So apparently according to an article here the Twinkie thing was the Hostess employees being saddled with pay and benefits cuts, while the company DURING BANKRUPTCY is giving it's CEO 300% raises and most of the board very substantial raises as well....
Quote from From article linked above »
Hostess’s failure was compounded by having six CEO’s in 8 years who had no experience in the bread or cake baking industry, and despite their financial woes, the company’s CEO got a 300% salary increase from $750,000 to $2,250,000, and other top executives received raises worth hundreds-of-thousands of dollars; all while the company was struggling. Instead of acknowledging the lack of competent leadership and exorbitant executive salaries as contributing to the company’s decision to close its doors, CEO Gregory Rayburn issued a statement saying, “We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike.” However, Rayburn and Hostess management claimed the strike would be responsible for closing plants even before there was a strike, and they had made plans to close plants whether or not workers accepted the Draconian wage and benefit cuts the company offered, or if they went on strike.
...what's the debate topic? Is it going to be, once again, about the "evils of corporate America"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
...what's the debate topic? Is it going to be, once again, about the "evils of corporate America"?
Alternatively why are we blaming unions and workers who want to make decent wages for their labor out to be the evil entity here whenever it is clear that there was plenty of money to go around for those who were already making **** tons of money?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
...what's the debate topic? Is it going to be, once again, about the "evils of corporate America"?
It's an interesting tidbit and the existing thread was closed stating that it had become a Debate topic - thus it's in the Debate forum. I'll let the article stand on its own for now myself.
From my understanding, Hostess was owned by venture capitalists and the plan all along was to wring as much money out of it as possible and then sell it off in parts when it would maximize their return. Of course they don't want to fight the union, they just want to make money the fastest way possible.
For the record, after skimming that site a little, I wouldnt exactly call the site an objective source of information. That said. One thing I didnt notice, was over how long of a period of time did the salary increase? Was it something that was part of the contract that the CEO signed when he came in that he would get those increases as part of taking lesser pay in the beginning? Would the CEO have taken less pay as part of a cost reduction plan that included what was being offered to the unions?
If anyone can answer those questions, then that would be helpful. If in fact they were raising the pay of the CEO (especially a large amount in just one year) for no real reason, while having to cut back elsewhere, then I agree, that was stupid. Then again, with how much CEO's tend to get paid these days, I wouldnt be surprised if it was part of his contract with the company, with the caveat that he would just leave and find another such position, for more pay, if they didnt pay him enough (supply and demand and all that). Anyhow, until we have the additional information (if I missed said information please feel free to provide it and Ill be happy to discuss from there.
In September, membership of one of its major unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, voted narrowly to accept a new contract with reduced wages and benefits. The Bakers' union rejected the deal, however, prompting Hostess management to secure permission from a bankruptcy court to force a new concession contract on workers.
The Teamsters union, which represents 6,700 Hostess workers, issued a statement blaming mismanagement by Hostess executives for the company's problems. But it also was critical of the decision of Bakers' union, although it did not identify the union by name.
"Unfortunately, the company's operating and financial problems were so severe that it required steep concessions from a variety of stakeholders but not all stakeholders were willing to be constructive," said Ken Hall, the Teamsters' Secretary-Treasurer. "Teamster Hostess members, based on the facts and advice from respected restructuring advisors, understood what was at stake and voted to protect all jobs at Hostess."
The problem here is that the article relies heavily upon a single source (dailykos), whose source is a statement by the Baker's Union that bases its argument entirely upon a single statement by the mayor of St. Louis, as well as stating that the Baker's Union ABSOLUTELY IN NO WAY had anything to do with it.
I think the fact that the article is all about how it was Mitt Romney and the Republicans' fault that Hostess closed makes it pretty damn obvious we're dealing with an absolute mess of bias, but this article elucidates some of the more complex details of this situation:
There were two union organizations involved in the discussion, the Teamsters and the Baker's Union. The Teamsters actually agreed to go with the plan by Hostess management, but the Baker's union refused.
According to the Teamsters, while they blame management, they also believe the Baker's union acted irresponsibly as well, and that the Baker's Union's unproductive actions also resulted in Hostess' collapse.
Ultimately, I think what we can take from this is that it is a total debacle and no one is blameless.
I think this Fortune article, which portrays the fight between the Teamsters, Baker's union, and Hostess management as a Mexican standoff in which everyone is wearing a gray hat and nobody can shoot straight, is on the right track. It seems like everyone screwed up.
