BobbyG and Here ..... + Jeff below, it's called an employment contract which, in all probability, contains the end of employment agreement with the CEO and other management officials. The Bakers Union also had an employment contract in behalf of its members. Unfortunately, agreement on the terms for renewal were not mutually agreed to and the contract ended, along with 15,000+ jobs. CEOs don't get good termination terms unless the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors accepts them. The Board represents the owners -- you know, those people willing to risk their capital by investing in the Company. The company was worth a lot more before entering Chapter 11 (reorganization/downsizing) bankruptcy, so the owners lost a ton of money by not selling the company several years ago.

The Teamsters Union was willing to come to agreement for lesser compensation on behalf of its members, but the Bakers Union wasn't. End of story!! There are no winners here!!!

Groupo Bimbo from Mexico will buy it and take the jobs to Mexico.

Suck it Rayburn, we took your company down. <middle digit>

Great, every body goes home collect unemployment check and food stamps this is the way to go America. Don't blame China and every one else for taking away your job you and your union did your self in. Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

I see Bimbo Twinkies in our future. http://www.bimbobread.com/

nn

Mrs. Coppers Mom,

I have NEVER had 40 hour work weeks, or overtime pay. I have always been "exempt" from labor laws because I got a college degree. I have always made less than the Union grunts that installed my designs and who I supervised and taught. They had 7 hour work days and overtime while I have worked 9-10 hour days with no overtime pay. I think Unions stink.

I wonder if the 15,000 JOBS will be counted as "JOBS LOST", "JOB OPENINGS", or "UNFILLED JOBS CREATED" in the next round of Department of Labor statistics (spearheaded by SEIU).

Standy Boeing.....SEIU, Trumpka, and Soros are coming after you

Sorry

So, how'd that strike work out for you...?

Not so good, I think.

Seems to me having a job without getting all the perks is better than not having a job at all.

I wonder how the union's gonna raise money through due now...?

Hostess went under due to the costs of Union pension and benefits, and management not understanding the healthier direction of their consumers. Simple as that.

Uncle Bob 1.17; Looks like you did your homework, thanks for the info. That's information the union bashers won't pay any attention to. Do you know if the judge allowed the extra payout to the executives who are staying behind? I remember that as being an issue but the article didn't mention it.

Uncle Bob please at least get past the 10th grade before speaking that complete nonsense about economics and business..Antoher GED educated minimum wage earning liberal..hush ..the grown ups are speaking

liberalequalscretin; looks like Uncle Bob put a lot more thought and research in to his post than you did. At least he contributed to the conversation. All you did was make an uncalled for, personal comment.

It's official. Twinkies are toast, at least as far as being a Hostess product is concerned.

Looks like my cousin made the right decision to buy, buy, buy Twinkies for future resale... Good Job Duke... :-)

its amazing to me that people think work, is a past-time needing to be managed by someone else....I take pride in fighting my own battles...yeah, believe it or not, I ask for my own raise, I dont have some nasty strip-club loiterer ask for my raise for me....

Unions are for the weak who cant stand on their own two feet, who think they have the RIGHT to work at a job no one wants around anymore...

Unions....consuming jobs, to the point of non-existence

may this be the next revolution?????

Yawn. Just another example of republican scum leeching off of the backs of honest Americans. Rayburn pockets a cool 1.7 million on top of his regular compensation package to sell off the mess he created, and the American taxpayers foot the bill for unemployement, healthcare, and food stamps for 15,000 people Greg Rayburn personally sent to the poor house.

Rayburn gets to take a nice vacation all expenses paid courtesy of the Cayman Island bank where he'll be depositing his millions from this trainwreck he created, and the poor taxpaying working saps get to enjoy bailing out his mess.

Americans need to wake up to the fact that republicans are domestic terrorists who have done far more against this country than their islamic brothers. Time to start rounding up and putting these cowardly, panty waisted, sex-with-young-boys-in-public-restroom loving republicans in internment camps or they'll happily fulfil their promise to turn America into a third-world sh@thole.

This was just a ploy to bust the union. Mission accomplished.

The unions are at fault and the libs who bash the executives who had to make a hard decision are total idiots! The most pure economical ideal is that if you do not make money as a company, you do not exist for long! The union contract was a huge weight on the company and it made it impossible for the company to have any return on investment. Only in a liberal mindset would a company totally ignore the profit motive and just exist to give jobs!

