Phatscotty wrote:Unions Force Twinkies Out of Business, Twinkies Re-Opens With 1,500 New Hires… None Union
The company that bought the Twinkie, HoHo and Ding Dong brands out of bankruptcy is gearing up to reopen plants and hire workers, but it won’t be using union labor.
Hostess Brands — Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo Global Management’s APO -0.58% new incarnation of the baking company that liquidated in Chapter 11 — is reopening four bakeries in the next eight to 10 weeks, aiming to get Twinkie-deprived consumers the classic snack cake starting in July.
Chief Executive C. Dean Metropoulos said the company will pump $60 million in capital investments into the plants between now and September and aims to hire at least 1,500 workers. But they won’t be represented by unions, including the one whose nationwide strike sparked the 86-year-old company’s decision to shut down in November.
When you make unrealistic demands and force companies to shut down, don’t expect the company to re-open with arms wide open to your ilk.
I wonder how the union people who walked off the job at Hostess feel now? What did they accomplish?
You know that we posted many articles at the time of the original thread that should nearly all [neutral] expert opinions on the matter divided the blame equally among both the union and terrible management decisions right?
Hostess milked a cash cow until it died, it just happened that the disease that finally killed the beast was an infection related to an over zealous union requirements.
There should be no political spin on this story sorry PS (which is what you are trying to do).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
I understand Lootifer. I don't hold the CEO, the CFO, the FDA and everyone else totally blameless. I just see it as the last straw was a choice, made by vote of union member, not to take a paycut in order to stay in business. I understand there are those who wanted this to happen, so they could rebuild the business in a more free market/corporation friendly/regulation free environment.
IMO, the union people should have tried to keep the model going, for themselves, while they looked for a better job or one that was roughly equal but growing and room for advancement rather than in an increasingly antiquated model. I still view it as traded a 5% paycut for 99 weeks of unemployment, and they just pulled the plug and this was encouraged by the safety net abuses that are welcoming them with open arms to take a 15% paycut, but not have to work for the next 2 years.
Phatscotty wrote:I understand Lootifer. I don't hold the CEO, the CFO, the FDA and everyone else totally blameless. I just see it as the last straw was a choice, made by vote of union member, not to take a paycut in order to stay in business. I understand there are those who wanted this to happen, so they could rebuild the business in a more free market/corporation friendly/regulation free environment.
IMO, the union people should have tried to keep the model going, for themselves, while they looked for a better job or one that was roughly equal but growing and room for advancement rather than in an increasingly antiquated model. I still view it as traded a 5% paycut for 99 weeks of unemployment, and they just pulled the plug and this was encouraged by the safety net abuses that are welcoming them with open arms to take a 15% paycut, but not have to work for the next 2 years.
Dude, seriously...it gets old when you continue to ignore the reality of the situation. You talk about "the union's choice" but you seem to willfully ignore the choices of those who run the business who essentially forced the union's hand as far as their pensions and such. If you do actually "understand", you sure are weaselly about what you point out regarding the situation. Do you ever feel like a shill?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
notyou2 wrote:Phatty, why do you rejoice in lower paying jobs? What is the personal advantage to you? How will it help your phatness, your community, your state and the general well being of your fellow citizens and country?
Maybe he appreciates the cost-savings experienced by the consumers?
(He probably does not, but just sayin': there's benefits and costs to more than just one group).
Phatscotty wrote:I wonder how the union people who walked off the job at Hostess feel now? What did they accomplish?
Maybe they weren't trying to make their jobs better, but instead entering into some sort of mutually assured destruction revenge scheme against the company that negotiated that 28 cents of an employees 30 cent wage increase would go into the employee pension plan, only to take the money, forget the pension, then later give their executives raises. http://www.google.com/#output=search&sc ... 24&bih=719
Little known fact, they've changed the formula/recipe for the cream filling for the new twinkies. The formula/recipe now includes less baboon semen than before (cost cutting measure).
Phatscotty wrote:Unions Force Twinkies Out of Business, Twinkies Re-Opens With 1,500 New Hires… None Union
The company that bought the Twinkie, HoHo and Ding Dong brands out of bankruptcy is gearing up to reopen plants and hire workers, but it won’t be using union labor.
