Twinkees Dead, Union Charged with Ho-Homicide..

[700UW]

Considering the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch and the WSJ has never been a fan of organized labor.

 

[737823]

Considering the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch and the WSJ has never been a fan of organized labor.

Wow so you think Rupert Murdoch reviews each and every article that gets ran in the Wall Street Journal? Every program on Fox News? Every article in the New York Post? Get real. He is someone who clearly understands the media and has adapted his businesses remarkably well. I'm not a Fox News fan but I am a WSJ (print+online) and Barrons subscriber and enjoy my subscriptions. Get real.

Josh

 

[700UW]

News Corp which owns Fox News, Dow Jones and WSJ, have a clear bias towards the working class people.

Guess you havent heard about the scandal him, his son and his company was involved with in England, have you?

 

[737823]

No one ever gives up work rules unless either made to or made to *want* to. Perhaps management never offered up an appealing enough give-to-get to amend that language? If not, why not? Or, maybe after a couple of concessionary rounds, they felt it was an okay sop to leave in in order to make some of the other cuts more palatable.

Of course they don't want to give them up, I knew that but you didn't address the question. Clearly the workrules were overly restrictive and crippled the company. Restrictive work rules reduce productivity and drives up costs. 700 keeps touting the superior contracts the IAM negotiated for the CO FAs and WN agents, well they are well paid but have work rules designed around maximizing flexibility and productivity. Clearly that wasn't the case at Hostess.

That said, at the risk of sounding Clinton-esque, what does "usually" mean? Always? In certain areas? East of the Rockies?
Also, perhaps the "pull up" position -while sounding a bit much on paper- actually makes the route deliveries more efficient overall. Perhaps the segregation of trucks is an end result of throughput at the factory, or the design of the routings themselves? I'm being totally serious here, BTW; I think these are questions that should be addressed before one takes a WSJ article with a subtitle of "Unions kill an American classic, and 18,500 of their own jobs" at face value. Lots of cool soundbites, but not a lot of citations to back it up...

What specific facts in the article do you believe are suspect?

Josh

 

[737823]

News Corp which owns Fox News, Dow Jones and WSJ, have a clear bias towards the working class people.

You sure about that? How come many working class people read the WSJ and watch Fox News? Other news outlets run stories that portray unions in a bad light and for good reason.

Guess you havent heard about the scandal him, his son and his company was involved with in England, have you?

Of course I know about it. Again, doesn't change the fact that I enjoy his publications. In my line profession its pretty much a staple that everyone has and the company provides, much like a Bloomberg terminal or smartphone.

Josh

 

[700UW]

To borrow from Kevin:

WSJ article with a subtitle of "Unions kill an American classic, and 18,500 of their own jobs" at face value. Lots of cool soundbites, but not a lot of citations to back it up...

When the case clearly shows management failed the company, seven different CEOs in 10 years.

 

[737823]

To borrow from Kevin:

WSJ article with a subtitle of "Unions kill an American classic, and 18,500 of their own jobs" at face value. Lots of cool soundbites, but not a lot of citations to back it up...

When the case clearly shows management failed the company, seven different CEOs in 10 years.

Had the BCTGM given further concessions, the investors wouldn't have thrown in the towel and liquidated, so yes the union (BCTGM) did kill 18,500 jobs and Hostess.

Josh

 

[Kev3188]

but you didn't address the question. Clearly the workrules were overly restrictive and crippled the company.

I did answer. I don't know enough about the specifics of any Hostess related CBA to weigh in with any kind authority. That's why I answered in general... As for being overly restrictive and crippling to the company, I think it's too simplistic to say that. Hard to tell w/o knowing all the particulars, but I do think that there were a LOT of other factors at play, such as offering products out of step with consumer habits, the decrease in discretionary spending of American families, the role private equity may (or may not) have played in adding to the debt load, and more. "Unions suck," and "management sucks" are easy calls to make... except it's almost never that clear cut.

What specific facts in the article do you believe are suspect?

Well, it's an Op-Ed piece, so most of it is likely subjective, but mainly what I already addressed; does the wording the author uses in the piece match reality? If so, how closely?

You sure about that? How come many working class people read the WSJ and watch Fox News?

For the former? Probably very few. For the latter, way more than most people think...

 

[Kev3188]

Had the BCTGM given further concessions, the investors wouldn't have thrown in the towel and liquidated, so yes the union (BCTGM) did kill 18,500 jobs and Hostess.

Josh

Did they "kill" an otherwise healthy job, or was it a mercy killing of a terminal patient?

 

[700UW]

Had the BCTGM given further concessions, the investors wouldn't have thrown in the towel and liquidated, so yes the union (BCTGM) did kill 18,500 jobs and Hostess.

Josh

They gave concessions THREE times and each time the company squandered them, the strike didnt force the company to shut down, the company made that choice.

SInce you dont work there, did you not read where the man stated that his pay went from $44,000 a year down to $34,000 a year and the court imposed CBA took that down to $25,000 and he couldnt be able to pay his mortgage and unemployment would pay him more than the court imposed CBA

It was the members choice to strike, they had enough, but you can sit on the sideline and judge them and tell them they were wrong, when you havent been in their shoes at all.

 

[signals]

http://www.newyorker...he-twinkie.html

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Management, of course, blames the company’s demise on the greedy, unreasonable unions. But, while the strike may well have sent Hostess over the edge, the hard truth is that it probably should have gone out of business a long time ago. The company has been steadily losing money, and market share, for years. And its core problem has not been excessively high compensation costs or pension contributions. Its core problem has been that the market for its products changed, but it did not. Twinkies and Ding Dongs obviously aren’t anyone’s idea of the perfect twenty-first-century snack food. More important, the theoretical flagship of Hostess’s product line, Wonder Bread, has gone from being a key part of the archetypical American diet to a tired also-ran.[/background]
​

Funny you read where I allegedly claimed to be firedougparker, but you completely missed where I already said this. Go ahead and twist #79.

 

[signals]

How do you know they are unskilled?

Have you worked in a bakery? Have you seen the machines that they operate?

Oh I forgot you know it all about everything sitting in your cubicle finding out new ways to foreclose on people's houses.

Funny how you wont admit who you work for or if your bank took TARP funds.

http://www.mnn.com/food/recipes/blogs/make-your-own-hostess-treats

 

[signals]

Is the Pabst Brewing Co. union friendly?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/pabst-owner-metropoulos-is-considering-bid-for-hostess-brands.html

 

[Kev3188]

Yep.

Drink up: http://www.unionplus.org/union-made/beers

 

[Veritas]

Due to the instability and added challenges of managing a distressed company, managers generally expect and receive higher pay than stable, solvent, and otherwise profitable companies. Don't let the facts get in your way.

Fact is a compensation committee was in place and determined the pay levels for the executives were appropriate for their expertise in the current environment. Its no different than a collective bargaining approach, union members expect market competitive pay aligned with what they contribute to the company and management is no different. I am familiar with how compensation committees are formed and operate. It seems you are disappointed they didn't consult with you.

Of course, the one percenters, the wannabe one percenters and the vulture capitalists always take care of their own.