The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2012, 10:23 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 10:17 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 10:00 PM)themanchicken Wrote:  That's okay. The workers had more of a right to determine the course of that company than the leeches who took all the money out of it. They're the ones who actually made something. Their union was elected, the bosses were not. At the end of the day, the company did not go broke... they just decided that they wanted the money for themselves rather than making sure their workers could make rent, pay for doctors visits, feed their kids, etc.
Not so much the company as the investors (the largest by the way just happened to be a prominent left wing venture capitalist who rescued the company the first time, saving it from being bought out by a foreign company).
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/0...-bankrupt/
Again, you're talking about ideology, I'm talking about material conditions. Right or left is irrelevant, all that matters to me is the material conditions. Workers have a right to control their lives, and all people who work should be entitled to a living wage. That's not right or left, that's respect for human dignity.

Hostess was asking for concessions from workers who were already being paid less than a living wage, who already had a weak health policy and no guaranteed pension, and the workers refused to let it happened. They were exercising their rights, and I commend them for it.

~ themanchicken
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes themanchicken's post
16-11-2012, 10:33 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 10:23 PM)themanchicken Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 10:17 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Not so much the company as the investors (the largest by the way just happened to be a prominent left wing venture capitalist who rescued the company the first time, saving it from being bought out by a foreign company).
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/0...-bankrupt/
Again, you're talking about ideology, I'm talking about material conditions. Right or left is irrelevant, all that matters to me is the material conditions. Workers have a right to control their lives, and all people who work should be entitled to a living wage. That's not right or left, that's respect for human dignity.

Hostess was asking for concessions from workers who were already being paid less than a living wage, who already had a weak health policy and no guaranteed pension, and the workers refused to let it happened. They were exercising their rights, and I commend them for it.
If you read the article I link to about the first rescue, you will also note that the first bankruptcy never truly cleared the company of what was killing it--legacy pension costs. And also notice:
Quote: The critical issue in the bankruptcy is legacy pensions. Hostess has
roughly $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities to its various
unions' workers -- the Teamsters but also the Bakery, Confectionery,
Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (which has largely
chosen not to contest what Hostess wants to do -- that is, to get out
of much of that obligation). If the bankruptcy court lets Hostess off
the pension hook -- which often happens in these cases -- it only moves
the struggle outside the courthouse, and the ante goes up. For the Teamsters can then call a strike
-- which its Hostess employees have already ratified by a 9-to-1
margin. If the court doesn't grant relief, Hostess can seek liquidation,
which would mean that some creditors get some money, but equity would
be gone for good, as would a lot of jobs. Either way, each side holds a
nuclear warhead with which to annihilate the company.
See what the bakers' union was doing this summer? Right. Nothing. They chose 'not to contest' the outcome. The Teamsters negotiated the best deal that they could on behalf of all the unions, and the bakers union deferred to them. It is clear that the Teamsters were not just rolling over for the company. Clearly there was coordination between the unions to let the teamsters take the lead. It was only at the last minute that the bakers union decided to play spoiler. It is in fact their right to bargain for the best deal, but what they did was truly irresponsible. If they were hired as a legal representative, they would be sued for malpractice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 11:37 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
Alright, I haven't read the thread (because it's an I and I thread) but I think I know how this is going down so far.
Feel free to correct me at any point.
I and I posts something about rich people being bad or the US government supporting terrorists or something about Stalin being a nice guy.
Bryan is posting is I'm going with the first option.
So, I and I says rich people are bad and capitalism is a failure.
Bryan sweeps in and say's it's not.
I and I throws insults at Bryan.
Bryan makes very valid points and butt rapes I and I
I and I goes on the defensive and starts spouting more crap all the while ignoring the actual good points Bryan makes.
Allll the while with DLJ coming in and making funny hilarious jokes.

Am I on the money?

If so, I agree with whatever it is Bryan said. And Lol DLJ.

