• #80
    You hypocrites who posted in defense of the CEO disgust me. You are nothing but pathetic party hacks.
    When you believe that people making $15 an hour and don't want less are greedy people but then worship and defend the guy who was making $700k before he gave himself a raise to $2.1 million you are either trolling, ignorant, or a hypocrite. Many of you are a combination of all 3.
  • #96
    He didnt give himself a raise, the powers financing the company insisted on the raise to keep him from leaving the company, they saw him as the best chance at turning the company around from its last bankruptcy. The unions flipped out at the raise though, and so they fought to get a new CEO. The new guy, who makes a boat load of money too, is an expert in turning around poorly performing companies, but he could not find a compromise between the hedgefund investors or the unions... They are all dirty in this game. The hedgefunds are pissed at themselves for getting involved so deep, and just want to get out with as much of their money back as possible. The company keeps making poor choices and bad agreements. and the unions are apparently more concerned with bailing on this company and the workers they represent in favor a better footing during liquidation that greatly benefits the union as a whole, minus the fired workers. I wouldnt want a reduction in salary if I only made $15 an hour either. its too bad they never really had much of a say to begin with, the higher up corporate and union masters never positioned their chess pieces favorably for the working class here.
  • #11
    Don't know the history but if they are shutting down I don't think it is because of corporate greed, I can understand strikes if a company is making profits and upper management is well paid but they want to takeaway from the workers( Lockheed ) but Hostess must have been losing money and simply couldn't afford to spend more for labor than they received from their products.
    I don't think the union spokesman is representing the membership a lot of times
  • #143
    So you admit that you don't know what's going on but it has to be because of the union? The executive raises leading up to bankruptcy played no part just greedy laborers?
  • #155
    @Cheenoguy no, my remark about unions was in general, I've belong to a union for over 32 years, I was on strike this year for over 10 weeks, since we went back to work, the union has been nonexsistant,we can even get a scab list! They got what they wanted, control of the 401 plan, now it cost too much to go to arbitration, business reps are too busy to leave their office etc..
    I said hostess didn't look like corporate greed because they went out of bussness , the company i work for on the other hand posted record profits
  • #10
    Trumka is the reason those people are out of jobs, all he's doing is passing the buck...
    that's what all Big Labor Union thugs do, lie, steal money and blame others! Someone
    else will buy them out, minus the "strong arming" of the unions...Pass the Twinkies!!!
  • #18
    IF the goverment employees didn't have the vote,obama and the states would be cutting their salaries and bennies right and left. no pun intended.
  • #45
    I have an idea. When the big wigs in government get the same bene s as citizens and drop their back door insider info deals then corp America should too. Otherwise, same animal different side of the coin .
  • #4
    Um...the unions were on strike. The union workers refused to agree to lower wages and benefits. Hence, the unions killed Twinkies.

    Side note: Love this photo!
  • #22
    Hard to believe Jeff, when during their last bankruptcy they cut wages. In the meantime, between 2004 and now they've paid their CEO $125 Million per year with additional perks of $2 million; and paid management $125,000 PER MONTH, while cutting workers pay again! Can't blame the worker's strike on this one.
  • #31
    Don't blame the 10.00 hour workers blame the corporate greed! This is what is wrong with this country! Get a clue!
  • #40
    @classychazy Follow closely: The company asked the unions for concessions and to end their strike to keep the company going. Some unions agreed, but one refused. As the company could not operate with the workers on strike (and at inflated wages), it is now closed for good.

    Fault = unions. There's your clue.

  • #43
    @Rogue The strike was the defining event. Had the unions all agreed to concessions and ended their strike, the company would still be squeezing out Twinkies. The unions refused. The company is now closed.
  • R Load more replies

  • #108
    You know I only have a Masters in two subjects one of them being business. I was only in business for myself around 40 years. So what could I possibly know? Not much but I do know this. Those blaming the Union when they took cuts two years ago in the second of three bankruptcies and took cuts after the first one and then before the third one all the brass gets 300% raise, what I know is you people blaming the unions need to get a life. This is a clear cut case of management intentionally grabbing the money and dumping the company.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #52
    I have to Reiterate:

    serious?.. why should the workers take a Pay CUT , when all the companies CEO's were getting pay RAISES?.. what backward land are you living in? Theres no Job that I know of where you can be compensated better for failure..some doubled in pay? theres no such thing for hourly workers unless they move to a higher position.. the CEO's got a payraise just months before the Bankruptcy? Cmon even the blind can see they used that as a way to spike the companies over head and drown it's assets thereby better qualifying it for Bankruptcy... if the workers had to take a pay cut so should the CEO's
  • #32
    If i worked at a company where the CEO & 9 top managers got 300% raises while in CH 11, I'm looking for my next job the same day. It's over.
  • #24
    Unions, everything they touch turns to trash! Oh well, it won't matter soon, there will not be any companies for them to abuse.
  • #9
    Here is an opportunity for the union to prove its point. Union should buy it. Retain all current union employees. Give them the raise and bennies they want and show the world how right they are.
  • #13
    The union negotiated a 25% stake in the company, they could now easily buy up the assets for penny's on the dollar. Problem is, they don't have the skills to run a business that large, it's not what they do.
  • #7
    A tragedy of errors by all involved. Read the details. Management made mistakes, venture capital investment pressures, poor advice to employees from union leaders, and the economy. They all are culpable in killing the Twinkie and putting over 18,500 people out if work.
  • #149
    @Cheenoguy I know, it's a hard sell to some of these zealots. I'm beginning to think it's more fun being an instigator!
  • #5
    Bad management.