...what's the debate topic? Is it going to be, once again, about the "evils of corporate America"?
Alternatively why are we blaming unions and workers who want to make decent wages for their labor out to be the evil entity here whenever it is clear that there was plenty of money to go around for those who were already making **** tons of money?
I never said we were. I am, however, always amused by the prevalence of these, "You didn't build it!" threads that creep up, and the rabid attacks on any type of entrepreneurs, as if the people who build businesses are legitimate threats to sanity and freedom.
I've been monitoring the entire debacle because I loves me some Hostess cupcakes. I think, really, the bakers are the main source of the consternation, because the company did try to work with the unions. They even said, "Look, if this strike happens we will NOT be able to keep our doors open." The Teamsters were willing to negotiate over time, the bakers were not.
So what's going to happen is, yes, the bankruptcy happens. Anything left over is going to the executives, because that's how things work in business. The workers shut down the plants, so the executives say, "**** you" to them.
...what's the debate topic? Is it going to be, once again, about the "evils of corporate America"?
I sure hope so. It's always fun to see poor or middle class people defending rich people who give precisely zero ****s about them.
And it's always fun to see the ignorant and uneducated blame everyone else for their own inadequacies and shortcomings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
A $775,000 to a $2.25 million pay raise for a major CEO of a corporation like Hostess is nothing.
1) $2.25 million wouldn't even close to cover any of the savings from the pay cuts of the Bakers union workers. It's a drop in the bucket really.
2) The CEO was getting paid $775,000? And now he's paid $2.25 million??
I find it really silly to ask for things such as "experience in the bread industry" or "competence" at the salary the Hostess CEO was being paid. Look at that salary! Who do you think you can hire with that salary? It's the old saying, "You get what you pay for." There are many examples of corporate mismanagement; but, a CEO getting a 300% pay raise to $2.25 million is definitely not it.
P.S. I would also like to point out that the conditions which the CEO got the raise is important, like jeffbcrandall mentioned. Maybe Hostess has an old CEO that performed poorly and that agreed to pay cuts till his salary was just $775,000? And then he was let go? You can't expect the new CEO to agree to a $775,000 salary. Like I said, that's an extremely low salary for a CEO.
Question: Did Mitt Romney have anything to do with the Hostess company? If not, why is his name in the title?
There is the word "style" after Romney - implying it's one LIKE Bain had been criticized for doing, not that Romney was involved. Did you miss the word "style" or something? Because I know your reading comp is usually better.
The article at the start of the thread didn't touch on the mismanagement parts (haven't read the CNN article yet to check but if it's the one I'm thinking of I read it a few days ago) - I figured that would be a latter addition, assuming that's the article I think it is. Since it's more of a, "on a sidenote" thing - than a shocker like the CEO and execs getting 6-7 digit raises while everything is going down the tubes. Nero fiddling while Rome burns makes a more interesting topic than just mismanagement.
There were two union organizations involved in the discussion, the Teamsters and the Baker's Union. The Teamsters actually agreed to go with the plan by Hostess management, but the Baker's union refused.
Narrowly agreed, less than 60% approval from the Teamsters and Bakers were voting 9:1 against it.
Declining sales killed Hostess. The union is a convenient scapegoat.
^^ This!
Like I said in the other thread that got nuked, there is plenty of blame to be spread around. The company made its share of mistakes and expected the labor to pay for the mistakes of the company. Thats not a very ggod way to run a business. The union is just the scapegoat here, the company doesnt want to admit they made some bad decisions in recent times which led to this situation.
There were two union organizations involved in the discussion, the Teamsters and the Baker's Union. The Teamsters actually agreed to go with the plan by Hostess management, but the Baker's union refused.
Narrowly agreed, less than 60% approval from the Teamsters and Bakers were voting 9:1 against it.
There were two union organizations involved in the discussion, the Teamsters and the Baker's Union. The Teamsters actually agreed to go with the plan by Hostess management, but the Baker's union refused.
Narrowly agreed, less than 60% approval from the Teamsters and Bakers were voting 9:1 against it.
How is that relevant?
That if the full numbers were parsed out it would've been between 40-50% that agreed with it counting both unions. A huge number of the employees wanted them to vote against it - the union was representing their people as they wished to be represented.
Unions are awful when they quash the voice of the people this was not occurring in this case. If the union had caved, likely those 40-50% would've quit anyhow and the same results would've happened.
Question: Did Mitt Romney have anything to do with the Hostess company? If not, why is his name in the title?