Hostess Brands — Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo Global Management’s APO -0.58% new incarnation of the baking company that liquidated in Chapter 11 — is reopening four bakeries in the next eight to 10 weeks, aiming to get Twinkie-deprived consumers the classic snack cake starting in July.
Chief Executive C. Dean Metropoulos said the company will pump $60 million in capital investments into the plants between now and September and aims to hire at least 1,500 workers. But they won’t be represented by unions, including the one whose nationwide strike sparked the 86-year-old company’s decision to shut down in November.
When you make unrealistic demands and force companies to shut down, don’t expect the company to re-open with arms wide open to your ilk.
I wonder how the union people who walked off the job at Hostess feel now? What did they accomplish?
f*ck me running. The company went bankrupt because 2 consecutive CEOs ripped off funds and are now living in the Cayman Islands (well that's where their bank accounts are anyhow). My father was in management for United Airlines and when they had to be bailed out he, like you cited "the greed of the employees". Like the Twinkiew, United was in trouble from massive theft by at least 2 CEOs.
Phatscotty wrote:Unions Force Twinkies Out of Business, Twinkies Re-Opens With 1,500 New Hires… None Union
The company that bought the Twinkie, HoHo and Ding Dong brands out of bankruptcy is gearing up to reopen plants and hire workers, but it won’t be using union labor.
Hostess Brands — Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo Global Management’s APO -0.58% new incarnation of the baking company that liquidated in Chapter 11 — is reopening four bakeries in the next eight to 10 weeks, aiming to get Twinkie-deprived consumers the classic snack cake starting in July.
Chief Executive C. Dean Metropoulos said the company will pump $60 million in capital investments into the plants between now and September and aims to hire at least 1,500 workers. But they won’t be represented by unions, including the one whose nationwide strike sparked the 86-year-old company’s decision to shut down in November.
When you make unrealistic demands and force companies to shut down, don’t expect the company to re-open with arms wide open to your ilk.
I wonder how the union people who walked off the job at Hostess feel now? What did they accomplish?
f*ck me running. The company went bankrupt because 2 consecutive CEOs ripped off funds and are now living in the Cayman Islands (well that's where their bank accounts are anyhow). My father was in management for United Airlines and when they had to be bailed out he, like you cited "the greed of the employees". Like the Twinkiew, United was in trouble from massive theft by at least 2 CEOs.
Union That Bankrupted Hostess to Receive Generous Government Subsidies
The union whose strike led to the bankruptcy of Hostess last year has just been awarded government benefits from a program few qualify for. Last year, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union refused to accept concessions that would have kept Hostess in business. The company had tried to cut costs as it faced high labor expenses, rising ingredient costs, and decreasing sales. The Teamsters union accepted the concessions, but the Bakery union would not, choosing to strike. Unable to continue operating, Hostess filed for bankruptcy. Now those who helped bring down an American icon will receive generous, taxpayer-funded benefits from the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. These generous benefitscome in addition to existing unemployment insurance, job placement, and job training programs. TAA benefits include:
Up to two years of job training in an approved training program, Up to 52 weeks of Trade Readjustment Allowances for workers in job training, Job search and relocation allowances, A refundable “health care tax credit” that covers 65 percent of a worker’s health insurance premiums in qualifying health plans, and A two-year wage insurance program that partly replaces workers’ earnings if they accept lower-paying jobs.
Small wonder David Durkee, president of the Bakery union, does not think his newly unemployed members’ “income situation is any different than it would have been if they were [still] working for the company.” But why are Hostess employees getting extra benefits intended for workers who lost their jobs due to trade? The Department of Labor claims that “increased imports of baked products contributed importantly to the company’s sales declines and worker separations.” That is quite a stretch. The Atkins diet surely did more damage to the company than trade did. Even if imports contributed to Hostess’s downfall, there is no escaping the fact that the company tried to adjust but the union rejected its efforts. The job losses had little to do with foreign trade. Nonetheless, the Administration is providing trade-related benefits to employees who put themselves out of work.
Phatscotty wrote:Unions Force Twinkies Out of Business, Twinkies Re-Opens With 1,500 New Hires… None Union
The company that bought the Twinkie, HoHo and Ding Dong brands out of bankruptcy is gearing up to reopen plants and hire workers, but it won’t be using union labor.
