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

[BucEyedPea]

I blame it on Michelle Obama's lunch program and it's food spies. Hostess is the type of food that kids eat and goes in lunches.
The unintended consequences of another govt program.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by alnorth

You are missing the point. Whether or not management sucked in the past is irrelevant. The unions had a choice to make, a choice that was informed by unbiased outsiders who looked at the books and told the unions the truth of the situation. They could either have a job under these new conditions, or they could lose their job.

The membership of the teamsters union made the correct, dispassionate choice. The idiot bakers made the stupid, emotional choice.

That's absolutely a possibility, and that point can be earnestly made, I just don't think it ought to be made in the backdrop of "why unions are evil". Unions, like executive boards, like individuals can make wise or poor choices. It just appears to me, that whenever there is a union example, it gets blown to the nth degree by conservative talk shops. It is further expanded to any union, and particularly to public sector unions.

I'm not saying one has to be a union fan, but this partisan blame culture we have going from the conservative side wants to bust unions,they don't want meaningful dialogue, they want them gone and they do it under the guise that unions are the reason companies go belly up. Most of these people have no contact with unions, they don't know how they are organized, or what makes them a positive influence in the system. They're a bogey man for the conservative right to lay blame at, just like they did in San Bernardino.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

We don't use taxpayer money. Unions are funded by their member's earnings, the government doesn't do much more than provide a space for them to operate on the facility. Do taxes formulate the revenue that pays my salary? Yes. But, once it gets to me, that's my money, I pay taxes on those same earnings just like anyone else. I choose to send a portion of my earnings for benefits of union membership.

I don't know enough about the NEA to state something definitively one way or the other, but I doubt they have "completely lost the objective of educating our kids". The NEA, I'm quite sure, has many objectives. I don't know what internal measures and initiatives the NEA supports, but I would be careful about using superlatives. The teachers in our district are outstanding and I haven't seen or heard a large backlash against the union from them.

In a private sector union, the union fights like hell against corporate leaders motivated to act in the interest of their company. In a public sector union, they fight against politicians or administrators who may or may not represent the taxpayer interest. In some cases, they can be bought with votes or money. We taxpayers pay your salary and unions are negotiating salary increases and keeping benefits / pensions that are bankrupting government payrolls. That does matter, because your union negotiates what raises you'll get and what the next hired employee will make in benefits. I don't care about the money you make. I do care as a taxpayer when your have pensions and yearly raises that are way beyond what the private sector makes. I don't care about paying good government workers. I do care when the public sector unions have basically developed a system that makes it incredibly difficult to reward good employees because they have to pay for a lot of bad ones and give bad ones handsome bonuses. And so, we the taxpayer pay a shitload in waste from bad employees who weigh down the system.

Ford made the adjustment by going bankrupt and finally fixing their benefits mess. All private sector businesses have, in fact. The public sector has not because again, there isn't that strong motivated adversary to the union that's going to fight for the taxpayer.

As per the NEA, what superlatives? We have one of the worst educational systems in the world. I am not one of those people who believe teachers are overpaid. I'd love to pay them more. But the kind of ridiculous protections they put on teachers, even ones who are clearly fireable. I'm not talking about little performance issues which I know are difficult to measure. I'm talking about teachers who are grossly inappropriate. Teachers are forced to pay union dues. Many of them don't want to. We've created a bloated system where tenured teachers make it impossible for young teachers to keep work. We've created a system where teachers are forced to teach off a rigid curriculum, and teachers are practically punished for going above and beyond. What does it tell you that when Wisconsin gave teachers a choice, many of them opted out? If the union was fighting for them, then why are that many teachers dissatisfied?

[HolyHandgernade]

Public sector unions do not fight against politicians, we argue for or against policy. We support politicians, no matter which party, that support union issues, and not all union issues revolve around pay.

