Ding Dong Unions killing off another great American institution

[Meister]

So we are cheering on the race towards lower living standards?

It seems you are.

 

[Ariux]

So we are cheering on the race towards lower living standards?

Maybe no more twinkies would be good for our living standards.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Lot of people going to be out of work because of a combination of company growth, bad business decisions and the inability to converge so many different Union contracts. And the Union wants to hurry it up by going on strike?

Make sense to anyone?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So we are cheering on the race towards lower living standards?

In researching this...Hostess pays higher salaries than every single one of it's main competitors. Note I said salaries.
One year before filing bankruptcy the highest 8 executives received generous wages as high as 80%!!!

I am no union backer...but the problem seems more upstairs than the floor.
Not saying the unions are not a problem...previous pensions and benefits are higher than the company can afford.
But it takes some REAL assholes to give themselves an 80% raise and want to cut employee benefits.

 

[uscitizen]

How much would you say that CEO pay increase translates into the cost of a package of Twinkies on the store shelves?

Or perhaps this is an attempted red herring (FAIL)?



LOL

Reading comporehension problems?

CEO is singular Executives as the article states is Plural.

Hostess gobbles up all those little bakeries with their union obligations. they created this mess that is too big to survive.

You posted that the problem was due largely to executive pay increases.

Did you mean that, or were you trying to lie and obfuscate like a predictable Liberal Liar?

Give me the amount said pay increases added to a pack of Twinkies, in your estimation.

I did not say that the problem was due largely to executive pay increases.
Show where I said that?

However the article I posted/linked seemed to say that the executives were just as greedy as the union.

 

[Peach]

From the article.

"Consumers have been buying other snacks, such as yogurt, and more wheat bread. White bread's popularity has plunged from being eaten in 54 percent of all U.S. homes in 2000 to 36 percent last year, according to consumer-marketing research firm NPD Group."

Unions caused that drop in sales.

Twinkies are a great American INSTITUTION? (The extreme right is snapping it seems.)

 

[uscitizen]

Lot of people going to be out of work because of a combination of company growth, bad business decisions and the inability to converge so many different Union contracts. And the Union wants to hurry it up by going on strike?

Make sense to anyone?

About as much sense as the executives 80% pay increases.

Yep a mess all around.
Too big to survive.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Reading comporehension problems?

CEO is singular Executives as the article states is Plural.

Hostess gobbles up all those little bakeries with their union obligations. they created this mess that is too big to survive.

You posted that the problem was due largely to executive pay increases.

Did you mean that, or were you trying to lie and obfuscate like a predictable Liberal Liar?

Give me the amount said pay increases added to a pack of Twinkies, in your estimation.

I did not say that the problem was due largely to executive pay increases.
Show where I said that?

However the article I posted/linked seemed to say that the executives were just as greedy as the union.

Sorry guys - uscitizen appears to be right here.
I looked up Hostess competitors...the largest one is Awrey Bakeries. In looking at their company structure - Hostess looks to have a significantly higher executive and manager package by far. And giving themselves an 80% raise while seeking to lower employee benefits is damn unethical, not to mention doing so between two bankruptcies.
Not saying the union is not a problem...but their does certainly appear to be a strong entitlement attitude by management at least as much as the union.

 

[regent]

We always assume that large corporations want their companies to stay in business, but that may not be true. The corporations may decide they can make more profit by allowing a company to go under gradually than trying to keep it alive beyond its projected life span. There are a number of examples of this practice, but I don't know the term used to describe this act or even if there is a term.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Sorry guys - uscitizen appears to be right here.
I looked up Hostess competitors...the largest one is Awrey Bakeries. In looking at their company structure - Hostess looks to have a significantly higher executive and manager package by far. And giving themselves an 80% raise while seeking to lower employee benefits is damn unethical, not to mention doing so between two bankruptcies.
Not saying the union is not a problem...but their does certainly appear to be a strong entitlement attitude by management at least as much as the union.

Those workers should go find another job if they are unhappy about their pay....thats what i've always done.....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We always assume that large corporations want their companies to stay in business, but that may not be true. The corporations may decide they can make more profit by allowing a company to go under gradually than trying to keep it alive beyond its projected life span. There are a number of examples of this practice, but I don't know the term used to describe this act or even if there is a term.

I don;t know about that - but I will not be surprised if we don't see a sale here. When top executives vote themselves HUUUGE raises right before a bankruptcy and right before union troubles - they clearly don't give a rats ass about the company they run.
I would never do this.
About 40% of my compensation is incentive pay. When the economy collapsed I lost it all in 2008 and 2009. Got a little in 2010, and slightly more in 2011.
Finally this quarter I received full compensation. Why am I saying this? Because when the company suffers - everyone should suffer. Including the top guy.
These hostess guys are horrible managers. The first thing to bring this company to life would be to engage in a clearing house on the top floor.

 

[Trajan]

Lot of people going to be out of work because of a combination of company growth, bad business decisions and the inability to converge so many different Union contracts. And the Union wants to hurry it up by going on strike?

Make sense to anyone?

About as much sense as the executives 80% pay increases.

Yep a mess all around.
Too big to survive.

No, I'd say they were mismanaged, ala GM, the unions were never all of the problem, they were a good half and the rest was poor engineering, poor design etc...and mgt. caved back in, when was it 83 when the unions really pushed them,that was the big showdown.... they should have let them strike and had it out...instead over the decades, they went from what, 1.5 million work workers to...well here we are....