The union knew that its demands were ridiculous, but, they believed that with their "Dear Leader" in power they could ask for the moon and the Obamessiah would force the nasty capitalists to bow down and take it up the poop-shoot! These idiots seem to forget that there are many investors in Hostess, also known as "share holders" and they deserve to get some kind of return on their shares. The liberals believe, like they did with the GM bondholders, that making any kind of money is in itself immoral and is frowned upon by the "more enlightened" liberals who populate our government!

I am not saying that Hostess is blameless. They ignored the swing towards healthier food and they did not rein in the unions over the last decade. The fact is that the union knew that they were employed by a dying business, but, they could not get enough from Hostess and quickened an inevitable death! Of course, the liberals condemn the "executives" who "pillaged" the company and will "profit" from the dismembering of Hostess. The fact is that most of these executives will soon be unemployed with the union workers and they would have preferred to find a solution, any solution, to stop Hostess from dissolving!

Uncle Bob your comment at 1.17 is one of the best summaries of what happened to hostess. It is sad that our right-wing in our great country are so anti-union and so pro-CEO they will ignore the clear evidence and continue to try and hang this on the Unions.

Not only did the Unions give back millions in pensions and such to keep the company alive, but they took pay cuts for the last few years, And benefits cuts.

The CEO wanted MORE pay cuts 27% more and wanted them to pay nearly there entire health care cost, along with the ending of there pension something they have paid into for years that the company promised to pay back the second the company was profitable again when they took it.

The great American Corporation Dream, close the business, destroy the union workforce and sell to some one else, hope you like your Twinkies made in China or Mexico! Regan started this @!$%#!

Amazing how management gave themselves raises for destroying a company --no advertising, no product changes in light of the fattening up of our nation, 2 bankruptcies in 8 years.

All this talk about unions this, and unions that as some would do what often happens, leave the labor at the short end of the stick, while prioritising bonuses and the like up top; but not one mention about what could well effect their business itself, what demand there is wrt their own product....

I'll be honest here, as a consumer, I would have had a part, and quite frankly am rather indifferent one way or the other, even with this news. I didn't care for a lot of their products, and haven't in a long, long time.

- Wonder bread? Oh it might have been cheap on the store shelves, but it always seemed to have a lot more air in that bread, then competitors, and also seemed kinda bleh, on the taste department. I guess with the price, also went the rising of the dough more, so there'd be more air in it. I simply do not, and never really had cared for Wonder bread, as a brand.

Now many parents might get it for their kids, I could care less to buy it for myself... Besides, living in Jersey as I had since 2008, there's actual bakeries around here that bake better bread then that.

- Twinkies? Eh, I have no such craving for those. As one consumer, I just really don't care for them very much.

- Donuts? Dunken donuts taste better then Hostess donuts.

I mean, right down the list, they really haven't appealed to me. So perhaps, if instead of trying to blame people for having something to say about dwindling issues, some look was taken to some of the products, and why consumers would prefer someone elses product vs. their own, perhaps more sales would have been had. I really, honestly, can't say I'll miss Hostess or it's products, one way, or another; speaking wrt what I myself would buy with my own hard earned dollars...

OhGuy yes how dare the union demand that several hundred million to 2 billion pension fund be repaid. I pension fund nearly completely funded by the workers. The fund the previous CEO asked for to keep the company alive a few years back promising to pay it back.

Sorry, but NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton, NOT Ronald Reagan! If this was such a TERRIBLE thing why did one of the libs greats, Billy Bob Joe Bob Clinton sign it? I guess you need to put some of the blame on the Democrats then, huh!?

Dan M-110064 NAFTA passed with a veto proof majority Clinton had no choice but to sign it.

We showed them, by golly. Now we get to draw lots of un-employment for a while.

B.S., neoatg, did they hold a gun to his head?.

Blaming nafta for losing jobs is naive to the max. By 1970 only one farm implement company manufactured its products in america. It went bankrupt a couple of years later. I know this will be difficult for you to understand, so read this next line very carefully.

1970 was before nafta.

Yes Clinton should of pointlessly vetoed it that way when the right claims Clinton signed it I could show them they are wrong that way. Just like those on the right claim the only reason Clinton did so well was because of the GOP congress. Despite the fact they fought Clinton's plan tooth and nail needing a Vice presidential tie breaker to get it passed.

Its ok GAMESA will buy them out lol. And make them in Mexico. They are owned by Frito Lay though.