Our public sector union fights FOR the public safety. We oppose policies that want to run the NAS "like a business". We're not a business, we're a safety and service provider. We don't make profits or have a natural competition. We work with users to make the system as efficient as we can without sacrificing our commitment to safety. So, when the taxpayer sees a "policy" that "claims" it can save them money, that isn't necessarily the entire story. What corners does it cut to achieve this better savings? What impact does it have on the already existing operations? We tried this "run it like a business" approach during the Bush II years and it had disastrous results. Now, we work in a collaborative fashion, and the system has improved in efficiency, cost and savings. If one compares that to another national/regional system, ours is the more efficient despite working more traffic.

"Bad employees" are going to occur in any system. The union, at least ours, does not fight to "keep bad employees". Its function is to make sure management follows the outlines for what constitutes justified dismissal. Even if the employee is "bad", we can't just let management do whatever it wants because it sets these things called "precedents". Maybe one time was an actual "bad employee", maybe the next is an employee a manager had an axe to grind with. If we let an unorthodox procedure fire an agreed upon "bad" employee, management will cite that procedure as justification to keep using it.

Certainly, these aren't easy problems, and even most union members could identify these bad apples. But, the solutions aren't always easy when you're trying to protect the larger portion of your membership. Like I noted earlier, we're instituting self-policing measures known as "professional standards" to help bring "bad" employees up to par. This can be initiated from either co-workers or management who want to try and resolve something before more formal proceedings. The point is, most union members are proud of their jobs, and they represent what is left of the "middle class" who aren't private business owners. They are the consumers that can afford to consume what others want to sell. Shouldn't we try to make this class bigger? Instead of reducing the wages of working people so they are on par with third world workers, shouldn't we work towards a middle class that can afford to live within its own society?

The superlative was "completely lost". I'm not completely familiar with the NEA to speak to their level of bloated-ness or whether the majority, or even large minority, would prefer there was no union. You would have to get someone from that demographic to speak for them.

[Direckshun]

Fun thread.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Public sector unions do not fight against politicians, we argue for or against policy. We support politicians, no matter which party, that support union issues, and not all union issues revolve around pay.

Our public sector union fights FOR the public safety. We oppose policies that want to run the NAS "like a business". We're not a business, we're a safety and service provider. We don't make profits or have a natural competition. We work with users to make the system as efficient as we can without sacrificing our commitment to safety. So, when the taxpayer sees a "policy" that "claims" it can save them money, that isn't necessarily the entire story. What corners does it cut to achieve this better savings? What impact does it have on the already existing operations? We tried this "run it like a business" approach during the Bush II years and it had disastrous results. Now, we work in a collaborative fashion, and the system has improved in efficiency, cost and savings. If one compares that to another national/regional system, ours is the more efficient despite working more traffic.

"Bad employees" are going to occur in any system. The union, at least ours, does not fight to "keep bad employees". Its function is to make sure management follows the outlines for what constitutes justified dismissal. Even if the employee is "bad", we can't just let management do whatever it wants because it sets these things called "precedents". Maybe one time was an actual "bad employee", maybe the next is an employee a manager had an axe to grind with. If we let an unorthodox procedure fire an agreed upon "bad" employee, management will cite that procedure as justification to keep using it.

Certainly, these aren't easy problems, and even most union members could identify these bad apples. But, the solutions aren't always easy when you're trying to protect the larger portion of your membership. Like I noted earlier, we're instituting self-policing measures known as "professional standards" to help bring "bad" employees up to par. This can be initiated from either co-workers or management who want to try and resolve something before more formal proceedings. The point is, most union members are proud of their jobs, and they represent what is left of the "middle class" who aren't private business owners. They are the consumers that can afford to consume what others want to sell. Shouldn't we try to make this class bigger? Instead of reducing the wages of working people so they are on par with third world workers, shouldn't we work towards a middle class that can afford to live within its own society?

The superlative was "completely lost". I'm not completely familiar with the NEA to speak to their level of bloated-ness or whether the majority, or even large minority, would prefer there was no union. You would have to get someone from that demographic to speak for them.