There is the word "style" after Romney - implying it's one LIKE Bain had been criticized for doing, not that Romney was involved. Did you miss the word "style" or something? Because I know your reading comp is usually better.
You cannot have missed the fact that the article is a giant invective against Republicans and Mitt Romney, neither of whom, as far as I can tell, had anything at all to do with Hostess' undoing. The article's format is, "Look, here's a company that went down the tubes, let's find some way of blaming Republicans for it and everything else."
In fact, I'm willing to bet it was precisely this complete lack of objectivity that made you choose this article to link to, as there were plenty of news organizations you could have gotten more accurate information from.
That if the full numbers were parsed out it would've been between 40-50% that agreed with it counting both unions.
And what is your point?
The fact of the matter is we have one labor union that agreed, and another labor union that didn't. I know you want to make this as simple as "labor union vs. management," but it isn't. There were two labor unions involved in the discussion, and it seems pretty clear that none of the parties involved, Teamsters, Baker's Union, or management, came out free from blame.
A huge number of the employees wanted them to vote against it - the union was representing their people as they wished to be represented.
No. One union, representing its people, voted for. The other union, representing its people, went against it.
I know you want this to be a black-and-white case. It's not.
It was because it brought up a new interesting point about the raises - the mismanagement had come up in the other thread, as had the union issues.
And the fact of the matter is, when most people vote against something with their union and the union still goes forward with it to the extreme that this is, a large amount of those people walk out (as well as some that voted in agreement hesitantly) and companies cannot continue to operate without employees.
Its one of the largest dangers of unions in fact that in many ways it's damned if you do, damned if you don't with big sweeping stuff like that.
And the fact of the matter is, when most people vote against something with their union and the union still goes forward with it to the extreme that this is, a large amount of those people walk out (as well as some that voted in agreement hesitantly) and companies cannot continue to operate without employees.
Which is not what happened. One union decided it would go through with it based on a majority vote. The other union went against it.
You seem to want to portray this as a union voting for something against what its members wanted. That is not what happened. The Teamsters had a majority of members vote in favor.
Once again, I know you want this to be a fight between good and evil, but it's not that simple. The plot is a lot deeper than the shallow fight of men in white hats vs. men in black hats you want it to be.
90% of one union voted against it - if all their "baker union" people quit because of the union misrepresenting them, you think they'd actually remain in business?
That's not how unions work unfortunately - no matter which side you take on the argument the "if the union agreed, everything would've been fine" angle requires a lack of understanding about how unions effect the equation.
That's a huge part of why I personally, as an HR person absolutely avoided union companies myself - because you're damned if you damned if you don't in many cases - that being one - losing 90% of an important position if you get the union to agree contrary to the views of the individuals you're still screwed.
I don't like unions personally - the only positive I've said (and continue to say) of this one, is that they represented their people as they asked the union to do. And yes, two unions being involved at once does muddle things even more, as much as I hate unions at all, I'd pull my hair out having to navigate two at once, not sure how that was ever allowed to happen - seems better if your workers unionize to get them to consolidate, for both the employer and employee.
90% of one union voted against it - if all their "baker union" people quit because of the union misrepresenting them, you think they'd actually remain in business?
That's not how unions work unfortunately - no matter which side you take on the argument the "if the union agreed, everything would've been fine" angle requires a lack of understanding about how unions effect the equation.
That's a huge part of why I personally, as an HR person absolutely avoided union companies myself - because you're damned if you damned if you don't in many cases - that being one - losing 90% of an important position if you get the union to agree contrary to the views of the individuals you're still screwed.
I don't like unions personally - the only positive I've said (and continue to say) of this one, is that they represented their people as they asked the union to do. And yes, two unions being involved at once does muddle things even more, as much as I hate unions at all, I'd pull my hair out having to navigate two at once, not sure how that was ever allowed to happen - seems better if your workers unionize to get them to consolidate, for both the employer and employee.
You do know the teamsters and the bakers union are different unions, don't you?
What did I say that implied otherwise? Teamsters were primarily the shipping folks (maybe packaging as well?), Bakers were the ones actually doing the product manufacture.
If no one was manufacturing product for them, which 90% of those people voted no and would've likely walked if the union went contrary to them - what product would they ship? And of course note that they were a union REQUIRED business - union membership was mandatory. So no chance of staying open as a scab shop or anything.
Have to remember, in most instances one union will honor another unions strike. Either one of the unions could have voted it down and it would have shut the doors.