Hostess Brands — Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo Global Management’s APO -0.58% new incarnation of the baking company that liquidated in Chapter 11 — is reopening four bakeries in the next eight to 10 weeks, aiming to get Twinkie-deprived consumers the classic snack cake starting in July.
Chief Executive C. Dean Metropoulos said the company will pump $60 million in capital investments into the plants between now and September and aims to hire at least 1,500 workers. But they won’t be represented by unions, including the one whose nationwide strike sparked the 86-year-old company’s decision to shut down in November.
When you make unrealistic demands and force companies to shut down, don’t expect the company to re-open with arms wide open to your ilk.
I wonder how the union people who walked off the job at Hostess feel now? What did they accomplish?
f*ck me running. The company went bankrupt because 2 consecutive CEOs ripped off funds and are now living in the Cayman Islands (well that's where their bank accounts are anyhow). My father was in management for United Airlines and when they had to be bailed out he, like you cited "the greed of the employees". Like the Twinkiew, United was in trouble from massive theft by at least 2 CEOs.
Honibaz
I never said the CEO's were blameless.
That must be why you've talked about their share of the blame as much as you've talked about blaming the unions. Oh wait...
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:Union That Bankrupted Hostess to Receive Generous Government Subsidies
The union whose strike led to the bankruptcy of Hostess last year has just been awarded government benefits from a program few qualify for. Last year, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union refused to accept concessions that would have kept Hostess in business. The company had tried to cut costs as it faced high labor expenses, rising ingredient costs, and decreasing sales. The Teamsters union accepted the concessions, but the Bakery union would not, choosing to strike. Unable to continue operating, Hostess filed for bankruptcy. Now those who helped bring down an American icon will receive generous, taxpayer-funded benefits from the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. These generous benefitscome in addition to existing unemployment insurance, job placement, and job training programs. TAA benefits include:
Up to two years of job training in an approved training program, Up to 52 weeks of Trade Readjustment Allowances for workers in job training, Job search and relocation allowances, A refundable “health care tax credit” that covers 65 percent of a worker’s health insurance premiums in qualifying health plans, and A two-year wage insurance program that partly replaces workers’ earnings if they accept lower-paying jobs.
Small wonder David Durkee, president of the Bakery union, does not think his newly unemployed members’ “income situation is any different than it would have been if they were [still] working for the company.” But why are Hostess employees getting extra benefits intended for workers who lost their jobs due to trade? The Department of Labor claims that “increased imports of baked products contributed importantly to the company’s sales declines and worker separations.” That is quite a stretch. The Atkins diet surely did more damage to the company than trade did. Even if imports contributed to Hostess’s downfall, there is no escaping the fact that the company tried to adjust but the union rejected its efforts. The job losses had little to do with foreign trade. Nonetheless, the Administration is providing trade-related benefits to employees who put themselves out of work.
It's good that you can cite sources from painfully partisan sites, like that...well done. I notice you're not at all concerned about the pensions those employees paid into...why is that, Phatscotty?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:Union That Bankrupted Hostess to Receive Generous Government Subsidies
The union whose strike led to the bankruptcy of Hostess last year has just been awarded government benefits from a program few qualify for. Last year, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union refused to accept concessions that would have kept Hostess in business. The company had tried to cut costs as it faced high labor expenses, rising ingredient costs, and decreasing sales. The Teamsters union accepted the concessions, but the Bakery union would not, choosing to strike. Unable to continue operating, Hostess filed for bankruptcy. Now those who helped bring down an American icon will receive generous, taxpayer-funded benefits from the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. These generous benefitscome in addition to existing unemployment insurance, job placement, and job training programs. TAA benefits include:
Up to two years of job training in an approved training program, Up to 52 weeks of Trade Readjustment Allowances for workers in job training, Job search and relocation allowances, A refundable “health care tax credit” that covers 65 percent of a worker’s health insurance premiums in qualifying health plans, and A two-year wage insurance program that partly replaces workers’ earnings if they accept lower-paying jobs.