Oh, and the new guy is spouting something about how picking up trash requires a PHD and is the hardest job in the entire world.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
16-11-2012, 11:47 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 11:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Alright, I haven't read the thread (because it's an I and I thread) but I think I know how this is going down so far.
Feel free to correct me at any point.
I and I posts something about rich people being bad or the US government supporting terrorists or something about Stalin being a nice guy.
Bryan is posting is I'm going with the first option.
So, I and I says rich people are bad and capitalism is a failure.
Bryan sweeps in and say's it's not.
I and I throws insults at Bryan.
Bryan makes very valid points and butt rapes I and I
I and I goes on the defensive and starts spouting more crap all the while ignoring the actual good points Bryan makes.
Allll the while with DLJ coming in and making funny hilarious jokes.

Am I on the money?

If so, I agree with whatever it is Bryan said. And Lol DLJ.

Oh, and the new guy is spouting something about how picking up trash requires a PHD and is the hardest job in the entire world.
LOL Smile

Pretty much spot on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 11:49 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 11:47 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 11:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Alright, I haven't read the thread (because it's an I and I thread) but I think I know how this is going down so far.
Feel free to correct me at any point.
I and I posts something about rich people being bad or the US government supporting terrorists or something about Stalin being a nice guy.
Bryan is posting is I'm going with the first option.
So, I and I says rich people are bad and capitalism is a failure.
Bryan sweeps in and say's it's not.
I and I throws insults at Bryan.
Bryan makes very valid points and butt rapes I and I
I and I goes on the defensive and starts spouting more crap all the while ignoring the actual good points Bryan makes.
Allll the while with DLJ coming in and making funny hilarious jokes.

Am I on the money?

If so, I agree with whatever it is Bryan said. And Lol DLJ.

Oh, and the new guy is spouting something about how picking up trash requires a PHD and is the hardest job in the entire world.
LOL Smile

Pretty much spot on.
Called it. Drinking Beverage

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 11:59 PM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 10:33 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 10:23 PM)themanchicken Wrote:  Again, you're talking about ideology, I'm talking about material conditions. Right or left is irrelevant, all that matters to me is the material conditions. Workers have a right to control their lives, and all people who work should be entitled to a living wage. That's not right or left, that's respect for human dignity.

Hostess was asking for concessions from workers who were already being paid less than a living wage, who already had a weak health policy and no guaranteed pension, and the workers refused to let it happened. They were exercising their rights, and I commend them for it.
If you read the article I link to about the first rescue, you will also note that the first bankruptcy never truly cleared the company of what was killing it--legacy pension costs. And also notice:
Quote: The critical issue in the bankruptcy is legacy pensions. Hostess has
roughly $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities to its various
unions' workers -- the Teamsters but also the Bakery, Confectionery,
Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (which has largely
chosen not to contest what Hostess wants to do -- that is, to get out
of much of that obligation). If the bankruptcy court lets Hostess off
the pension hook -- which often happens in these cases -- it only moves
the struggle outside the courthouse, and the ante goes up. For the Teamsters can then call a strike
-- which its Hostess employees have already ratified by a 9-to-1
margin. If the court doesn't grant relief, Hostess can seek liquidation,
which would mean that some creditors get some money, but equity would
be gone for good, as would a lot of jobs. Either way, each side holds a
nuclear warhead with which to annihilate the company.
See what the bakers' union was doing this summer? Right. Nothing. They chose 'not to contest' the outcome. The Teamsters negotiated the best deal that they could on behalf of all the unions, and the bakers union deferred to them. It is clear that the Teamsters were not just rolling over for the company. Clearly there was coordination between the unions to let the teamsters take the lead. It was only at the last minute that the bakers union decided to play spoiler. It is in fact their right to bargain for the best deal, but what they did was truly irresponsible. If they were hired as a legal representative, they would be sued for malpractice.
No argument, the union should have fought for the workers. That is why we need more rank-and-file leadership in these unions.

That said, these workers had a lot more say in their union than they had in their management. The bosses decided to take their ball (and the ball of the workers) and go home because it would have been too much of a hardship for them to reduce margins to take care of workers.

Legacy pensions are seldom the problem in these deals, there are funds constructed for this.

http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2012-11...ckpDM.html <- Press release from BCTGM


Also, recognize that the liquidation is a way of busting these unions, and even Bloomberg is reporting this. I find it a little surprising that a free-thinker didn't consider that the senior management of Hostess may have done this to bust a union rather than for real financial reasons:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12...trike.html


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12...lines.html


To me, this is pretty simple. The management wanted to cram massive pay cuts down the throats of workers, stopped paying into the pension fund (illegally), and then when workers went out on strike they threatened for a few weeks to bust the strike, and then just walked away because they didn't want to play ball with workers who weren't going to roll over and accept these concessions.

