Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Union Sticks It to Hostess and Leaves Workers Jobless
Realville, USA ^ | Nov 16, 2012 | Ombud

Posted on 11/16/2012 8:39:19 PM PST by SquarePants

I guess there was a time when unions did some good. I know my great grandfather was a big supporter of them, but frankly I can't see where they do anything good at all anymore. From the time I was a kid, all I've ever understood about them was that they're associated with organized crime, and they're physically violent and proud of it. But over the last couple of years I've learned a little bit more, and I have to say I'm not at all enthusiastic about what I've seen.

First it was SEIU union thugs tossing beatdowns at TEA Partiers, and Democrat Congressmen letting them shout down citizens at constituent forums. Then it was the teacher's union in Wisconsin, trashing their statehouse and generally acting like a bunch of lawless creeps who I wouldn't trust with my children for a minute. Now it's a union killing their own employer and one of America's most ubiquitous brands.

The last couple of days I kept hearing about how Hostess management said they would be forced to cease operations and liquidate the company's assets if the union wouldn't agree to a deal. I figured it would be like most other labor disputes, with brinksmanship being tempered by the obvious reality that the workers would be better off with a job than with nothing at all.

But I was wrong. The unions decided to let their last hope of saving anyone's jobs go, and now the company looks like they'll be liquidated, and every single employee will lose their job. Amazing. Stating that the company doesn't have the resources to weather an extended strike, Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn announced today that everyone's losing their jobs, and the company's assets will be sold. Big win for the union, I guess, but it's a huge loss for the 18,000 workers. Correction. Ex-workers.

The most mystifying thing about is that most likely Twinkies and Ding-Dongs and their related products will survive. The product brands will be sold, and we probably won't have to suffer any type of interruption in our Twinkie supply, thank God. The ownership will get screwed, of course, having to sell the brands for whatever they can get. But the biggest losers are the workers. With unemployment at 8% and likely to go higher based on all the layoff announcements I've seen the past couple of weeks, how many of these workers do you ecpect to find jobs at all, much less better jobs?

To everyone's great relief, the union bigwigs who caused it all will be ok. None of them are likely to lose their jobs, and they'll no doubt prance on, free to create more suffering at whatever lucky company gets to host their next shakedown. I wonder how many of the people in that picture up top had any idea how successful they'd be at "sticking it to the man?" Somehow I doubt this is the outcome they wanted.

I'm not sure what the deal was that the Hostess workers' union rejected, but I have to wonder if the union bigwigs feel like their workers are somehow better off with another 18,000 of them out of work. Well, they got what they wanted.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Politics
KEYWORDS: hostess
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last
To: Catsrus
I hope I’m wrong, but I foresee a day when we have rioting in our streets.

You may be right about that. This Hostess story probably came closer to violence than most people realize. In the last days before the company decided to liquidate, they ended up with a situation where the Teamsters union was authorized by their own leadership to cross the picket line of the bakers union.

I predict that's going to be the ultimate demise of labor unions in this country ... when one is pitted against another as employment opportunities for low-skill labor shrink considerably.

51 posted on 11/17/2012 4:37:03 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SquarePants

Looks like most of those workers are hispanics. Now the illegals will be unemployed as well. I think soon unemployment will reach 25% across the country and then things will start getting nasty.


52 posted on 11/17/2012 4:52:52 AM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SquarePants
A Reuters article on Yahoo Finance Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business lead with "(Reuters) - Hostess Brands Inc, the bankrupt maker of Twinkies snack cakes and Wonder Bread, is seeking a U.S. court's permission to go out of business..."

PERMISSION? To stop working??? Welcome to the American Gulag comrades.
53 posted on 11/17/2012 4:59:41 AM PST by NamVet71MP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gemoftheocean
HE eventually quit because he said that a lot of the union leaders were “As corrupt as some of the bas***d owners we were trying to fight.”

My grandfather had to join a union at the last place he worked - after his own business had been squeezed out by a company (from Chicago) who used mob tactics - and he had similar thoughts. He despised the absentee company men (from Chicago) that drove out occasionally to check on the peons, but he reserved the majority of his scorn for the union bosses (from Chicago) that drove out occasionally to check on the peons.