Hostess had a huge part of the market but they pushed to fast and, could never consolidate their work force effectively.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sorry guys - uscitizen appears to be right here.
I looked up Hostess competitors...the largest one is Awrey Bakeries. In looking at their company structure - Hostess looks to have a significantly higher executive and manager package by far. And giving themselves an 80% raise while seeking to lower employee benefits is damn unethical, not to mention doing so between two bankruptcies.
Not saying the union is not a problem...but their does certainly appear to be a strong entitlement attitude by management at least as much as the union.

Those workers should go find another job if they are unhappy about their pay....thats what i've always done.....

Can't argue with that.

 

[Peach]

Lot of people going to be out of work because of a combination of company growth, bad business decisions and the inability to converge so many different Union contracts. And the Union wants to hurry it up by going on strike?

Make sense to anyone?

About as much sense as the executives 80% pay increases.

Yep a mess all around.
Too big to survive.

No, I'd say they were mismanaged, ala GM, the unions were never all of the problem, they were a good half and the rest was poor engineering, poor design etc...and mgt. caved back in, when was it 83 when the unions really pushed them,that was the big showdown.... they should have let them strike and had it out...instead over the decades, they went from what, 1.5 million work workers to...well here we are....

Hostess had a huge part of the market but they pushed to fast and, could never consolidate their work force effectively.

Hostess garnered many competitors, and has not stayed ahead of them. The generics are cheaper.

 

[Big Fitz]

So we are cheering on the race towards lower living standards?

Uhhh, we don't have a choice. Lower living standards are here thanks to our national ignorance about economic warfare and harmful trade practices. Those who refuse to accept this only make the situation worse by putting companies under that could keep them working for a little less, instead of totally unemployed. Economic realities do now bow to what living standard we would like, but rather set the ceiling as to what is possible and sustainable. Unions obviously didn't get the memo, less money is better than NO money.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Lot of people going to be out of work because of a combination of company growth, bad business decisions and the inability to converge so many different Union contracts. And the Union wants to hurry it up by going on strike?

Make sense to anyone?

About as much sense as the executives 80% pay increases.

Yep a mess all around.
Too big to survive.

No, I'd say they were mismanaged, ala GM, the unions were never all of the problem, they were a good half and the rest was poor engineering, poor design etc...and mgt. caved back in, when was it 83 when the unions really pushed them,that was the big showdown.... they should have let them strike and had it out...instead over the decades, they went from what, 1.5 million work workers to...well here we are....

Hostess had a huge part of the market but they pushed to fast and, could never consolidate their work force effectively.

Indeed.
Reading other articles etc. - looks to me like poor management has utterly destroyed a once pristine marketshare.
At the same time they allowed pensions to run wild with no regard as to what this meant a few decades down the road. This is the problem that unions create - they will drive a business in the ground trying to provide life-long golden retirements for their members.
Hostess didn't stand a chance. This company was getting slain by all sides.

 

[Big Black Dog]

These days, unions are nothing more than organized thugs.

 

[Peach]

About as much sense as the executives 80% pay increases.

Yep a mess all around.
Too big to survive.

No, I'd say they were mismanaged, ala GM, the unions were never all of the problem, they were a good half and the rest was poor engineering, poor design etc...and mgt. caved back in, when was it 83 when the unions really pushed them,that was the big showdown.... they should have let them strike and had it out...instead over the decades, they went from what, 1.5 million work workers to...well here we are....

Hostess had a huge part of the market but they pushed to fast and, could never consolidate their work force effectively.

Hostess garnered many competitors, and has not stayed ahead of them. The generics are cheaper.

Entenmanns, Little Debbie, Kraft, Sara Lee, etc.

 

[ThinkCritically]

We always assume that large corporations want their companies to stay in business, but that may not be true. The corporations may decide they can make more profit by allowing a company to go under gradually than trying to keep it alive beyond its projected life span. There are a number of examples of this practice, but I don't know the term used to describe this act or even if there is a term.

I don;t know about that - but I will not be surprised if we don't see a sale here. When top executives vote themselves HUUUGE raises right before a bankruptcy and right before union troubles - they clearly don't give a rats ass about the company they run.
I would never do this.
About 40% of my compensation is incentive pay. When the economy collapsed I lost it all in 2008 and 2009. Got a little in 2010, and slightly more in 2011.
Finally this quarter I received full compensation. Why am I saying this? Because when the company suffers - everyone should suffer. Including the top guy.
These hostess guys are horrible managers. The first thing to bring this company to life would be to engage in a clearing house on the top floor.

Classic example of how management incentive does not line up with shareholder incentive.....shareholder ultimate incentive (maximize profits for the firm, thus increasing share value).....management's ultimate incentive (maximize personal wealth, thus increasing personal wealth)......This is why corporate executives should never get salary......By paying them purely in shares it lines up the shareholders interest with managements interest......If you are invested in a corporation that does not pay executives in this manner, then you are exposing yourself to this risk.

 

[Big Fitz]

No, I'd say they were mismanaged, ala GM, the unions were never all of the problem, they were a good half and the rest was poor engineering, poor design etc...and mgt. caved back in, when was it 83 when the unions really pushed them,that was the big showdown.... they should have let them strike and had it out...instead over the decades, they went from what, 1.5 million work workers to...well here we are....

Hostess had a huge part of the market but they pushed to fast and, could never consolidate their work force effectively.

Hostess garnered many competitors, and has not stayed ahead of them. The generics are cheaper.

Entenmanns, Little Debbie, Kraft, Sara Lee, etc.

That is true. So why hasn't Hostess managed to stay ahead? Bad business planning? The competition is using cheap foreign labor or sub standard materials? Lack of investment capital due to higher union labor and legacy costs?

What could it be?