[Medium FormatPro]

talking about only the Unions killing the company is utter nonsense and really "blaming

Agreed.

It's about the same as stating that Bush did it.


No link just yet, but there will be once the smoke has cleared. The union also made every reasonable effort. Might I also add, the employees also were never forced to do anything by the union. In numerous media interviews workers clearly state that they felt they were well represented by the union. Also over 90% of the union employees voted to strike and also remain on strike.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Brands

In March 2012, Brian Driscoll resigned from his position as CEO.[17] Gregory Rayburn, who had been hired and named Chief Restructuring Officer only nine days earlier, assumed the leadership position. Fortune reported that unions within the organization had been unhappy with Driscoll's proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million "long term compensation" package. Additionally, the court had discovered that Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year prior. In an effort to restore relations, Rayburn cut the salaries of the four top Hostess executives to $1, to be restored on January 1 the following year. **From Wiki**

But that is also partially inaccurate. With bonuses and incentives, 20++ of the top executives all made millions

---

Last edited by Medium FormatPro; 11-16-2012 at 07:23 AM.

[Parallax]

soo you should always drop your principals based on $'s....

In an economy with over 8% unemployment? How many calories, how many grams of protein, how many BTUs of heat are in a principle?
Cousin Eddie in National Lampoon's Vacation had principles. Unemployed for years. He was holding out for an executive position.
How many of those 8500 workers were willing to continue working for less, continuing to provide for their families, won't be able to thanks to the union "representing them"?

[Medium FormatPro]

Nothing but union bashing it would appear. Last time I saw this much union bashing was with Regan

All of the employees effected will receive their full 23 months of unemployment and benefits, plus for union employees there are funds to also help them as well - a version of private unemployment.

[jeffkrol]

In an economy with over 8% unemployment? How many calories, how many grams of protein, how many BTUs of heat are in a principle?
Cousin Eddie in National Lampoon's Vacation had principles. Unemployed for years. He was holding out for an executive position.
How many of those 8500 workers were willing to continue working for less, continuing to provide for their families, won't be able to thanks to the union "representing them"?

Best you read the whole story...............funny thing.. Teamsters "conceded".. then (not even MENTIONED in the August 13, 2012 issue of Fortune.) the bakers took a whack...
so your global "union bashing" holds no water really..


And the meat;

MEPPs, which grew in popularity back in the union glory days of the 1950s and '60s, were designed for companies within an industry to share pension burdens. There are nearly 1,500 MEPPs in the country, covering more than 10 million workers. These mammoth defined-benefit plans -- employers, not workers, make the contributions -- were especially attractive to unions, as they allowed workers to move easily between companies.

Trouble with MEPPs is, if some employers go out of business, the remaining companies have to pick up the shortfall in funding benefits. When there are too few employers left standing, the fund is in trouble. According to a March research report by Credit Suisse, MEPPs are now underfunded by $369 billion. A third of the 40 MEPPs to which Hostess contributes are among the most underfunded plans in the country.

At the bargaining table, week after week, Hostess and the Teamsters have gone at it over the MEPPs, which Hostess contends are at the heart of its woes. Perella Weinberg's Michael Kramer has squared up against Harry Wilson, the financial adviser retained by the Teamsters. Monarch's Herenstein has been there. So has a representative from Silver Point. Though all are cordial -- somebody once served Hostess snacks -- they've yet to achieve a middle ground.
Gregory Rayburn, Hostess CEO

Gregory Rayburn, Hostess CEO

Hostess has proposed having workers themselves contribute to a single pension plan or, alternatively, switching to a pension arrangement in which Hostess would contribute to only a handful of MEPPs. In the latter proposal, Hostess's annual contributions would go down from the required $100 million to $25 million or so. (If Hostess is allowed to pull out of the MEPPs, the plans would have claims against the company, but as unsecured creditors they would come away with little or nothing.)

While the Teamsters have rejected that proposal, they've indicated a willingness to accept reduced contributions -- but only with the current MEPP structure in place. In April the Teamsters offered a pension holiday until next spring, and then a contribution level of 45% to 60% over the remaining three years of the collective-bargaining agreement. Hostess says that even that half a loaf is untenable. In May the bankruptcy judge appeared to share that view, ruling the current pension arrangement "creates too much uncertainty for any entity willing to commit substantial amounts of capital … to turn this company around."

75 mil per year= how many overpriced executives that , pretty obviously, couldn't do their job?????
i'm beginning to believe "uncertainty" is code for NOT A SURE THING.. not not likely to happen.......