Mr. niteowl77

54 posted on 11/17/2012 5:03:42 AM PST by niteowl77 (Getting stuck with other peoples' just desserts good and hard for over 50 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SquarePants

55 posted on 11/17/2012 5:09:50 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Benghazi: What Did Baraq Know And When Did He Know It?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
My employer doesn’t discriminate against minorities, women, the aged, but if your work history shows you were in a union, you’re not going to get hired.

When I went back to school, I got to help choose my replacement before leaving the small company I worked for. One idiot had the gall to include "Union Organizer" on his resume. We called him just to see if he would come in, but he was a no-show for his appointment.

56 posted on 11/17/2012 5:35:39 AM PST by EricT. (The GOP's sole purpose is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

Let them eat Twinkies.


57 posted on 11/17/2012 5:36:11 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (In the game of life, there are no betting limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NamVet71MP

It’s likely a formality required by bankruptcy proceedings.

No judge is going to tell them not to stop working....

Yet.


58 posted on 11/17/2012 7:19:16 AM PST by PittsburghAfterDark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

And, at the new company, they will be at the bottom of the seniority list.


59 posted on 11/17/2012 7:23:15 AM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SquarePants
Hello,

Looking for contacts at Hostess.
Deal in distressed type merchandise.

Thanks,
Kenny
laustinmo@netscape.net

60 posted on 11/17/2012 7:25:49 AM PST by laustinmo (WE are the government, THEY are politicians!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

No. We don’t deal with any tangible products. Just data. “Scan Based Trading” is our biggest product. We have an online app and I work Support.
I talked with a few at Hostess a lot.


61 posted on 11/17/2012 7:53:09 AM PST by babyfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks SquarePants.
Stating that the company doesn't have the resources to weather an extended strike, Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn announced today that everyone's losing their jobs, and the company's assets will be sold. Big win for the union, I guess, but it's a huge loss for the 18,000 workers. Correction. Ex-workers. The most mystifying thing about is that most likely Twinkies and Ding-Dongs and their related products will survive. The product brands will be sold, and we probably won't have to suffer any type of interruption in our Twinkie supply, thank God.
The union bosses will still get their paychecks, and go on to bigger and better unions to destroy more jobs. And of course, this is also a stealthy Obamacare story.


62 posted on 11/17/2012 8:35:04 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


That's a Big Twinkie
63 posted on 11/17/2012 8:40:28 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SquarePants

This particular union’s bigwigs have now ticked off the Teamsters. Some union on union violence coming? For some reason I couldn’t care less if it does...


64 posted on 11/17/2012 9:14:09 AM PST by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep

Soon to be made in China with melamine added as a flavor enhancer!


65 posted on 11/17/2012 9:31:59 AM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Or... government twinks.


66 posted on 11/17/2012 10:47:12 AM PST by ataDude (Its like 1933, mixed with the Carter 70s, plus the books 1984 and Animal Farm, all at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SquarePants

This blather totally ignores the insane burden fedgov regulations but on state economies.


67 posted on 11/17/2012 12:02:29 PM PST by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar; SquarePants

Ooops, prev comment posted in wrong thread...


68 posted on 11/17/2012 12:07:06 PM PST by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SquarePants

It’s what unions do best.


69 posted on 11/17/2012 12:32:46 PM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep

I could have bought and sold a virtual Twinkie. Too late now.


70 posted on 11/17/2012 12:43:25 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep

Googled it. Hey, and I’d not heard of that before.

Scan based trading means that Hostess owned that Twinkie till somebody bought it at the cash register, by scanning as is the modern mode. And here I was thinking that Wal-Mart had bought it wholesale.


71 posted on 11/17/2012 12:47:58 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

The feds tried that with the Mustang Ranch. They couldn’t successfully sell sex and booze. How incompetent does that tell you they are?


