patrick.net

Looks like these union morons learned nothing from Hostess!

zzyzzx says

Looks like these union morons learned nothing from Hostess!

Yeah, they only took pay cut after pay cut, and refused yet another big pay cut!

The problem in America is working people having too much money; we need to make sure investors get even more. After all, wealthy investors can eat 100 yodels a day and more than make up for mass consumption.

thunderlips11 says

Yeah, they only took pay cut after pay cut, and refused yet another big pay cut!

They refused to work for market wages.

zzyzzx says

They refused to work for market wages.

No, the management was incompetent. It produced the same goods the market demanded less of, and refused to innovate. The workers don't make those decisions, management does.

thunderlips11 says

zzyzzx says

Looks like these union morons learned nothing from Hostess!

Yeah, they only took pay cut after pay cut, and refused yet another big pay cut!

I wonder what the Hostess strikers who screwed themselves have to say about this.
Thunder, where is the money to pay pensions gonna come from if there is no money left?

Strategist says

I wonder what the Hostess strikers who screwed themselves have to say about this.

Thunder, where is the money to pay pensions gonna come from if there is no money left?

There's plenty of money, otherwise who is buying trillions of dollars of US Treasuries that pay little interest?

It's amazing that so many people believe that the unions killed Hostess. I guess that's exhibit A for anyone proving that propaganda works.

thunderlips11 says

No, the management was incompetent. It produced the same goods the market demanded less of, and refused to innovate. The workers don't make those decisions, management does.

No! Union rules prevented consolidation of factories and delivery, which cost the company more money than the market could support.

thunderlips11 says

Strategist says

I wonder what the Hostess strikers who screwed themselves have to say about this.


Thunder, where is the money to pay pensions gonna come from if there is no money left?

There's plenty of money, otherwise who is buying trillions of dollars of US Treasuries that pay little interest?

That money does not belong to the companies in question. If you feel that money should be used to pay "Hostess" and "Taj Mahal" pensions, then it should also be used to pay everyone else's pension.

zzyzzx says

The investors bought the company for $400 million, and are now getting paid $900 million just in dividends. And the company is worth $2.5 billion.

https://www.pehub.com/2015/07/hostess-to-pay-out-905-mln-dividend-to-owners-including-apollo-and-metropoulos/
Hostess to pay out $905 mln dividend to owners

tatupu70 says

It's amazing that so many people believe that the unions killed Hostess. I guess that's exhibit A for anyone proving that propaganda works.

Please read comment 10.
Thanks

zzyzzx says

No! Union rules prevented consolidation of factories and delivery, which cost the company more money than the market could support.

You realize this is after laying off multitudes of people and closings, right?

Strategist says

The investors bought the company for $400 million, and are now getting paid $900 million just in dividends. And the company is worth $2.5 billion.

https://www.pehub.com/2015/07/hostess-to-pay-out-905-mln-dividend-to-owners-including-apollo-and-metropoulos/

Hostess to pay out $905 mln dividend to owners

Yep, isn't declaring bankruptcy and getting massive amounts of debt forgiveness/restructuring effective?

Not to mention offloading half their product line and factories.

thunderlips11 says

Yep, isn't declaring bankruptcy and getting massive amounts of debt forgiveness/restructuring effective?

It is. It's called a second chance after the unions milked it dry.

thunderlips11 says

Not to mention offloading half their product line and factories.

That's what you should do when half the factories run at 50% capacity.

thunderlips11 says

You realize this is after laying off multitudes of people and closings, right?

Yes, after getting rid of the people that they really didn't need due to union rules, yes.

zzyzzx says

Yes, after getting rid of the people that they really didn't need due to union rules, yes.

And after bankruptcy protection from creditors. And selling off household name brands like Wonder Bread. And closing more than half their bakeries.

Here's the problem. Joe and George are in a rowboat they each have half ownership of. A leak springs in Joe's half. Joe doesn't know how to fix it. George does, but declines because it's not HIS half of the boat and not his problem! Joe should get off his lazy ass and fix his hole!
Now water that Joe's hole let into the boat is lapping at George's feet. Clearly Joe's water is inconveniencing him, and Joe should begin bailing! Joe replies that he's bailing as fast as he can but the water continues to rise.
George contemplates a lawsuit for Joe's destruction of his property.

And The boat sinks.

Considering the FACT that the labor had nothing to do with decisions of how to manage the casino, it's doubtful that they can be blamed for it tanking. However if the casino is in trouble they should start bailing, not suing.
The boat sinking takes them down either way.

thunderlips11 says

You realize this is after laying off multitudes of people and closings, right?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/absurd-union-benefits-and-rules-killed-hostess

Hostess’s 372 collective-bargaining agreements required the company to maintain 80 different health and benefit plans, 40 pension plans

Union work rules usually required cake and bread products to be delivered to a single retail location using two separate trucks. Drivers weren’t allowed to load their own vehicles, and the workers who loaded bread weren’t allowed to load cake. On most delivery routes, another "pull up" employee moved products from back rooms to shelves.

thunderlips11 says

And closing more than half their bakeries.