Small wonder David Durkee, president of the Bakery union, does not think his newly unemployed members’ “income situation is any different than it would have been if they were [still] working for the company.” But why are Hostess employees getting extra benefits intended for workers who lost their jobs due to trade? The Department of Labor claims that “increased imports of baked products contributed importantly to the company’s sales declines and worker separations.” That is quite a stretch. The Atkins diet surely did more damage to the company than trade did. Even if imports contributed to Hostess’s downfall, there is no escaping the fact that the company tried to adjust but the union rejected its efforts. The job losses had little to do with foreign trade. Nonetheless, the Administration is providing trade-related benefits to employees who put themselves out of work.
I notice you're not at all concerned about the pensions those employees paid into...why is that, Phatscotty?
LMFAO at you trying to pin their pensions on me! Try not to worry your precious little self too much about what Phatscotty thinks about the union members own decision they made about their own pensions.
Phatscotty wrote:Union That Bankrupted Hostess to Receive Generous Government Subsidies
The union whose strike led to the bankruptcy of Hostess last year has just been awarded government benefits from a program few qualify for. Last year, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union refused to accept concessions that would have kept Hostess in business. The company had tried to cut costs as it faced high labor expenses, rising ingredient costs, and decreasing sales. The Teamsters union accepted the concessions, but the Bakery union would not, choosing to strike. Unable to continue operating, Hostess filed for bankruptcy. Now those who helped bring down an American icon will receive generous, taxpayer-funded benefits from the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. These generous benefitscome in addition to existing unemployment insurance, job placement, and job training programs. TAA benefits include:
Up to two years of job training in an approved training program, Up to 52 weeks of Trade Readjustment Allowances for workers in job training, Job search and relocation allowances, A refundable “health care tax credit” that covers 65 percent of a worker’s health insurance premiums in qualifying health plans, and A two-year wage insurance program that partly replaces workers’ earnings if they accept lower-paying jobs.
Small wonder David Durkee, president of the Bakery union, does not think his newly unemployed members’ “income situation is any different than it would have been if they were [still] working for the company.” But why are Hostess employees getting extra benefits intended for workers who lost their jobs due to trade? The Department of Labor claims that “increased imports of baked products contributed importantly to the company’s sales declines and worker separations.” That is quite a stretch. The Atkins diet surely did more damage to the company than trade did. Even if imports contributed to Hostess’s downfall, there is no escaping the fact that the company tried to adjust but the union rejected its efforts. The job losses had little to do with foreign trade. Nonetheless, the Administration is providing trade-related benefits to employees who put themselves out of work.
I notice you're not at all concerned about the pensions those employees paid into...why is that, Phatscotty?
LMFAO at you trying to pin their pensions on me! Try not to worry your precious little self too much about what Phatscotty thinks about the union members own decision they made about their own pensions. Your weakest bullshit yet!
Ah! So it's your contention that the union members STOLE THEIR OWN PENSIONS now. Or do you think the loss of pensions came about because of the closure of the business?
Talk about "weak bullshit"...do you understand the situation at all, or do you just parrot talking points that you get from...well hell, I don't even know...someone that wants to keep you in the dark?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
notyou2 wrote:Phatty, why do you rejoice in lower paying jobs? What is the personal advantage to you? How will it help your phatness, your community, your state and the general well being of your fellow citizens and country?
He's only temporarily not rich, you see. Once he's rich, well...then these things will be in his favor!
her her! redneck logic the 'MURICAN way! sadly this logic is spreding into europe aswell.. i guess the propaganda is paying off for the CURRENTLY rich folks..
/
[bigimg]https://u.cubeupload.com/SoNic11111/eb7ezgifcomgifmaker2023.gif[/bigimg] [spoiler=BoganGod speaks the truth][/spoiler]
notyou2 wrote:Phatty, why do you rejoice in lower paying jobs? What is the personal advantage to you? How will it help your phatness, your community, your state and the general well being of your fellow citizens and country?
He's only temporarily not rich, you see. Once he's rich, well...then these things will be in his favor!
her her! redneck logic the 'MURICAN way! sadly this logic is spreding into europe aswell.. i guess the propaganda is paying off for the CURRENTLY rich folks..
/
I don't think you guys are able to talk about anything but me.
Honestly, I have always taken that as a compliment.
