really bad news - Xbox America

Re: Re: Re: really bad news

11/17/12 9:13 pm | #31

Quote by BIGP 6:

Quote by ShadowMachine X:

I was shocked not to find a Zombieland reference in here. So I added one.

there's one on the 1st page

Missed it. I probably missed it due to all the back and forth commentary.

View Profile

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: really bad news

11/17/12 11:47 pm | #32

View Profile

Re: Re: Re: really bad news

11/18/12 12:04 am | #33

Quote by Kat:

Quote by IRiSH:

Yeah, it was all the union's fault. Horse shit. :no:

I personally say to hell with Hostess. It sucks for the workers that are out of a job but the company was run by a bunch of fucktards and their product is overpriced garbage anyway.

That's not at all biased towards the unions, huh? ^

"Bain style crony capitalism."

Lmao.

Even the teamsters are blaming the BCTGM. Not really too much room to spin this... 6000 people have cost themselves and 12,000 more their jobs, and cost me the wonderfulness that is chocolate cream twinkles, orange cupcakes, ho hos, ding dongs and fried pies.

Selfish fuckers.

I do not know how credible this is, but it was from Facebook to a link to
Teamster Nation Blog/Website:

HERE

The problem was debt. Reuters (a real news outlet) reported Hostess' entered "First Bankruptcy With $648.5 Million In Debt, And Came Out With More Than $800 Million." Reuters reported that after Hostess filed for its first bankruptcy in 2004, "it did not deal with its debt"

Blame the lawyers, not the unions. Reuters also reported In its first bankruptcy, Hostess spent more than $170 million on professional fees in its first bankruptcy. That's because each time a company goes bankrupt, it must pay for lawyers and advisers not only for itself, but for its major creditors.

Debt was the problem in the second bankruptcy: The New York Times' DealBook reported that Hostess had "more than $850 million of secured debt outstanding" as well as "$180 million in accrued workers compensation liabilities." The Times further reported that "[a]nother $50 million to $60 million is outstanding to trade creditors, plus $36 million in lease obligation" and that the company was "going to lay a $75 million debtor-in-possession loan on top of that." The Times added that "all this from a company with assets of just over $980 million."

Unions made concessions while executives looted the company: Forbes explained that Hostess was able to exit bankruptcy in 2009 for three reasons, including that "substantial concessions" were made "by the two big unions" -- the Teamsters and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union... and "thousands of union members lost their jobs."

The hacks running the company made out like -- well, you know: In April Hostess' creditors noted that Hostess had dramatically increased executive pay, including increasing CEO compensation from $750,000 to $2.25 million.

Management couldn't come up with new products: CNBC reported "The company's sales declined and attempts to roll-out new products more in line with changing consumer tastes flopped."

All of this was just snippets from this article:

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2012/11/16/fox-ignores-hostess-array-of-troubles-to-scapeg/191440

Here is a very interesting part, as I said there HAD to be more to the 8% pay cut:

The bakery workers union said the contract would cut wages and benefits by 27 to 32 percent, including an immediate 8 percent wage cut.

And the CEO pay part:
Hostess Raised Executive Salary By 35% To 80%. According to The Wall Street Journal, in April Hostess' creditors noted that Hostess had dramatically increased executive pay, including increasing CEO compensation from $750,000 to $2.25 million. According to the Journal, Hostess' creditors called the move "a possible effort to 'sidestep' Bankruptcy Code compensation programs":

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/18/12 12:53 am | #34

Unattributed Quote:

And the CEO pay part:
Hostess Raised Executive Salary By 35% To 80%. According to The Wall Street Journal, in April Hostess' creditors noted that Hostess had dramatically increased executive pay, including increasing CEO compensation from $750,000 to $2.25 million. According to the Journal, Hostess' creditors called the move "a possible effort to 'sidestep' Bankruptcy Code compensation programs":

Thanks Pure, I knew there was going to be more to the story.

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/18/12 12:56 am | #35

^There's the spin!

it overlooks the fact that when this was discovered after the CEO left, the new CEO announced all 4 who had gotten raises would be making $1 for the rest of the year. corrupt guy is corrupt, corrupt guy is replaced, new guy and other beneficiaries of corrupt guy take MASSIVE pay cuts.

My info is from the actual teamster site, teamster.org where they say the teamsters voted to approve the final offer from Hostess, but:

"The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist. Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.
On Friday, Nov. 9, the BCTGM began to strike at some Hostess production facilities without notice to the Teamsters despite assurances they would not proceed with job actions without contacting the Teamsters Union. This unannounced action put Teamster members in the difficult position of facing picket lines without knowing their right to honor such a line without being disciplined."

So was Hostess mismanaged in the past? I'm sure- aren't all companies at some point? Is this particular circumstance all the fault of one party? Nope, and none are. But this situation does underline the faults with unions, and why they have outlived their usefulness. 18,000 more people are on unemployment because a few made decisions for all. Who exactly was protected by the union?

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/18/12 2:00 am | #36

A spirited debate! Given the time of year a (holiday) miracle is in order.