They closed half the bakeries because of the unions.
They saved the other half because of the LACK of unions.

Unions need to be destroyed. The Rep/Con/Tea union thugs can always get a job at the fry station at their local fast food joint,these are better paying jobs & no union dues. Some may even earn more than minimun wage.

Anyone know how many Rep/Con/Tea voters are/have been union members. Fucking Leftist Socialist!

zzyzzx says

I'm surprised you posted this again--last time you did you were explained in detail how it was actually management's fault.

1. Union rules do not prevent the company from closing factories--poor management
2. Lack of innovation--poor management
3. Not using convenience stores--poor management

Their issues were crappy management, plain and simple. Unions took multiple rounds of pay cuts and were very cooperative with Hostess even as they continued to see management run the company to the ground. But, they finally grew tired of giving, giving, giving, as management made no efforts to improve things.

If you're really interested, here's a good article for you:

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-real-reasons-hostess-went-bankrupt

tatupu70 says

1. Union rules do not prevent the company from closing factories--poor management

Umm, you might want to fact check that. I already posted several examples of how inefficient union rules made the company.

zzyzzx says

Umm, you might want to fact check that. I already posted several examples of how inefficient union rules made the company.

First off--I've seen nothing that indicated that hostess couldn't close a factory due to lack of sales.

But, most importantly, union benefits are negotiated. The union tries to get as much as it can for its members and management tries to give as little as possible. Unions have NO power to make rules unless management agrees to it. Are you faulting the union for getting its members good benefits? For protecting their members jobs? Isn't that what capitalism is all about???

In Hostess's case, the union gave back pay and benefits at least 3 times. How many times did management take pay and benefit cuts?

tatupu70 says

Are you faulting the union for getting its members good benefits?

Ripoff benefits, Tatupu, ripoff benefits. Bizarre rules too. Made the company unprofitable.

tatupu70 says

For protecting their members jobs?

They did a mighty good job at that, didn't they?

Strategist says

Ripoff benefits, Tatupu, ripoff benefits. Bizarre rules too. Made the company unprofitable.

Even if it's true, it's management's fault for agreeing to them. I don't see anyone blaming the CEO for asking for a $1MM salary. How can you fault a worker for asking for as much as he can???

Strategist says

They did a mighty good job at that, didn't they?

Unfortunately there's not much they can do when the company is run into the ground by management.

zzyzzx says

Looks like these union morons learned nothing from Hostess!

If they were capable of learning or caring, they wouldn't be in the union in the first place.

tatupu70 says

Strategist says

Ripoff benefits, Tatupu, ripoff benefits. Bizarre rules too. Made the company unprofitable.

Even if it's true, it's management's fault for agreeing to them. I don't see anyone blaming the CEO for asking for a $1MM salary. How can you fault a worker for asking for as much as he can???

The company is now doing pretty good without the unions. It's pretty obvious the unions were responsible for the company's demise.
The management strategy was the right strategy.

FortWayne says

If they were capable of learning or caring, they wouldn't be in the union in the first place.

And sometimes I wonder why the US economy is in such bad shape. The views on this thread make it pretty clear--people vote against their own interest when the Koch Bros. tell them to.

Strategist says

The company is now doing pretty good without the unions. It's pretty obvious the unions were responsible for the company's demise.

The management strategy was the right strategy.

lol--going bankrupt was a good strategy? No wonder so many people like Trump. He's made going bankrupt into an art form.

tatupu70 says

Strategist says

The company is now doing pretty good without the unions. It's pretty obvious the unions were responsible for the company's demise.


The management strategy was the right strategy.

lol--going bankrupt was a good strategy?

The company was already bankrupt. Taking an unprofitable company worth $400 million, into a highly profitable company worth $2.5 billion in a couple of years, is a sign of a successful strategy. The best way of protecting worker jobs is by running a successful and profitable company. The old union workers are probably kicking themselves for being too greedy.
There was something I read back in high school that I do no forget:
Do you know how they catch monkeys in Brazil?
They take a bottle and place a nut in it. A monkey that finds it reaches out for the nut, but can't get his fist out of the bottle. He has to let go of the nut to get his hand out. The greedy monkey won't let go of the nut, and is now caught.
What's the moral of the story, Tatupu?

Strategist says

The company was already bankrupt. Taking an unprofitable company worth $400 million, into a highly profitable company worth $2.5 billion in a couple of years, is a sign of a successful strategy. The best way of protecting worker jobs is by running a successful and profitable company. The old union workers are probably kicking themselves for being too greedy.

You really need to read up more on what actually happened with Hostess. Here's a good article:

http://fortune.com/2012/07/26/hostess-is-bankrupt-again/

Unions got screwed, plain and simple. I don't understand the attitude of you, FW, and zzyyxx--if your company has a down year, do you offer to give back your salary? Do you give money back so the CEO can get a bigger bonus?

The union did more than once, only to see management give themselves 80% raises. If that happened to you, wouldn't you be a little upset next time management came asking for more concessions??

And the union sure as hell didn't rack up the crushing debt load that was a major factor in the bankruptcy.