I never said we were. I am, however, always amused by the prevalence of these, "You didn't build it!" threads that creep up, and the rabid attacks on any type of entrepreneurs, as if the people who build businesses are legitimate threats to sanity and freedom.
There are caretakers and then there are entrepreneurs, there are leaders and there are managers. If I want someone to manage my lawn, I will pay them to manage that lawn well. If I seek them to cultivate an exquisite garden on my front lawn by taking the initiative and leadership to create a wonderful gardening space I will pay them a lot more.
This is where skills separation, even among the higher managers in any company. There's also stories about "head work" among other things that also factor into corporations. Some companies at specific levels do become a civil service, and it becomes an honest problem.
Furthermore, there have been some venture capitalists that have called into question the pay for CEO's in general and especially the mediocre variety that demand high pay and golden parachutes. Not every CEO is an entrepreneur, as an entrepreneur is both a manager and a leader and an inventor. There are others that are, just, mediocre and do not expand companies at all and are overall a bad investment that would be better placed into research and development.
I've been monitoring the entire debacle because I loves me some Hostess cupcakes. I think, really, the bakers are the main source of the consternation, because the company did try to work with the unions. They even said, "Look, if this strike happens we will NOT be able to keep our doors open." The Teamsters were willing to negotiate over time, the bakers were not.
And in part this is also a direct negotiating point, such as what happened with USX and other companies during the 1980's. One side doesn't budge, the other sends a message of incompetency to the other. Everyone breaks down, and the company goes down the ****ter. People decide based on emotion and justify through logic, and symbols are important to power.
"I gave up my pay increase and decreased my pay by 25%, I'm asking for everyone of you to give up 8% until the company is afloat."
That's symbolism in politics, and the bigger the company the more politics there are.
So what's going to happen is, yes, the bankruptcy happens. Anything left over is going to the executives, because that's how things work in business. The workers shut down the plants, so the executives say, "**** you" to them.
That's more of a problem with the structure of companies and a lack of different experimentation. Co-ops and the like tend to be better for workers in regions and small niche markets. However, there's also a distinct lack of domestic small and medium sized companies engaging in global trade which does contribute to the lack of job generation to equalize trade with areas such as China. So it's even the entrepreneurs that have lost the knack to creating new institutions to encourage global free trade.
And it's always fun to see the ignorant and uneducated blame everyone else for their own inadequacies and shortcomings.
Most of these "Management vs. unions" ends up with both sides being stupid and pissy, until either the company faces distinct death or a miraculous recovery. It's also very Madisonian and another reason why "anarchy" doesn't work much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The CEO raises just seem like the management raiding the hold while the ship is sinking. Bad management (and imo pretty immoral too)? Yeah, probably. The cause of the company's failure? Probably not.
I'm going to agree with 1Drop here. Declining sales definitely killed the business as consumer preferences changed (1990s-present). The flailing around of all parties involved and the refusal to diversify their products only ensured the inevitable demise. Everything was compounded by the recession right as Hostess hit the bottom of their debt barrel too. Blaming the new CEOs is just making them a scapegoat for longstanding problems. And blaming the unions at all is certainly making them a scapegoat, especially after the unions already made a bunch of concessions in the years since Hostess first filed for bankruptcy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
Alternatively why are we blaming unions and workers who want to make decent wages for their labor out to be the evil entity here whenever it is clear that there was plenty of money to go around for those who were already making **** tons of money?
It's an interesting tidbit and the existing thread was closed stating that it had become a Debate topic - thus it's in the Debate forum. I'll let the article stand on its own for now myself.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
If anyone can answer those questions, then that would be helpful. If in fact they were raising the pay of the CEO (especially a large amount in just one year) for no real reason, while having to cut back elsewhere, then I agree, that was stupid. Then again, with how much CEO's tend to get paid these days, I wouldnt be surprised if it was part of his contract with the company, with the caveat that he would just leave and find another such position, for more pay, if they didnt pay him enough (supply and demand and all that). Anyhow, until we have the additional information (if I missed said information please feel free to provide it and Ill be happy to discuss from there.
Though I'll put it in a small font.
Please stop hijacking my reply box.
According to this article by CNN, http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html?hpt=us_c1 , the problem is more complex than the article you linked to indicates, in that the answer is not simply, "Mitt Romney did it." Nor is it a simple fight between the Baker's Union and management.
The problem here is that the article relies heavily upon a single source (dailykos), whose source is a statement by the Baker's Union that bases its argument entirely upon a single statement by the mayor of St. Louis, as well as stating that the Baker's Union ABSOLUTELY IN NO WAY had anything to do with it.
I think the fact that the article is all about how it was Mitt Romney and the Republicans' fault that Hostess closed makes it pretty damn obvious we're dealing with an absolute mess of bias, but this article elucidates some of the more complex details of this situation:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html?hpt=us_c1
There were two union organizations involved in the discussion, the Teamsters and the Baker's Union. The Teamsters actually agreed to go with the plan by Hostess management, but the Baker's union refused.
According to the Teamsters, while they blame management, they also believe the Baker's union acted irresponsibly as well, and that the Baker's Union's unproductive actions also resulted in Hostess' collapse.
Ultimately, I think what we can take from this is that it is a total debacle and no one is blameless.
I think this Fortune article, which portrays the fight between the Teamsters, Baker's union, and Hostess management as a Mexican standoff in which everyone is wearing a gray hat and nobody can shoot straight, is on the right track. It seems like everyone screwed up.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/?iid=EL
I never said we were. I am, however, always amused by the prevalence of these, "You didn't build it!" threads that creep up, and the rabid attacks on any type of entrepreneurs, as if the people who build businesses are legitimate threats to sanity and freedom.
I've been monitoring the entire debacle because I loves me some Hostess cupcakes. I think, really, the bakers are the main source of the consternation, because the company did try to work with the unions. They even said, "Look, if this strike happens we will NOT be able to keep our doors open." The Teamsters were willing to negotiate over time, the bakers were not.
So what's going to happen is, yes, the bankruptcy happens. Anything left over is going to the executives, because that's how things work in business. The workers shut down the plants, so the executives say, "**** you" to them.
And it's always fun to see the ignorant and uneducated blame everyone else for their own inadequacies and shortcomings.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
1) $2.25 million wouldn't even close to cover any of the savings from the pay cuts of the Bakers union workers. It's a drop in the bucket really.
2) The CEO was getting paid $775,000? And now he's paid $2.25 million??
I find it really silly to ask for things such as "experience in the bread industry" or "competence" at the salary the Hostess CEO was being paid. Look at that salary! Who do you think you can hire with that salary? It's the old saying, "You get what you pay for." There are many examples of corporate mismanagement; but, a CEO getting a 300% pay raise to $2.25 million is definitely not it.
P.S. I would also like to point out that the conditions which the CEO got the raise is important, like jeffbcrandall mentioned. Maybe Hostess has an old CEO that performed poorly and that agreed to pay cuts till his salary was just $775,000? And then he was let go? You can't expect the new CEO to agree to a $775,000 salary. Like I said, that's an extremely low salary for a CEO.
There is the word "style" after Romney - implying it's one LIKE Bain had been criticized for doing, not that Romney was involved. Did you miss the word "style" or something? Because I know your reading comp is usually better.
The article at the start of the thread didn't touch on the mismanagement parts (haven't read the CNN article yet to check but if it's the one I'm thinking of I read it a few days ago) - I figured that would be a latter addition, assuming that's the article I think it is. Since it's more of a, "on a sidenote" thing - than a shocker like the CEO and execs getting 6-7 digit raises while everything is going down the tubes. Nero fiddling while Rome burns makes a more interesting topic than just mismanagement.
Narrowly agreed, less than 60% approval from the Teamsters and Bakers were voting 9:1 against it.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
^^ This!
Like I said in the other thread that got nuked, there is plenty of blame to be spread around. The company made its share of mistakes and expected the labor to pay for the mistakes of the company. Thats not a very ggod way to run a business. The union is just the scapegoat here, the company doesnt want to admit they made some bad decisions in recent times which led to this situation.
http://www1.salary.com/Chief-Executive-Officer-Salary.html
How is that relevant?
That if the full numbers were parsed out it would've been between 40-50% that agreed with it counting both unions. A huge number of the employees wanted them to vote against it - the union was representing their people as they wished to be represented.
Unions are awful when they quash the voice of the people this was not occurring in this case. If the union had caved, likely those 40-50% would've quit anyhow and the same results would've happened.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
You cannot have missed the fact that the article is a giant invective against Republicans and Mitt Romney, neither of whom, as far as I can tell, had anything at all to do with Hostess' undoing. The article's format is, "Look, here's a company that went down the tubes, let's find some way of blaming Republicans for it and everything else."
In fact, I'm willing to bet it was precisely this complete lack of objectivity that made you choose this article to link to, as there were plenty of news organizations you could have gotten more accurate information from.