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/18/12 2:44 am | #37

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/18/12 6:38 am | #38

Teamsters.org also said that those 4 CEOs who took the $1 pay for the rest of this year, decided in July, was after they made their huge raises for the whole 2011 year. Also this was just 4 of the top CEOs, no mention whatsoever of the rest of the management staff of the 33 locations.

It also states that the Teamsters vote that passed the final offer was only 53% in favor. That means that approx 3500 of the 7500 Teamsters voted no, even though they knew it meant unemployment. So now, that 6000 BCTGM selfish people, becomes 9500, or more than half the 18000 total workers in the company, that did not want the cuts. Even after being told they would face unemployment.

I mean, I dont like my union, but I am a union worker, ONLY so I can vote on our contract each time it's up for vote. I mean yeah, the union ultimately put the last nail in the coffin, so because of that everyone is up in arms that it is all the unions fault, and that is why I am arguing this point. I think it sucks that 18000 people are now unemployed, but I dont feel the union is at blame. If you have 18000 employees and 6000 are striking, you can still run at a limited production with the remaining 12000 while working to get the other 6000 back.

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/18/12 2:06 pm | #39

Decreasing Demand, a huge amount of debt, union proplems, and poor management are all reasons why this company failed.

I can't say if it's more one persons fault than the other, nor do I care. I just feel bad for my Hostess guy who delivered at my store for over three years and lost his job after being with the company for 27 years.... that has to be hard.

View Profile

Re: Re: really bad news

11/18/12 7:05 pm | #40

Quote by PureEvil x21:

Teamsters.org also said that those 4 CEOs who took the $1 pay for the rest of this year, decided in July, was after they made their huge raises for the whole 2011 year. Also this was just 4 of the top CEOs, no mention whatsoever of the rest of the management staff of the 33 locations.

It also states that the Teamsters vote that passed the final offer was only 53% in favor. That means that approx 3500 of the 7500 Teamsters voted no, even though they knew it meant unemployment. So now, that 6000 BCTGM selfish people, becomes 9500, or more than half the 18000 total workers in the company, that did not want the cuts. Even after being told they would face unemployment.

I mean, I dont like my union, but I am a union worker, ONLY so I can vote on our contract each time it's up for vote. I mean yeah, the union ultimately put the last nail in the coffin, so because of that everyone is up in arms that it is all the unions fault, and that is why I am arguing this point. I think it sucks that 18000 people are now unemployed, but I dont feel the union is at blame. If you have 18000 employees and 6000 are striking, you can still run at a limited production with the remaining 12000 while working to get the other 6000 back.

The 6000 that were striking were the bakers. At a bakery. And the teamsters were stuck, they couldn't work if people were striking. I don't know how Hostess does it, as far as what they do at what plant, so I can only guess that they were unable to continue production with only non striking people who didn't have to cross strike lines to work. Now why they didn't dunionize and hire non union people to fill in is something I don't know. Fire union employees who are striking, hire new workers out of the pool of over 10 million unemployed people who would kill for a job. Maybe that's not allowed? It seems like it's the most obvious solution.

I never understood why a lot of MN factories hired exclusively from temp agencies, but it's starting to make sense.

And I get your point about the teamsters, but majority rules, and the teamsters would have accepted the contract. So it's 12000 out of work through no choice of their own.

I'm with Irish Patriot, it's obviously a problem caused by many factors. It's just a sucky situation, because in this economy, these people aren't going to be able to just run out and get a new job. And it's the holidays. And I want some damn ding dongs. It just sucks.

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/18/12 8:38 pm | #41

i am learning so much about this alot of stuff i did know but alot of it i didnt lol

View Profile

Re: Re: Re: really bad news

11/18/12 10:34 pm | #42

Quote by Kat:

And I want some damn ding dongs. It just sucks.

Agreed.

And I'm gonna miss Wonderbread................

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/18/12 10:49 pm | #43

I'll miss the cupcakes.

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/19/12 8:06 pm | #44

Yes, it's easy to say had the union agreed to these concessions, they might still have jobs but who's to say management wouldn't have just demanded more? This was about much more than Hostess. It's just part of the GOP's agenda to kill unions. The first part of this article is an actual transcript from a roundtable discussion including Newt Gingrich.

Twinkie Gate: Republicans Admit Hostess Closing was About Killing Unions

"The reality is that by closing the company, the investment bankers that run Hostess can suck even more profit out of an already twice bankrupted company. The door is open for someone to buy the company, and relocate it to a right to work state. "

I fixed that link.

View Profile

Re: really bad news

11/19/12 10:46 pm | #45

I'm not a member of the GOP and I think unions should be killed. The organizations, not the people- lol.

But not so fast, people paying hundreds for twinkies on eBay may feel pretty stupid soon:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121119/BUSINESS/311190097/hostess-union-bankruptcy-not?nclick_check=1

"U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain said at a hearing in White Plains, New York, that there are 'serious questions as to the logic behind the decision to strike.'"

Derp.

View Profile

Options: Archived: really bad news

Options:

Archived: really bad news