour, and bangladeshis are happy to die in garment factory fires for the privelege of having a job.

They'd never allow that here, right?

~Bang

[twa]

There are loads of worker protections here besides unions

The hate for unions largely comes from the choices they have made and and the corruption/cronyism.

[DM72]

There are loads of worker protections here besides unions

Like what? EEOC? The dept of Labor? There all a joke.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Like what? EEOC? The dept of Labor? There all a joke.

And corporate lobbies can be trusted to not gut those protections in the absence of union pressure.

Just repeat this over and over when you begin to doubt: "Don't trust unions....trust the corporations....unions are bad.....corporations are here for your well being....unions are greddy.....corporations love you......"

[zoony]

Yet, they are paying more money to the same people who padded their wallets which led to the problem to begin with.

I haven't seen the evidence that it was managements fault. Do you have it?