It's ok neoatg, I don't blame nafta anyway. Anti-capitalism is the reason we are losing. The negative balance of trade is killing us. The loss of our jobs was in full swing many years before nafta. I doubt that there is any hope for this country, I want to secede. It's just that I am offended by b.s.

Vulture Capitalism eat the whole Twinke.

Hostess now going the way of Beatrice Foods - remember them???

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

The problem wasn't the union, it was the piss poor management.

The unions did it. No No it was all management's fault.

All the partisan bickering, snarky comments and finger pointing are a waste of time. The hard reality is that 15,000 families lost most, or a big part, of their income the day before Thanksgiving. And another 3,500 will also lose theirs in a few months. The chances of quickly finding new employment in this economy are pretty slim. And, since most people live paycheck to paycheck, it's only be a matter of time until those families are behind on their rent and house payments. Not a pretty picture is it?

Think about that while you are stuffing your partisan pie holes tomorrow.

neoatg

Dan M-110064 NAFTA passed with a veto proof majority Clinton had no choice but to sign it.

That's absolute horseshyt. The GOP did not have 2/3 control of both houses of Congress to over-ride a Presidential veto.

Bush Sr couldn't even get NAFTA passes as a GOP President with a GOP Congress...

Clinton Fast Tracked NAFTA through Congress. If you don't know what that means, look it up.

Clinton wasn't put in a position of saying "well, they're just going to over-ride me anyway if I veto it so what's the point of saying no"....it was CLINTON'S agenda in the first place. Only the President had the authority to fast track trade legislation.

Herewego -

Unions are, in fact, incorporated. Look it up instead of looking ignorant just because you swallowed the liberal propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Just another example of republican scum leeching off of the backs of honest Americans.

How do you know he is a Republican? There are just as many, if not more, wealthy people who are Democrats. Obama and Biden are both millionaires!

$20 per hour bakers were asked to take an 8% pay cut. They said "No" and got a 100% pay cut. How's that taste now?

Even if poor management is part an parcel to Hostess closing... it does no good to strike for more money, when there is none...only to lose your job altogether.

Talk about cutting off your nose despite your face.

When you see your meal ticket sinking, you don't throw it an anchor!

Stupid union and workers did just that. They wanted a bleak and nasty thanksgiving and christmas and they got it.

Not one of the workers were chained to their jobs. If they didn't like where they worked and the pay, they had the option of looking for another job. They had absolutely no right not to go along with the other unions and help Hostess survive.

Now I want to know how many of these workers are professional sports fans and complain about the multimillion dollar salaries these sports players get for just showing up for a 3 hour game?????

How many of them picketed and demanded that Rodriguez of the Yankees should resign and not take his $35,000,000 for playing like an old lady in the playoffs and hitting .273 in the regular season?

I sincerely doubt that that $35,000,000 that Rodriguez got and will continue getting for the next 4-5 years will be credentials to run a major company. In the corporate world you get what you pay for. So what if the CEO got a 300% pay raise! He was over seeing a company $1.2 billion in debt with almost a billion dollar payroll that lost $300 million dollars last year. Sales were down 3% last year and the country is still in a recession. Hostess needed the best people to get it out of the hole. So much fuss the CEO resigned and Hostess went bankrupt.

And the total jobs lost will be over 20,000 not 18,500. You forget the domino effect. The suppliers will have to cut back on their staff due to the lost business. The liquidation will take a year. That means there will be no one either in the U.S. or overseas that will be able to obtain the patents and assets until everything is sold.

WHAT A GREAT CHRISTMAS STORY!

TiagoBr

Let me guess... Tea Party???

Let me guess... Far Leftest Liberal???

I guess the unions were "envy" of the poor CEO that gave himself $2 million raise last year while demanded worker's pay cuts reducing average salary from $16/hour to $12/hour in average, cutting healthcare, cutting pensions, not to mention the immediate cut in work hours.

On average bakers make $46,000 per year which works out to $22.12/hr. They were asked to take an 8% decrease for 1 year which still left them at $42320 yr/$20.35/hr. The next three years they would receive 3% per year and 1% the last year. That would bring them to over $50000yr/$24.15hr within 5 years. The Company would cut the companies contribution to employee health plan from 100% to 83%. In exchange they were offered 25 percent equity ownership stake in the company, two seats on its nine-member board of directors and $100 million worth of interest-bearing debt. Many people would LOVE TO HAVE this package!