72 posted on 11/17/2012 1:03:44 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: HiTech RedNeck

Walmart may have - as Hostess doing SBT thru us with WM. Other retailers, though...several others.


74 posted on 11/17/2012 3:28:00 PM PST by babyfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep

I meant “Hostess wasn’t doing SBT thru us with WM”.


75 posted on 11/17/2012 3:29:31 PM PST by babyfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep

Well no, would that not be two different things? If Wal Mart bought the Twinkies outright that were delivered to its warehouse, that’s not scan based trading any more, if Wikipedia’s article on it is correct. Scan based trading happened only when the Twinkies remained in Hostess’ legal possession until a retail customer rang it up at a register and paid.


76 posted on 11/17/2012 3:33:47 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep

oh. that’s what i thought.


77 posted on 11/17/2012 3:34:19 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep

Which would have given Wal-Mart more freedom to do what it wanted with the Twinkies. Instead of being contracted to do a consignment sale on Hostess’ terms, it owned the Twinkies and could mark them down to clearance shelves near end of code, give them away in promos, whatever.


78 posted on 11/17/2012 3:36:53 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Walmart is such a big buyer that it already can do pretty much whatever it wants with it’s vendors. Big buyers with clout have onerous rules, and the infraction of said rules causes chargebacks (fines against the cost of the merchandise). So they not only strike a favorable deal based on volume, but can incrementally lower the price all sorts of ways.


79 posted on 11/17/2012 3:52:10 PM PST by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: visualops

yeah, i’d just want to sell them the stuff outright, and let walmart worry about it from there


80 posted on 11/17/2012 3:57:43 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

scan based trading is only going to work in particular situations. It benefits the vendor only so much as it gives an inside track on sales and inventory levels, and likely might get you in a store that you might otherwise not (since the retailer is not making any investment in inventory) but that is a double edged sword since it isn’t sold until...sold. From a manufacturers or distributors perspective that would be rather tenuous IMHO. It’s beneficial to a retailer if they essentially are not having to invest in inventory if there isn’t a buy-back policy (unsold items returned to vendor). Some retailers want more control, for instance larger chains have their own distribution centers. Some suppliers directly supply stores rather than the DC’s though (fresh food for instance). It depends on the product. They are also likely to get a better price buying up front and assuming some of the risk. I can see where there would be some advantages for both sides.


81 posted on 11/17/2012 4:17:27 PM PST by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Eva

That is a really nice story, Eva.

Takes me back to simpler (and I think better) times, when families did what they could and got by as well as possible and viewed something like a “boughten” shortcake as a wonderful treat and rarity.

(p.s. With apologies to the perfectly fine Twinkies among us, of course!)


82 posted on 11/17/2012 4:23:53 PM PST by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey

Also, the recipe for these things didn’t read like the parts list on Junior’s chemistry set.


83 posted on 11/17/2012 4:27:06 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

You gotta point there.

On the other hand I live near a university town and everybody there avoids beef, sugar, nuts, gluten, fructose, lactose, fractose and craptose...

And somehow they’re still always sick and tired and whinin’ about it.

Oh for the good old days lol...


84 posted on 11/17/2012 5:14:15 PM PST by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Our suppliers give retailers promotional costs, on occasion, too. Most of the advantages of SBT are on the retailers’ side. They don’t have to stock perishable items and split the shrink cost with their suppliers. It frees up retailer resources, too. They don’t have to keep inventory or manage orders and deliveries.
I have a feeling the retailers Hostess is doing SBT with will be selling thru the product and still paying them per sale.


85 posted on 11/17/2012 6:21:56 PM PST by babyfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

And Bimbo, who just might take over these sugary snack names, is one of my biggest SBT customers (along with some others mentioned here).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2960754/posts


86 posted on 11/17/2012 6:59:42 PM PST by babyfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep

They sound like a logical choice. The product is at their level. I understand Bimbo has its own line of Hispanic themed sweet snacks. They’d probably sell on both sides of the border. Twinquis here we come.


87 posted on 11/17/2012 7:17:08 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson