Twinkie Execs want $1.8 million bonuses

[DraftBoy]

Just read that a judge approved the bonuses. Unreal.

See, can't hurt to ask.

[Morpheus]

Wait, you've already agreed to concessions that hurt, and you're saying you can't strike when the company wants to take too much? Sorry, the corporate plan at Hostess wasn't well thought out.

If they don't have enough to give in the first place, then where does the money come from? Yeah, yeah, the bonuses suck, we agree on that. But the bonuses were a drop in the bucket of what was needed to meet union demands.

So, where was the money to come from if they were teetering on bankruptcy? Hmm?

[JATMtheJATM]

If they don't have enough to give in the first place, then where does the money come from? Yeah, yeah, the bonuses suck, we agree on that. But the bonuses were a drop in the bucket of what was needed to meet union demands.

So, where was the money to come from if they were teetering on bankruptcy? Hmm?

you have to wonder about the state of the company if they were over a billion dollars in debt and execs still tried to get more and more money. it clearly shows that they were out of touch with reality and probably ran the company into the ground long before the workers demanded more.

[Morpheus]

you have to wonder about the state of the company if they were over a billion dollars in debt and execs still tried to get more and more money. it clearly shows that they were out of touch with reality and probably ran the company into the ground long before the workers demanded more.

Conjecture. Besides, it's not relevant. They could have gambled away the earnings and the union still shot itself in the foot.

It's irrelevant because the deed is done. The employees are now unemployed. The company was in Chapter 11, for whatever reason, and the union wanted to lay more expenses on an insolvent company at the worst possible time. Now, I am not saying that seeking a better quality of life is wrong. Nope, didn't say that. What I am saying is that doing it at a time when your actions are suicidal from an employment perspective is short-sighted. They should have taken what they could get and then went back to the negotiating table once the company recovered, it is were to ever recover. But now we'll never know, will we?

15,000 people are out of work JTAM. The fact that management were douches isn't going to make those jobs come back.

[chernobylwraiths]

Conjecture. Besides, it's not relevant. They could have gambled away the earnings and the union still shot itself in the foot.

It's irrelevant because the deed is done. The employees are now unemployed. The company was in Chapter 11, for whatever reason, and the union wanted to lay more expenses on an insolvent company at the worst possible time. Now, I am not saying that seeking a better quality of life is wrong. Nope, didn't say that. What I am saying is that doing it at a time when your actions are suicidal from an employment perspective is short-sighted. They should have taken what they could get and then went back to the negotiating table once the company recovered, it is were to ever recover. But now we'll never know, will we?

15,000 people are out of work JTAM. The fact that management were douches isn't going to make those jobs come back.

We don't know what the bakers union wanted. We KNOW that they didn't want to accept a pay cut along with paying a portion of their healthcare costs. Now, I agree that they made a bad decision, but maybe they think that whoever buys the recipes will hire them to make the product. However, wanting to keep the status quo on their salary isn't outrageous considering management was giving themselves large salary increases and bonuses.

As meathead would say, it is ALWAYS both sides that are to blame. It's just the percentage of blame isn't always evenly shared.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

It's irrelevant because the deed is done. The employees are now unemployed. The company was in Chapter 11, for whatever reason, and the union wanted to lay more expenses on an insolvent company at the worst possible time. Now, I am not saying that seeking a better quality of life is wrong. Nope, didn't say that. What I am saying is that doing it at a time when your actions are suicidal from an employment perspective is short-sighted. They should have taken what they could get and then went back to the negotiating table once the company recovered, it is were to ever recover. But now we'll never know, will we?

15,000 people are out of work JTAM. The fact that management were douches isn't going to make those jobs come back.

Not necessarily. Even if the union could have sacrificed enough to keep Hostess operating (and I'm doubtful given what I've read), they can still take the calculated risk that if Hostess goes out of business then a competent company will come in and buy their product lines. (http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...ostess-brands/) And at that point, they can try negotiating with the new owners.

[Morpheus]

We don't know what the bakers union wanted. We KNOW that they didn't want to accept a pay cut along with paying a portion of their healthcare costs.

Well, now they have to accept 100% pay elimination plus pay all of their healthcare costs.

Now, I agree that they made a bad decision, but maybe they think that whoever buys the recipes will hire them to make the product.

I wouldn't hire them after this fiasco. In fact, if I owned stock in the company that buys those recipes then I'd be careful to watch to see if they try to market the products in the Northeast. If they did, I'd sell the stock. That union is toxic.

However, wanting to keep the status quo on their salary isn't outrageous considering management was giving themselves large salary increases and bonuses.

Again, while the salary increases and bonuses are abominable, this is a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The former wasn't enough to bust the company. The later was.

As meathead would say, it is ALWAYS both sides that are to blame. It's just the percentage of blame isn't always evenly shared.

This is an overgeneralization by Meathead with no basis in fact in my opinion.

[Morpheus]

Not necessarily. Even if the union could have sacrificed enough to keep Hostess operating (and I'm doubtful given what I've read), they can still take the calculated risk that if Hostess goes out of business then a competent company will come in and buy their product lines. (http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...ostess-brands/) And at that point, they can try negotiating with the new owners.

The union will have little to no negotiating power after this fiasco. For all intents and purposes they've been busted. If there is any hint of them pulling the same crap all over again then the market value of those recipes will approach zero faster than you can say "creamy filling".

[gebobs]

I blame both the union and the management for this debacle. To NOT blame the union at all is ignorance

- - - Updated - - -


I blame both the union and the management for this debacle. To NOT blame the union at all is ignorance

I blame you for not figuring out how to correct you double posting. Not so bad except it's typically double horse-sheeeite.

[chernobylwraiths]

Well, now they have to accept 100% pay elimination plus pay all of their healthcare costs.

Thanks Captain Obvious.

I wouldn't hire them after this fiasco. In fact, if I owned stock in the company that buys those recipes then I'd be careful to watch to see if they try to market the products in the Northeast. If they did, I'd sell the stock. That union is toxic.

Now who seems to be cutting off their own nose? You obviously have an anti union bias. I would actually like to know if any of the former executives try to buy up the recipies. Now THAT is a classic executive trick.

Again, while the salary increases and bonuses are abominable, this is a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The former wasn't enough to bust the company. The later was.

"While it was a terrible thing for the people who run the company to take no action to help out economically and actually cost the company more, it was the unions who refused to take a big hit in money that was the problem." Yep, blind. Plus, I've never heard of a company that size closing its doors after one week of strikes.

This is an overgeneralization by Meathead with no basis in fact in my opinion.

It has complete basis in fact IMO. Companies don't go under soully because of one faction. I would argue that poor management is most often the case in business failures.

[chernobylwraiths]

Class warfare. Blame the worker because he wants a good wage.

[MST3KBillsfan]

You'll have to forgive 35Pete(R), with all his free thinking, on some things he is at heart still a repug.

[gebobs]

Sorry that those folks lost their jobs, but America would be better off without Twinkies.

[MST3KBillsfan]

Sorry that those folks lost their jobs, but America would be better off without Twinkies.

What a ding-dong.

BTW, is there any hostess snack that isn't a double entendre?

Ho Ho
DingDong
Twinkie
Beefsteak

[NOT THE DUDE...]

They ruined the company? Ahem, *clearing my throat*.

It wasn't they that went on protracted strike.

free markets bro... oh wait, it's only free markets when capitalists do it...