Appreciate the reasonable debate, by the way.

I agree with you on those fronts. It's why I've never said public sector unions need to be disbanded. I believe they are very valuable. And I have never been in favor of cutting spending for the sake of cutting spending. And trust me, I get the idea that one of the bigger problems in America is the wealthiest class hoarding money instead of investing back into their business to create long-term growth (because I am a firm believer that in many cases, lousy public sector work would work better and harder in the private sector).

At the same token, I don't support paying for something that's broken and not doing anything about it. As a business guy myself, it infuriates me that good workers get rewarded in the public sector in the same way bad ones do. My beef is primarily with salary and benefits, which is a huge chunk of what taxpayers pay (I get that you guys fight for policies and standards, which I am in favor of). Every bad employee we pay for is money we waste. And when the public sector negotiates pay raises and hefty benefits well above the private sector, that's a problem too. I am for a strong middle class, but not the point of protectionism where we say it's okay for our money to be wasted on bureaucracy and benefits that we can't afford. As a taxpayer, keep in mind that I don't work in the public sector. And so when you fight for these lofty benefit and salary increases, they come at the expense of me seeing that money instead go to better roads or better schools or better police.

[HolyHandgernade]

I appreciate the respectful tone as well. Don't forget, though, we are taxpayers too. Its hard to speak on this issue for other unions and their level of professionalism. You may have one idea in mind where I have another.

Another thing to keep in mind, its actually cost effective for the public sector to deal with a baragining unit as opposed to individuals. The government would have to set up an entirley new entity just to deal with employee contract negotiations to handle that volume of employees.

When we negotiated pay, and I will only speak to what I know, we negotiated using what our private sector counterparts in our line of business made. A government, generally, will be more stable than a business, so it won't be as susceptible to the forces of the market as a business is. When a contract is negotiated in good economic times, it may very well have been commenserate with what the private sector is doing. You don't want a government as susceptible to the market as a business is.

I know it seems like another era, but a short time ago, the argument was that government couldn't attract the best and the brightest because those individuals could do better in the private market. Therefore, the inefficiency in government was in part to blame with the wages one could make in the public vs private sector. So, we move to increase the competitiveness of a public sector job, the economy goes south, and now everyone screams that the public sector is overpaid.

It just goes to show, any one snapshot is usually not enough to paint the overall picture.

[HonestChieffan]

Long but interesting read on the innerworkings of Hostess end and who was involved. You may be surprised if you ever followed Mo politics


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...winkie-tumbles

[Radar Chief]

Hold the phone, Twinkies aren't dead yet.



Hostess, union agree to mediation at judge's urging

http://news.yahoo.com/hostess-liquid...9--sector.html

WHITE PLAINS, New York (Reuters) - Hostess Brands Inc agreed in court on Monday to enter private mediation with its lenders and leaders of a striking union to try to avert the liquidation of the maker of Twinkies snack cakes and Wonder Bread.

Hostess, its lenders and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) agreed to mediation at the urging of Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain of the Southern District of New York, who advised against a more expensive, public hearing regarding the company's liquidation

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Hold the phone, Twinkies aren't dead yet.



Hostess, union agree to mediation at judge's urging

http://news.yahoo.com/hostess-liquid...9--sector.html

WHITE PLAINS, New York (Reuters) - Hostess Brands Inc agreed in court on Monday to enter private mediation with its lenders and leaders of a striking union to try to avert the liquidation of the maker of Twinkies snack cakes and Wonder Bread.

Hostess, its lenders and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) agreed to mediation at the urging of Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain of the Southern District of New York, who advised against a more expensive, public hearing regarding the company's liquidation

I have a good filling about this.

[WoodDraw]

Hostess faces several objections to its liquidation plan.

The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders.

Shocking...

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

Shocking...

They dont know the power of Dick Gephart.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by vailpass

I have a good filling about this.