Before you pretend like the union victimized its members again, please recognize that they had a strike authorization vote, and that they had a vote on the contract that management tried to cram down their throat. The Maeva Group - a vulture capitalist buy & liquidate consulting firm - constructed much of this mess. This is how Mitt Romney made his millions, and it's clearly where the interests and priorities of the owners of Hostess lie as well.

Contrary to what you said, the Teamsters called for a secret ballot, and their membership voted 53% to approve concessions. The BCTGM held votes in their halls wherein more than 90% of their membership rejected the concessions. The Teamsters were trying to push workers into the direction of accepting the massive cuts (more than 27% for some), but the BCTGM refused.

These workers exercised their rights, the bosses combined with their vulture capitalist buddies decided to give one final "fuck you" to the workers after all of the illegal labor practices.

I know you SAY you did your homework on this one... but I'm just not seeing it. You missed the part where the vulture capitalist came in and illegally sabotaged the pension fund, or the part where they illegally threatened to close factories if workers wouldn't accept concessions, and you also missed the part where the workers VOTED to go out on strike and to reject the offer.

~ themanchicken
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes themanchicken's post
17-11-2012, 12:00 AM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 11:49 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 11:47 PM)BryanS Wrote:  LOL Smile

Pretty much spot on.
Called it. Drinking Beverage

No mate.

IandI came up with a mathematical formula that finally proves once and for all that gods cannot exist.

The new guy extends the theory to prove that man evolved from chickens.

Bryan chipped in with an ad hominem.

My spell checker tries to change 'hominem' to 'Eminem' ... wtf kinda world are we living in?!?

Muffsy adds to the debate with a well argued PhD-worthy piece on the ascent of man.

I wasn't even here.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
17-11-2012, 12:12 AM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(16-11-2012 11:59 PM)themanchicken Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 10:33 PM)BryanS Wrote:  If you read the article I link to about the first rescue, you will also note that the first bankruptcy never truly cleared the company of what was killing it--legacy pension costs. And also notice:
See what the bakers' union was doing this summer? Right. Nothing. They chose 'not to contest' the outcome. The Teamsters negotiated the best deal that they could on behalf of all the unions, and the bakers union deferred to them. It is clear that the Teamsters were not just rolling over for the company. Clearly there was coordination between the unions to let the teamsters take the lead. It was only at the last minute that the bakers union decided to play spoiler. It is in fact their right to bargain for the best deal, but what they did was truly irresponsible. If they were hired as a legal representative, they would be sued for malpractice.
No argument, the union should have fought for the workers. That is why we need more rank-and-file leadership in these unions.

That said, these workers had a lot more say in their union than they had in their management. The bosses decided to take their ball (and the ball of the workers) and go home because it would have been too much of a hardship for them to reduce margins to take care of workers.

Legacy pensions are seldom the problem in these deals, there are funds constructed for this.

http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2012-11...ckpDM.html <- Press release from BCTGM


Also, recognize that the liquidation is a way of busting these unions, and even Bloomberg is reporting this. I find it a little surprising that a free-thinker didn't consider that the senior management of Hostess may have done this to bust a union rather than for real financial reasons:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12...trike.html


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12...lines.html


To me, this is pretty simple. The management wanted to cram massive pay cuts down the throats of workers, stopped paying into the pension fund (illegally), and then when workers went out on strike they threatened for a few weeks to bust the strike, and then just walked away because they didn't want to play ball with workers who weren't going to roll over and accept these concessions.

Before you pretend like the union victimized its members again, please recognize that they had a strike authorization vote, and that they had a vote on the contract that management tried to cram down their throat. The Maeva Group - a vulture capitalist buy & liquidate consulting firm - constructed much of this mess. This is how Mitt Romney made his millions, and it's clearly where the interests and priorities of the owners of Hostess lie as well.