And what is your point?
The fact of the matter is we have one labor union that agreed, and another labor union that didn't. I know you want to make this as simple as "labor union vs. management," but it isn't. There were two labor unions involved in the discussion, and it seems pretty clear that none of the parties involved, Teamsters, Baker's Union, or management, came out free from blame.
No. One union, representing its people, voted for. The other union, representing its people, went against it.
I know you want this to be a black-and-white case. It's not.
And the fact of the matter is, when most people vote against something with their union and the union still goes forward with it to the extreme that this is, a large amount of those people walk out (as well as some that voted in agreement hesitantly) and companies cannot continue to operate without employees.
Its one of the largest dangers of unions in fact that in many ways it's damned if you do, damned if you don't with big sweeping stuff like that.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Which is not what happened. One union decided it would go through with it based on a majority vote. The other union went against it.
You seem to want to portray this as a union voting for something against what its members wanted. That is not what happened. The Teamsters had a majority of members vote in favor.
Once again, I know you want this to be a fight between good and evil, but it's not that simple. The plot is a lot deeper than the shallow fight of men in white hats vs. men in black hats you want it to be.
That's not how unions work unfortunately - no matter which side you take on the argument the "if the union agreed, everything would've been fine" angle requires a lack of understanding about how unions effect the equation.
That's a huge part of why I personally, as an HR person absolutely avoided union companies myself - because you're damned if you damned if you don't in many cases - that being one - losing 90% of an important position if you get the union to agree contrary to the views of the individuals you're still screwed.
I don't like unions personally - the only positive I've said (and continue to say) of this one, is that they represented their people as they asked the union to do. And yes, two unions being involved at once does muddle things even more, as much as I hate unions at all, I'd pull my hair out having to navigate two at once, not sure how that was ever allowed to happen - seems better if your workers unionize to get them to consolidate, for both the employer and employee.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
You do know the teamsters and the bakers union are different unions, don't you?
If no one was manufacturing product for them, which 90% of those people voted no and would've likely walked if the union went contrary to them - what product would they ship? And of course note that they were a union REQUIRED business - union membership was mandatory. So no chance of staying open as a scab shop or anything.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
There are caretakers and then there are entrepreneurs, there are leaders and there are managers. If I want someone to manage my lawn, I will pay them to manage that lawn well. If I seek them to cultivate an exquisite garden on my front lawn by taking the initiative and leadership to create a wonderful gardening space I will pay them a lot more.
This is where skills separation, even among the higher managers in any company. There's also stories about "head work" among other things that also factor into corporations. Some companies at specific levels do become a civil service, and it becomes an honest problem.
Furthermore, there have been some venture capitalists that have called into question the pay for CEO's in general and especially the mediocre variety that demand high pay and golden parachutes. Not every CEO is an entrepreneur, as an entrepreneur is both a manager and a leader and an inventor. There are others that are, just, mediocre and do not expand companies at all and are overall a bad investment that would be better placed into research and development.
And in part this is also a direct negotiating point, such as what happened with USX and other companies during the 1980's. One side doesn't budge, the other sends a message of incompetency to the other. Everyone breaks down, and the company goes down the ****ter. People decide based on emotion and justify through logic, and symbols are important to power.
"I gave up my pay increase and decreased my pay by 25%, I'm asking for everyone of you to give up 8% until the company is afloat."
That's symbolism in politics, and the bigger the company the more politics there are.
That's more of a problem with the structure of companies and a lack of different experimentation. Co-ops and the like tend to be better for workers in regions and small niche markets. However, there's also a distinct lack of domestic small and medium sized companies engaging in global trade which does contribute to the lack of job generation to equalize trade with areas such as China. So it's even the entrepreneurs that have lost the knack to creating new institutions to encourage global free trade.
Most of these "Management vs. unions" ends up with both sides being stupid and pissy, until either the company faces distinct death or a miraculous recovery. It's also very Madisonian and another reason why "anarchy" doesn't work much.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I'm going to agree with 1Drop here. Declining sales definitely killed the business as consumer preferences changed (1990s-present). The flailing around of all parties involved and the refusal to diversify their products only ensured the inevitable demise. Everything was compounded by the recession right as Hostess hit the bottom of their debt barrel too. Blaming the new CEOs is just making them a scapegoat for longstanding problems. And blaming the unions at all is certainly making them a scapegoat, especially after the unions already made a bunch of concessions in the years since Hostess first filed for bankruptcy.