[gearheadslife]

Originally Posted by NEW INTERIORS

Things must be different in different state's..

yup. I'm sure seasonal help differs in areas..
and hiring.. needs.
smart ones already had app's in at other places just in case the shoe dropped..
wish them the best...
we're all in for a rocky road..
there will be more of the same.. this is only the start..

[NEW INTERIORS]

Originally Posted by gearheadslife

yup. I'm sure seasonal help differs in areas..
and hiring.. needs.
smart ones already had app's in at other places just in case the shoe dropped..
wish them the best...
we're all in for a rocky road..
there will be more of the same.. this is only the start..

I agree..

We do have seasonal help here.. But after the holidays you better be the best cause more then half will be gone after the holidays is over.. You need a long term job.. You have a better chance after the 1st of the year here..Always been that way here.. Let people go right before the holidays, Hire new ones right after the 1st.. Must be their way of getting ried of the ones they don't want and hopeing for some good ones..Sad way of doing it..

[matt167]

Companies usually have most of their seasonal hires by Thanksgiving, So Hostess going away right before Thanksgiving does not put those workers in a good position..

The off brand Twinkie copies taste Chemical, but Hostess Twinkies are pretty good. However, not great enough to buy them. I'd rather buy the Little Debbie Strawberry Shortcake rolls.

[lakeroadster]

Gearheadslife,

According to the article that I read, and numerous reports I have seen on television it is in the union contract that different workers deliver bread vs cakes. This is for Hostess, not every other company.

To say the union has nothing to do with the company going under is like sticking your head in the sand.

The final union vote to strike is what lead the company to shut down the business. If the workers had agreed to the contract they would all still have jobs. And then if they were unhappy they could have looked for work elsewhere. Always easier to find a job if you are already employed.

[gearheadslife]

Originally Posted by lakeroadster

Gearheadslife,

According to the article that I read, and numerous reports I have seen on television it is in the union contract that different workers deliver bread vs cakes. This is for Hostess, not every other company.

To say the union has nothing to do with the company going under is like sticking your head in the sand.

The final union vote to strike is what lead the company to shut down the business. If the workers had agreed to the contract they would all still have jobs. And then if they were unhappy they could have looked for work elsewhere. Always easier to find a job if you are already employed.

yup always the unions fault.. got it.. I'm not the one with head in the sand..
they wanted them to take a 25% stake in the company, but no say in how they ran said company.. let me ask you this, would you have any faith in the management thats already brought them into bankruptcy court twice in 8 years?? so much faith that you'd put any worth on the value of that 25% stake?? what they offered was WORTHLESS. unless the current management was fired.. as it be more of the same.. if you think the employees taking a 8% pay cut was going to change the way the menagement was running the operations.. I got a bridge, and it's cheap.

[wretched ratchet]

Of course both sides will point fingers at the other side but the bottom line is "the company is going bottoms up and many people are without jobs" ! Seems to me that the blame is less important than the final outcome.

[gearheadslife]

Originally Posted by wretched ratchet

Of course both sides will point fingers at the other side but the bottom line is "the company is going bottoms up and many people are without jobs" ! Seems to me that the blame is less important than the final outcome.

true..
but that outcome was going to happen if the union ok'd a deal or not..
how many times can you hit the skids and land in bankruptcy court before the judge say's sorry no more..
the company doesn't care, as they will be up and running again under a different "band name" the owners will have one of their holdings buy it. and reopen after they screwed the workers , everyone they owed money to.. and start over.. and everyone will support it and buy the goods..
it's all part of the plan.. I'm willing to bet the snacks operations ends up in mexico.. and the bread operations will restart or be lic. to another company..
sad they are now unemployed,, it's a hard choice.. sign'n the new deal was only delay'n the companies death.. as they'd not change the business model.. all the raw ingredients have gone through the roof.. fuel cost, and energy cost.. why you think crackers/ceriel/etc have gotten smaller.. bread is still 16oz loaf.. something had to give..

[MARTINSR]

I am entertained by the thought that it wasn't the unions fault....in the end. Sure it was, did the management do a poor job up till then, yes, but in the end it was the unions fault. They basically voted to close the company. They called Hostess' bluff and lost.

Brian

[geezer69]

i worked union in a couple trades. them jokers starved me out srtikin. we was makin more that most trades. i seen the brick layers do the same thing in denver. the folks just went with glass. today anybody workin and gettin by is doin good. not a time for squabblin over nothin.

[gearheadslife]

Originally Posted by MARTINSR

I am entertained by the thought that it wasn't the unions fault....in the end. Sure it was, did the management do a poor job up till then, yes, but in the end it was the unions fault. They basically voted to close the company. They called Hostess' bluff and lost.

Brian

no sir they didn't, the voted no faith in the current management..
and the company(owners) should have removed them as they ran the ship into the rocks for the SECOND time in 8 YEARS..
but it's easier to forget that part..

[wretched ratchet]

Originally Posted by gearheadslife

true..
but that outcome was going to happen if the union ok'd a deal or not..

Not according to this post from lakeroadster:

Originally Posted by lakeroadster

The final union vote to strike is what lead the company to shut down the business. If the workers had agreed to the contract they would all still have jobs. And then if they were unhappy they could have looked for work elsewhere. Always easier to find a job if you are already employed.

[gearheadslife]

ya the union ran the company.. made the choices that put them in bankruptcy not once but TWICE...
if thats the case why they have a management team?? if the union and employees where setting the course?

[NEW INTERIORS]

They all have their puppets..

[lakeroadster]

Originally Posted by gearheadslife

yup always the unions fault.. got it.. I'm not the one with head in the sand..
they wanted them to take a 25% stake in the company, but no say in how they ran said company.. let me ask you this, would you have any faith in the management thats already brought them into bankruptcy court twice in 8 years?? so much faith that you'd put any worth on the value of that 25% stake?? what they offered was WORTHLESS. unless the current management was fired.. as it be more of the same.. if you think the employees taking a 8% pay cut was going to change the way the menagement was running the operations.. I got a bridge, and it's cheap.

Nobody (except you) has stated "always the unions fault". I've never been a union member. If I'm dissatisified with my job I find another one. That's worked pretty good for me for the last 35 years.

I do feel sorry though for the workers at Hostess. The company didn't have much to give based on their 2011 financials, so it just seems like 25% stake in the company and an 8% pay cut would be better than no job at all? Pretty much everybody out here (oil & gas workers) took a paycut of 10% a couple years back. When there's no other jobs to be had and the company you work for is about bankrupt, that's what happens.

As previously stated:

Originally Posted by lakeroadster

Hostess lost $341 million in its fiscal 2011, with an operating profit margin of negative 1%. Ding Dong, the Twinkie is dead? Maybe, in Hostess' union spat - Los Angeles Times

With a negative 1% profit margin, Hostess shutting down seemed inevitable to me.

[wretched ratchet]

I'm sure that both sides contributed to the demise and I'm also sure that none of "us here" will ever know the REAL SKINNY will we?