Contrary to what you said, the Teamsters called for a secret ballot, and their membership voted 53% to approve concessions. The BCTGM held votes in their halls wherein more than 90% of their membership rejected the concessions. The Teamsters were trying to push workers into the direction of accepting the massive cuts (more than 27% for some), but the BCTGM refused.

These workers exercised their rights, the bosses combined with their vulture capitalist buddies decided to give one final "fuck you" to the workers after all of the illegal labor practices.

I know you SAY you did your homework on this one... but I'm just not seeing it. You missed the part where the vulture capitalist came in and illegally sabotaged the pension fund, or the part where they illegally threatened to close factories if workers wouldn't accept concessions, and you also missed the part where the workers VOTED to go out on strike and to reject the offer.
Couple corrections--I never said the Teamsters didn't call for a secret ballot. The baker's union didn't. And the public statement I from the Teamsters that I posted upthread included the Teamster's call for the baker's union to have a secret ballot. Doesn't it concern you that the baker's union never offered their members the opportunity to vote on a secret ballot like the Teamsters called on them to do? 90% voice votes sure do sound like the baker's union was doing most of the cajoling whereas the Teamsters got a completely different result with a secret ballot.

And now for the victory cheer from the bakers union:


Maine’s striking Hostess workers say company’s collapse a strong message of union resolve

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/11/16/business/maines-striking-hostess-workers-say-companys-collapse-a-strong-message-of-union-resolve/?ref=videos

Quote: “Unions have been losing power for years,” said Ken Rumney, a striking worker outside of the Hostess plant in Biddeford on Friday. “This is an exceptional case. If Hostess had been allowed to get away with what they’d been trying to do, other corporations would have lined up to try the same tactics. Hopefully, this will be an example to other companies not to [try to] break their unions.”

“I think we’re the first ones who have stood up and said, ‘We’re not going to let you get away with it,’” said Sue Tapley, the strike captain on hand Friday morning at the Biddeford plant, which employed nearly 600 people. “You can fight them. You can shut them down.”

Sure sounds like the bakers' unions are really proud of shutting the company down. Good on them!

The sacrificial lambs who lost their jobs can be satisfied that their sacrifice was for a greater cause. However I suspect some may be thinking right now that it would have been nice to have had someone actually fight for their jobs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2012, 12:19 AM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(17-11-2012 12:12 AM)BryanS Wrote:  ...
The sacrificial lambs who lost their jobs can be satisfied that their sacrifice was for a greater cause. However I suspect some may be thinking right now that it would have been nice to have had someone actually fight for their jobs.


Bryan,
Just out of curiosity, do you accept that there is a greater cause?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2012, 12:41 AM
RE: The striking union workers crippled the hostess company?
(17-11-2012 12:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(17-11-2012 12:12 AM)BryanS Wrote:  ...
The sacrificial lambs who lost their jobs can be satisfied that their sacrifice was for a greater cause. However I suspect some may be thinking right now that it would have been nice to have had someone actually fight for their jobs.


Bryan,
Just out of curiosity, do you accept that there is a greater cause?

In this situation, there can be a greater cause, but I think what happened here with the baker's union is that the union leaders had an agenda that was not in line with the members, and that the members were not fully informed of the likelihood that the company would close if they continued their strike. I highly doubt that the employees at a rate of 90% voluntarily sacrificed their jobs just to make a statement. I think that was the point of the teamsters pleading publicly for the baker's union to give their members a chance to have a secret vote on the issue after they had more time to think about the negotiated offer. I also think the 'greater cause' in this situation was counterproductive for the baker's union. They think this action will cause the next employer to think twice about fighting them. I think they have just added to public perceptions that unions will fight to the point that the company is no longer viable and infact puts employment at risk. The Teamsters did the responsible thing--negotiated hard and long, but with the company's viability and protection of their member's jobs in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The State of the Union speech tonight ... Chas 35 688 12-02-2014 05:06 PM
Last Post: Alla
  Why do capitalists attack striking workers? I and I 57 1,392 23-12-2012 05:02 PM
Last Post: Logica Humano
  American Workers Got What They Deserved sosa 8 697 28-03-2011 08:56 PM
Last Post: trillium13
Forum Jump: