Union starts strike on company in bankruptcy

[Col. Crackpot]

Unions exist to make sure companies turn bigger profits, not to protect employees from exploitation dontcha know.

Tell that to the rank and file at Hostess who lost their jobs because their Union boss lost a dick waving contest.


CNN

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- For many of Hostess Brands' 18,500 workers and their families, the closing of their iconic company Friday is a devastating emotional and economic blow.
But others say the jobs weren't worth saving because of pay and benefit cuts.

For a member of the bakery workers' union whose strike a week ago led Hostess to shut operations, it's a sad day. "It was a great job. A lot of people put kids through college, paid for mortgages," he said.
The worker, who spoke on the condition his name not be used, said he spoke out at the union meeting against going on strike. "I said, 'If you're unhappy with the situation, then you need to quit. There are people with responsibilities and mortgages. We all can't afford to strike,'" said the veteran who worked loading trucks.
Related: Hostess shuts down for good
The worker said he blames management more than he blames his fellow union members who went on strike. And he's worried about the future.
"I'm 61, I was two years away from retirement," he said. "There aren't many jobs out there for someone like me."
However, other workers said the concessions being demanded by Hostess were just too great.
Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.
Related: Laid-off workers face tough job market
"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."
While the Bakers' union voted against the concessions and went on strike, the 6,700 members of the Teamsters union narrowly ratified their own concession deal. Many of the drivers, who also served as Hostess' primary sales force, were earning more money than the bakers, getting commissions for the products they sold to grocery stores.
Related: Twinkies will survive
Tracy Fea, the wife of a Teamster working at Hostess, said she's particularly mad at the Bakers' union for the strike.
"While they [Teamsters at Hostess] were not at all happy about the additional concessions, they did not want to lose their jobs," she said. "My husband and I feel that if these employees [Bakers] were so unhappy ... then they should have quit so the company could continue on and the remaining employees that want to work could."
But Joe Lannan, a Teamster based in Kentucky, said he understands the bakers who walked out. He said he voted against the contract and would have struck if the vote had gone that way.
He said the split among Teamsters was between more senior workers and the newer drivers, such as himself. He's been at Hostess about a year.
"There were a lot of nervous guys, mostly with more senior drivers. I've seen a lot of teary eyes," he said.
But he's hopeful that a lot of the drivers will be able to find jobs due to the demand for truck drivers overall.
"The company has been in decline for years. There was no way it was going to get fixed," he said. "Everybody I worked with was looking for other jobs anyway."
Because of his commercial driver's license, Lannan was lucky enough to quickly find a new job, getting a call with a job offer as a fuel truck driver Friday afternoon.

$48,000 a year to be a fucking shipping clerk at the twinkee factory? No wonder they went broke! That is a level of pay that usually requires either a fair degree of higher education or a specialized vocational skill.

[weemadando]

Why not highlight the rest of that paragraph

Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.
Related: Laid-off workers face tough job market
"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."


They were striking because they'd already taken a 25% paycut, and the future concessions Hostess wanted from them were ridiculous, while the executives lined their pockets. Should they have just kept working for two years and drive themselves further into debt because they cannot afford to keep living on their wages?

[Col. Crackpot]

I just realized something.

This is the best publicity ploy ever.

Everyone is scrambling to get the last twinkie.

That is one hell of a ploy...If true they convinced the Teamsters Union, the best organized and most respected labor union in the country to take it on the chin and accept deep cuts because the company was broke. If this is a marketing ploy the union is either complicit in fraud or suddenly stupid. Yeah, um, no.

[Losonti Tokash]

Sure, cause they can totally trust the word of a bunch of people who've already proven themselves to be short sighted liars, right? Hostess killed itself, not the unions, and they've already admitted as much.

Source? Mine is the CNN Money article. And it would have been in the contract.

The Teamsters, after reviewing the books said yes to the pay cuts. The Baker's union said no, and now they won't have jobs anymore. They knew this was a strong possibility, and they went on strike anyway.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/1 ... peg/191440

[Block]

Unions exist to make sure companies turn bigger profits, not to protect employees from exploitation dontcha know.

Tell that to the rank and file at Hostess who lost their jobs because their Union boss lost a dick waving contest.