    Look at recent history. The union made major concessions for the previous contract in order to keep the company alive. Following that the company voted its owner large dividends and increased the pay of the CEO by 300%.

    The union took a strong stand and kept it. They knew the company was going to die and they chose the time and place for the end to come. Rather than wait for it to happen to the employees instead they turned it around and made it happen to the company.
  • #8
    The 'bad management' was agreeing to unsustainable union contracts in the first place.

    Unions had a chance to give this company another shot. They chose to eliminate their own jobs and let the company close. Much like Government Motors, this company was saddled with expensive union contracts that had no foothold in reality. Unlike Government Motors, Obumble didn't step in to bail out the unions this time.
  • #59
    @Jeff_Woehrle - why did the company agree to these unsustainable contracts? Perhaps they should have said "No" to the union.
  • #137
    @Jeff_Woehrle -

    Wall Street Journal Jan 11, 2012

    "In a court document explaining how the company got into this mess, Hostess largely pins the blame on its labor costs, as well as increased competition, poor financial performance and excessive levels of debt. Hostess also says the company didn’t do enough to fix itself during a lengthy prior stint in bankruptcy protection less than a decade ago."

    ”The company obtained only modest concessions relating to health and welfare, as well as inflexible requirements under their collective bargaining agreements relating to work rules,” Hostess says in its court filing, which says the company and its employees have 372 separate labor agreements."

    "Hostess said it posted a net loss of $341 million in the fiscal year ended May 28, 2011, and a loss of $138 million the prior year."

    "The company indicated it will seek to modify or throw out its labor contracts, and its pension plans for workers. Hostess said its annual cash contribution to employee pension plans is about $103 million."

    How in the hell is any company supposed to operate when the Unions saddle them with 372 SEPARATE LABOR AGREEMENTS?

    For all the class warfare folks out there complaining about how the Hostess CEO's salary went up to 2.5 million...

    If you stole EVERY penny that CEO made, divided it by 18,000 employees, it would give them a pay increase of $138.88 per year. If you stole EVERY penny the top 10 executives earned while employed at Hostess, the amount divided out to those 18,000 employees would be less than $250.00 per year.

    The tax the rich crowd and the it's not fair because the owners, CEOs and executives make more than their fair share crowd appear incapable of basic math.

    Not only are there no winners (except government) in a redistribution scheme, this system makes financial losers out of nearly everyone.

    For the diehard union supporters out there... If you want to make $XXX.XX per hour, produce a genuine benefit to your company that is in excess of of what your wages and benefits cost that company.

    Otherwise you are costing your company money, and no business owner or investor is looking to lose their investment just so you feel good because you've earned a fair or 'living' wage.

    This really isn't rocket surgery.
  • #138
    @CanisCanemEdit Spot on.

    This largely explains why unions are on a steep decline in America, and nearly every product that can be made elsewhere now is. Unions believe that employees should be richly compensated in good times and matter what.

    And the undeniable truth is that Hostess would still be pushing out Twinkies if not for the union's own vote to kill their own jobs. They had the choice and they made it.

    Cry me a river.
  • #139
    @kstigar Excellent point. THAT is bad management. They should have fired everyone and started anew a long time ago. Alas, nobody wants to be the CEO who presides over massive labor unrest and cost to the company. They just agree to more and more extortion and kick the can further down the road for someone else to deal with.

    And that same mentality is alive and well in Washington today. Massive spending, no appetite for cuts and a debt that will come due for our childrens' children.

    On a small scale like Hostess, it plays out quickly. On the grand scale of the federal government, it takes lifetimes. But that clock is ticking just as well.
  • R Load more replies

  • #67
    Yet another "shining example" of the rights "job creators" exhibiting what they do best...GREED!...
  • #70
    I think you just described GM and Chrysler but they got a bailout. Wait...I like Zingers...I demand Obama bail out this failing company so I can continue to get my Zinger fix.
  • #91
    @Denizen_Kate That wouldn't work, because the "Evil Unions" would likely dial up something evil to take down Hostess still.
    It's just so ridiculous when people attribute bad business decisions to the "Evil Unions".
    Its seriously no wonder that the budget is such an issue if these same people have any say in it.
  • R Load more replies

  • #185
    Pure and simply piss poor management unions can only ask or request management has to approve.its kinda like a child asking for beer and the parent saying how much instead of the parent saying how bout milk instead if the child's thirsty he/she will take the milk and be happy it's all about finding answers not making problems
  • #180
    these exec salary increases, only came at the end. and does not tell, why the business was failing prior to that. but even at a conservative estimate, of a payroll of 350,000,000. it even makes those exec termination salaries look puny. but i could be that the unions, were not looking out for the best interests of the employees. and that from my union experience, the unions essencially help their members commit economic suicide. and that all labor unions, are selfish that way. with the same labor union mentality, running our government.
  • #179
    I think it is hilarious that the union fat cats think the brands will be saved. The very company they are wanting to purchase the brands is based in Mexico. They think a Mexican company is going to re-open a factory full of over paid, under worked union members!! Ha!!! What a joke. The union really saved those18,500 jobs. Now instead of a pension cut, they are on unemployment. Wise decision.
  • R Load more comments...