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-16-2012 at 07:38 AM.

[Jasvox]

Besides the lost jobs, does the country as a whole really need Twinkies? I mean, aren't they considered the junkiest of the junkiest food ever produced? Perhaps this is a step in the evolution of man and one that should have been taken 50 years ago?

Jason

[jeffkrol]

Besides the lost jobs, does the country as a whole really need Twinkies? I mean, aren't they considered the junkiest of the junkiest food ever produced? Perhaps this is a step in the evolution of man and one that should have been taken 50 years ago?

Jason

They are no Pentax................. That's for sure...

just an example of creative destruction.. regardless of the multiple, layered details......

[GeneV]

In an economy with over 8% unemployment? How many calories, how many grams of protein, how many BTUs of heat are in a principle?
Cousin Eddie in National Lampoon's Vacation had principles. Unemployed for years. He was holding out for an executive position.
How many of those 8500 workers were willing to continue working for less, continuing to provide for their families, won't be able to thanks to the union "representing them"?

So, it is only the unions? I don't get that assumption. How can we jump in here, not having been through all the negotiations and pick one side to blame. I guess it is because I just finished two tough mediations, but I can't tell you how many negotiations I've been through where one could draw the wrong conclusion if one did not know the full history.

This owner has broken promise after promise to these workers, and the company has filed bankruptcy before. Asking workers to make a concessions before bankruptcy extracts even more concessions may be a perfectly reasonable response, especially if there is not much chance that jobs will exist with this company anyway. One could just as easily jump to the conclusion that private equity has raped and pillaged another company as state that unions caused the problem.

[GeneV]

Best you read the whole story...............funny thing.. Teamsters "conceded".. then (not even MENTIONED in the August 13, 2012 issue of Fortune.) the bakers took a whack...
so your global "union bashing" holds no water really..


And the meat;


75 mil per year= how many overpriced executives that , pretty obviously, couldn't do their job?????
i'm beginning to believe "uncertainty" is code for NOT A SURE THING.. not not likely to happen.......

Probably also about a year's interest on the loans the PE guys put on the company. I wonder how the lenders will do in bankruptcy.

[jeffkrol]

How many of those 8500 workers were willing to continue working for less, continuing to provide for their families, won't be able to thanks to the union "representing them"?

how manty execs..asked to "work for less".. see the 60% salary (or was it 80, I get lost after 5%, since that is the "usual and customary" ceiling for "my people".. ) raises after the 2004 "union concessions".. do you SEE that??? hmmm.. I wonder..

HOW MANY times does one get kicked beofe saying enough is enough..
The trick of shifting the pension claim to a subordinate position in bankruptcy?? REALLY???? how dumb do they think people are???

[jeffkrol]

Probably also about a year's interest on the loans the PE guys put on the company. I wonder how the lenders will do in bankruptcy.

No new Lexus this year...........unless provided by the "company"....

Like Romney.. they are not used to losing... so any loss is "devastating" well they may say "ouch"....

[GeneV]

the "war" was lost before this.. and some people won (or will win)............ they always do..

I'm sure they probably already paid the 'consulting fees"............

Hostess is bankrupt … again - Fortune Management

Thank you for that link. That is the most complete article about this deal.

I used to represent Sara Lee in my state, but I haven't heard from them in years. Now I know why. It makes perfect sense for a Mexican company to buy, since they have plants on our side of the border.

[GeneV]

No new Lexus this year...........unless provided by the "company"....

Like Romney.. they are not used to losing... so any loss is "devastating" well they may say "ouch"....

I'm not sure the PE guys will lose at all. The eye-opener about Bain was how much more they made on some of the companies that went belly up compared to investing in Staples.

[jeffkrol]

I'm not sure the PE guys will lose at all. The eye-opener about Bain was how much more they made on some of the companies that went belly up compared to investing in Staples.

Well they do consider "future earning" just like "real" earnings.. So they made a bunch in consulting fess but lost the "full monte"..
some people have a different idea of what "losing money" means.. like banks and "full value" of a loan to term (or what is it again, (Nester mentioned it) 50% of full value full term.. any less is considered a paper "loss")

Agreed they probably won't lose "their" money... especially in the "long" short game.......

[reeftool]

The company was already bankrupt and on the verge of liquidating anyhow. Blaming the union is a lame attempt to pass the buck. Company management is totally incompetent.

[Parallax]

A whole box of Little Debbie's costs less than a twin pack of Twinkies; but I'm sure that has nothing to do with the cost of overhead.