CNN

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- For many of Hostess Brands' 18,500 workers and their families, the closing of their iconic company Friday is a devastating emotional and economic blow.
But others say the jobs weren't worth saving because of pay and benefit cuts.

For a member of the bakery workers' union whose strike a week ago led Hostess to shut operations, it's a sad day. "It was a great job. A lot of people put kids through college, paid for mortgages," he said.
The worker, who spoke on the condition his name not be used, said he spoke out at the union meeting against going on strike. "I said, 'If you're unhappy with the situation, then you need to quit. There are people with responsibilities and mortgages. We all can't afford to strike,'" said the veteran who worked loading trucks.
Related: Hostess shuts down for good
The worker said he blames management more than he blames his fellow union members who went on strike. And he's worried about the future.
"I'm 61, I was two years away from retirement," he said. "There aren't many jobs out there for someone like me."
However, other workers said the concessions being demanded by Hostess were just too great.
Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.
Related: Laid-off workers face tough job market
"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."
While the Bakers' union voted against the concessions and went on strike, the 6,700 members of the Teamsters union narrowly ratified their own concession deal. Many of the drivers, who also served as Hostess' primary sales force, were earning more money than the bakers, getting commissions for the products they sold to grocery stores.
Related: Twinkies will survive
Tracy Fea, the wife of a Teamster working at Hostess, said she's particularly mad at the Bakers' union for the strike.
"While they [Teamsters at Hostess] were not at all happy about the additional concessions, they did not want to lose their jobs," she said. "My husband and I feel that if these employees [Bakers] were so unhappy ... then they should have quit so the company could continue on and the remaining employees that want to work could."
But Joe Lannan, a Teamster based in Kentucky, said he understands the bakers who walked out. He said he voted against the contract and would have struck if the vote had gone that way.
He said the split among Teamsters was between more senior workers and the newer drivers, such as himself. He's been at Hostess about a year.
"There were a lot of nervous guys, mostly with more senior drivers. I've seen a lot of teary eyes," he said.
But he's hopeful that a lot of the drivers will be able to find jobs due to the demand for truck drivers overall.
"The company has been in decline for years. There was no way it was going to get fixed," he said. "Everybody I worked with was looking for other jobs anyway."
Because of his commercial driver's license, Lannan was lucky enough to quickly find a new job, getting a call with a job offer as a fuel truck driver Friday afternoon.

$48,000 a year to be a fucking shipping clerk at the twinkee factory? No wonder they went broke! That is a level of pay that usually requires either a fair degree of higher education or a specialized vocational skill.

You don't know how long he's been working there, how senior he was, what his training was or any details about him. I've been a "shipping clerk" before and was responsible for millions of dollars of stuff coming in, including extremely expensive electronics that I had to take personal responsibility for from the time it arrived until it was in a display case locked up, anything under 40k a year wouldn't have been even close to fair.

[TimothyC]

Sure, cause they can totally trust the word of a bunch of people who've already proven themselves to be short sighted liars, right? Hostess killed itself, not the unions, and they've already admitted as much.

Source? Mine is the CNN Money article. And it would have been in the contract.

The Teamsters, after reviewing the books said yes to the pay cuts. The Baker's union said no, and now they won't have jobs anymore. They knew this was a strong possibility, and they went on strike anyway.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/1 ... peg/191440

Short-sighted, maybe. I'm not seeing anything that says they are liars. I'm not saying the company would have survived another year with the cuts from the Union, but that the company died now is on the Union in question. That everyone else lost their jobs (including the people who had already agreed to the cuts) is also on them.

[Col. Crackpot]

You don't know how long he's been working there, how senior he was, what his training was or any details about him. I've been a "shipping clerk" before and was responsible for millions of dollars of stuff coming in, including extremely expensive electronics that I had to take personal responsibility for from the time it arrived until it was in a display case locked up, anything under 40k a year wouldn't have been even close to fair.

So, then not the twinkee factory... though i will concede your point is not without some merit. As to Ando's point i would suggest that the employee in question had his pay adjusted downward as a consequence of the union not accepting layoffs? Perhaps is Hostess was able to staff appropriately (every single article i've seen states that the company was way over capacity) the line could have been held on wages. Hostess has plenty of blame, of that we both agree, but if a company can't ever trip the fat without a proverbial act of congress then this is what happens.

[Block]

You don't know how long he's been working there, how senior he was, what his training was or any details about him. I've been a "shipping clerk" before and was responsible for millions of dollars of stuff coming in, including extremely expensive electronics that I had to take personal responsibility for from the time it arrived until it was in a display case locked up, anything under 40k a year wouldn't have been even close to fair.

So, then not the twinkee factory... though i will concede your point is not without some merit. As to Ando's point i would suggest that the employee in question had his pay adjusted downward as a consequence of the union not accepting layoffs? Perhaps is Hostess was able to staff appropriately (every single article i've seen states that the company was way over capacity) the line could have been held on wages. Hostess has plenty of blame, of that we both agree, but if a company can't ever trip the fat without a proverbial act of congress then this is what happens.

Well, what's interesting to me is that no one seems to ever hold these companies responsible for not being able to cover pensions that are part of the employment contract. Considering the complete focus on short term thinking it's not surprising that it keeps happening, but until someone gets punished, and I mean flat out hammered over it, it seems like no matter who you blame the companies are getting away with fucking their employees out of things they've been promised.

[Col. Crackpot]

Well, what's interesting to me is that no one seems to ever hold these companies responsible for not being able to cover pensions that are part of the employment contract. Considering the complete focus on short term thinking it's not surprising that it keeps happening, but until someone gets punished, and I mean flat out hammered over it, it seems like no matter who you blame the companies are getting away with fucking their employees out of things they've been promised.

That promise, in this case, is based on the continued demand for twinkees, and ding dong's. People stopped buying twinkees and ding dongs and wonderbread and whatever other crap Hostess is selling these days and because of that the promise can't be kept. And no amount of demanding the clawback of the millions of dollars that management 'swindled' in golden parachutes is going to fill up the empty hundred million dollar promises that are going unfulfilled.

[fordlltwm]

I was pondering the pension problem whilst wandering about today.

One of doing it might be to make the unions in charge of pensions, i.e. the company gives the union a set amount (to be worked out at the time) every month / year per person and the union has to sort it out. The reason for doing it this way is so as when the pension deal turns out to be unsustainable it doesn't take the company with it, and the union can hopefully renegotiate with it's members about their pensions.

I realise this is probably heresy because unions can't be expected to be productive and helpful with regards pension shortfalls but I felt it worth stating nonetheless.

[weemadando]

Federalise pensions. Make every company pay the pension premium for each employee to an administered account where the company can't suddenly decide to raid it when they have a profit shortfall.

Oh wait, sorry, communism.

[Col. Crackpot]

I was pondering the pension problem whilst wandering about today.

One of doing it might be to make the unions in charge of pensions, i.e. the company gives the union a set amount (to be worked out at the time) every month / year per person and the union has to sort it out. The reason for doing it this way is so as when the pension deal turns out to be unsustainable it doesn't take the company with it, and the union can hopefully renegotiate with it's members about their pensions.

I realise this is probably heresy because unions can't be expected to be productive and helpful with regards pension shortfalls but I felt it worth stating nonetheless.

Many Unions do manage their own pension funds. Issues can still arise when corporations fall into fiscal trouble and cannot make the required contributions... there is legal action, arbitration.. at the end of the day that union pension fund it still a creditor and drive a company into bankruptcy just the same.

[Block]

Federalise pensions. Make every company pay the pension premium for each employee to an administered account where the company can't suddenly decide to raid it when they have a profit shortfall.

Oh wait, sorry, communism.

That's pretty much my solution too, I don't know that you have to federalize it, but make them pay into it when the debt is incurred and make it a fund that is inaccessable by the company as far as withdrawls go.

[weemadando]

And as for the "shipping clerk" argument, care to guess the volume of stock that went through each day and to how many distribution centres that needed coordinating and tracking? Not to mention inbound produce to be processed.

[Col. Crackpot]

Federalise pensions. Make every company pay the pension premium for each employee to an administered account where the company can't suddenly decide to raid it when they have a profit shortfall.

Oh wait, sorry, communism.

And then the company cant make the contributions due to cash flow issues. They default. the feds liquidate assests. Company ceases to exist and averyone still loses their jobs. Not communism. Commies are at least smarter than that.

[weemadando]

Does the US have superannuation schemes or is it 100 percent the company's responsibility to pay it for the employee's lifetime?

