Strikes dont always work.

[HonestChieffan]

On the first business day after bakers went on strike against Hostess Brands, the Irving-based company said Monday it will permanently close three striking bakeries, putting 627 employees out of work.

Late Friday, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union went on strike against Irving-based Hostess to protest cuts and give-backs in the company’s last, best, final contract offer. The contract, which was rejected by 92 percent of the union members who voted, called, in part, for 8 percent pay cuts, a company hiatus from contributions to a multi-employer pension plan and changes in work rules.

As of Monday, bakers had set up picket lines at about 23 of the 36 bakeries and production plants operated by the bankrupt snack maker. Hostess said the strike “has prevented the facilities from producing and delivering products.”

“Our customers will not be affected because we will continue to serve them from other Hostess Brands bakeries, but sadly this action will result in the permanent closure of three facilities and the loss of 627 jobs,” said Gregory Rayburn, Hostess Brands’ chief executive.

“We deeply regret this decision, but we have repeatedly explained that we will close facilities that are no longer able to produce and deliver products because of a work stoppage — and that we will close the entire company if widespread strikes cripple our business.”

The bakeries to be closed immediately are in Seattle, St. Louis and Cincinnati. The Seattle facility employs 110 people and produces Hostess cake products. The St. Louis facility employs 365 people and produces Hostess cakes and Nature’s Pride and Wonder breads.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/h...cincinnati.ece

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

So they thought the company was lying about how much trouble they were in and that they would never actually close? They Union decided it was better to have everyone lose their jobs on principal? I'm not sure what they thought the company should have done instead...

Hostess here isn't really Hostess, it's massive big money that bought into Hostess previously. I think the union lost all confidence in their willingness to tell the truth and or restructure the company in a way that would let it actually survive.

The union made its choice, and now its members must live with the consequences. The point here is that the union can't ALWAYS just roll over, right? We can agree on that much anyway, I assume?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

That's what wrong with liberalism in general. They want what they want. It doesn't matter whether or not the money is there to give them what they want. They want what they want, and damn the consequences.

This was a massive battle between big labor and big hedge funds where all held guns to each other's heads. The hedge fund guys said "take this or I pull the trigger", and the union said "**** you" and so they did.

Each is completely within their rights. Sometimes companies should NOT be saved. Why the hell this is so clearly a problem because of labor instead of being something created by everyone involved, I have no idea.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

nah, unemployment is a much better option....

Well, it might be right? At some point the scale tips.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

nah, unemployment is a much better option....

fair point. But I certainly wouldn't be staying there too long and would be looking for a new job months ago.

[InChiefsHell]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Hostess here isn't really Hostess, it's massive big money that bought into Hostess previously. I think the union lost all confidence in their willingness to tell the truth and or restructure the company in a way that would let it actually survive.

The union made its choice, and now its members must live with the consequences. The point here is that the union can't ALWAYS just roll over, right? We can agree on that much anyway, I assume?

I bet you if you asked the members, they'd rather have a job. Just sayin'. It's NOT about "The Workers" it's all about "THE UNION".

[Brock]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

I bet you if you asked the members, they'd rather have a job. Just sayin'. It's NOT about "The Workers" it's all about "THE UNION".

How much of a pay and benefit cut would you be willing to lay down for?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

I bet you if you asked the members, they'd rather have a job. Just sayin'. It's NOT about "The Workers" it's all about "THE UNION".

It should be about the workers. Since 92% or whatever voted in favor of the strike, then apparently they agreed with the union leaders. Hopefully they fully understood the potential consequences of that decision.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

I bet you if you asked the members, they'd rather have a job. Just sayin'. It's NOT about "The Workers" it's all about "THE UNION".

Which is why the Teamsters Union accepted the pay cuts again. They are even trying to convince the other union members to force a vote.

[Chief Henry]

AT least those 18,500 people will now have free condoms and abortions

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Chief Henry

AT least those 18,500 people will now have free condoms and abortions

You have a pretty weird way of looking at the world. Just sayin'

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Que? Unions don't exist to just dissolve. They dont' exist to kill companies, either, of course, but they certianly aren't required to roll over anytime management asks.



So, hypothetically, if management said we want you to take minimum wage jobs with no benefits, the union shouldn't recommend its employees vote against that plan because, you know, the company is responsible for making its own decisions and if that's what the company wants....?


Yeah, no. Makes no sense.

The union basically told management that there would be permanent disassociation by all involved rather than accept the latest offer. Management "accepted" that "offer." So that's what happened.

The unions SHOULD be about their constituents. But they're not. If they don't have enough faith that business can continue, they should try to find their constituents another job and discontinue labor relations. Not kill the ****ing company and put their constituents out of work.

At that point, if their constituents wanted to stay, they could, but they wouldn't be represented by the union.

Nope. Kill companies. Put our members out of work.

[Rain Man]

I think that unions are absolute evil and I think that any company with more than 500 employees is absolute evil. If I was a worker I would avoid them both.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

The unions SHOULD be about their constituents. But they're not. If they don't have enough faith that business can continue, they should try to find their constituents another job and discontinue labor relations. Not kill the ****ing company and put their constituents out of work.

At that point, if their constituents wanted to stay, they could, but they wouldn't be represented by the union.

Nope. Kill companies. Put our members out of work.

The members voted, remember?

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Brock

The members voted, remember?

Guess I missed that. Apologies. But one of the points Amno made was that the union didn't have faith in the ability of the company to come out of it due to their debt structure. And that was the reason they denied the offer. I guess his point isn't valid either.

But suggesting that the union is blameless in all this is silly.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Hostess here isn't really Hostess, it's massive big money that bought into Hostess previously. I think the union lost all confidence in their willingness to tell the truth and or restructure the company in a way that would let it actually survive.

The union made its choice, and now its members must live with the consequences. The point here is that the union can't ALWAYS just roll over, right? We can agree on that much anyway, I assume?

the company could easily have locked the union out, and hired replacement workers. Their on stream time, quality would proabably be improved.

There is a company in Iowa where the workers have been on strike over 3 years, the company replaced the entire workforce (with fewer people) and the company has the best cost position, on stream time and highest quality in the companies history. The employees wages and benefits are comperable to what the union workers were being paid.

Union workers are scratching their head wondering, where is my union support now?