[Col. Crackpot]

Does the US have superannuation schemes or is it 100 percent the company's responsibility to pay it for the employee's lifetime?

I've heard of those.... Mandatory investment of retirement income with no real rate of return or risk guidelines?

[Simon_Jester]

That promise, in this case, is based on the continued demand for twinkees, and ding dong's. People stopped buying twinkees and ding dongs and wonderbread and whatever other crap Hostess is selling these days and because of that the promise can't be kept. And no amount of demanding the clawback of the millions of dollars that management 'swindled' in golden parachutes is going to fill up the empty hundred million dollar promises that are going unfulfilled.

Does this present a problem for a legal regime that makes it easy to set up those golden parachutes?

Or is that part just fine and dandy?

[Col. Crackpot]

That promise, in this case, is based on the continued demand for twinkees, and ding dong's. People stopped buying twinkees and ding dongs and wonderbread and whatever other crap Hostess is selling these days and because of that the promise can't be kept. And no amount of demanding the clawback of the millions of dollars that management 'swindled' in golden parachutes is going to fill up the empty hundred million dollar promises that are going unfulfilled.

Does this present a problem for a legal regime that makes it easy to set up those golden parachutes?

Or is that part just fine and dandy?

it should. absolutely. If it but those parachutes are fucking peanuts compared to the big picture. The whole argument playing out over this debacle is either: "the union is greedy and stupid, fuck them!" or "Evil CEO's screwing over the working stiff, let's get 'em". Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that this company as a whole was making stuff that nobody wanted to buy in sufficient quantity to keep the company afloat. Management was rigid and didn't innovate and create new products. Labor was obtuse and wouldn't sacrifice the few for the needs of the many. They all made their bed and now they lie in it.

[ryacko]

Federalise pensions. Make every company pay the pension premium for each employee to an administered account where the company can't suddenly decide to raid it when they have a profit shortfall.

Oh wait, sorry, communism.

That's pretty much my solution too, I don't know that you have to federalize it, but make them pay into it when the debt is incurred and make it a fund that is inaccessable by the company as far as withdrawls go.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation exists as a sort of pension insurance, if companies cannot afford their pensions anymore.

Personally I think pensions ought to be the pensioner's responsibility.

[Simon_Jester]

And... if you were born sixty years before a major stock market crash instead of forty, that's your responsibility, so the losses are your fault.

[ryacko]

And... if you were born sixty years before a major stock market crash instead of forty, that's your responsibility, so the losses are your fault.

Diversify.
Any decent investor would transition from stocks towards bonds and cash as you approach your retirement date, factoring in any money you plan on saving for your children being kept as stocks.
There are even mutual funds designed towards transitioning for you, based upon the decade you plan on retiring in.



Warning: This is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any financial instrument.

[Simon_Jester]

There are, and sometimes the system still breaks down. A lot of people who followed professional advice lost one hell of a lot of retirement savings in the crash of 2008. A lot of the professionals themselves did. If you think they deserve to live on cat food because of that, you're nuts.

Remember why Social Security was invented?

People who are human inside don't like having old people around who are hopelessly, bitterly poor and in danger of starving or dying for want of basic care and living conditions. The federal Social Security pension exists to keep that from happening. One thing or another can make it inadequate, which is where employer pensions come from...and now you're telling me that the risk for those needs to be dropped harder on individual citizens.

This strikes me as another example of the 'socialized risk, privatized profits' model that's gone so wrong since 2008. There's this notion that when huge good things happen they should belong to whatever executive signed the memo ordering it to happen, but when huge bad things happen they should belong to everyone, and if you happen to get hit worse than most it must be because you were stupid.

[ryacko]

My father is retired and since the stock market crashed, he broke even. He owns real estate (one rental property), has stocks in multiple mutual funds, and has been living off of a portion of the interest.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme. One could argue that separate retirement accounts are kept, but all payouts come from one general fund. It's administration costs are low mainly because all they do it buy government debt.
It's one of the worst performing pension plans.

[Knife]

Your dad's plan is unsustainable as well. Not everyone can own a rental property of there would be so many houses, not enough people could be around to rent them. And don't get me started on the ponzi scheme of everyone putting their money into the market for the big guys to hedge against and manipulate and lose.