Evidently you alos fail to read the correction in the Huffington Post on this so called Union Rumor about CEO Raises. Let me post it for you.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.

Further down in the article it states:

April....Rayburn,CEO, announced he would cut his pay and that of other executives to $1 until Dec. 31 or whenever Hostess came out of bankruptcy.

huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/gregory-rayburn-raise_n_2147043.html

Yes... You are right... This failure is all about greedy unions that destroyed this great American company (Which BTW, still makes the most popular bakery products in the nation).

Greedy??? Let me enlighten you on some of Hostess Union's demands. First, Hostess’s 372 collective-bargaining agreements required the company to maintain 80 different health and benefit plans, 40 pension plans and mandated a $31 million increase in wages and health care and other benefits for 2012. Do you have any clue as to how much this cost an organization?????

Also Union work rules required cake and bread products to be delivered to a single retail location using two separate trucks. In other words Twinkies could not be on the same truck as Wonder Bread. Drivers weren’t allowed to load their own vehicles, and the workers who loaded bread weren’t allowed to load cake. On most delivery routes, another “pull up” employee moved products from back rooms to shelves. With fuel close to $4/gal, do you have any earthly idea what the companies fuel cost are!!! Delivery trucks don't get the best mileage. Not to mention insurance cost, liability cost, overhead costs and the list goes on. Unnecessary costs that could be going back into wages & benefits.

Somebody needs to pop this republican bubble asap...

Someone needs to pull your head out of the sand! Can you not see how idiotic these agreements are to any company! You haven't a friggin clue....

The worst part of all this, the CEO's will survive, but what happens to the 18000+ workers because one Union Group bargained every person's job down the fricken drain. Like I said most people in this country would dream of such a package and gladly take it. Heck the other Union groups agreed upon it. These jobs are gone to these people and trust me, if someone buys the company it will be opened either out of the country or in a non-union state.

Typical business, since we ran the country in to the ground let's take the money and file bankruptcy. Look at Enron, now look at Hostess. But before Hostess filed they took 1.75 million in bonuses and then claimed they had no money.

@ John-2032532:

Its un-American Gangster Capitalism. Evil management voting themselves bonuses, robbing the Pension Fund. Its vulture capitalism harvesting Gekko style. President Obama and Elizabeth Warren can work together to nail these cap saps. Treat them like Organized Crime and sentence them to hard time prison sentences, get the FBI and IRS in their faces. When they are incarcerated, their parole hearings will be attended by members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), to register no parole testimony for any of them. It tastes a lot like Justice served!

The Teamsters are highly skilled workers, and they know the Twinkie business.

Why don't they create their own snack food company?

What's being lost sight of here is that there's plenty of blame to go around. Sure, some of the union rules don't make sense, but to claim that it's all the unions fault ignores reality. While it may appear the unions commited suicide, having your pay reduced to barely above poverty levels (and depending on the cost of living in some places, below it) would be a hard to choice to make and for some employees, no choice.

And another point lost in this is 'managment' is supposed to manage; their job is to make this all work. The current environment seems to think that when they fail, it's somehow the workers fault. Let's face it, these CEOs and corporate officers don't have God-like infallible judgement; placing the blame on others merely masks the underlying problem.

Until some segments of corporate america stops treating it's employees as throw-away bits of the machinery and profit is their only goal, expect to see more of this..

CrazySteve: Unfortunately, we HAVE been seeing this brand of vulture capitalism, since the early 1970s when it became the Harvard Business School teaching model.

It happened to the company I worked for in 1975. Almost as soon as the Harvard Business School grad (Romney was one at the same time) took over, he became a millionaire (he'd conned everybody in this natural foods business by merely looking like a hippie).

Then he began selling the company, at enormous profits, bit by bit by bit. It was relentless; all the original employees were eventually laid off.

What he was really selling was the enormous popularity of a just burgeoning company about to take wing-- in legal terms, its GOODWILL.

What began as a mom & pop natural foods store is now a Japanese-owned corporation selling a limited number of soy products. Very sad

The Harvard business model has changed, but not the mindset of the people who learned it back then, who now rule the business world. I have hope for the next generation of business leaders, but we clearly need extensive regulation we no longer have.

We'll have to start by getting rid of "opinion journalism" which is not journalism at all but deliberate misinformation by reigning multi-billionaires like Rupert Murdoch (an Australian).

We used to have truth-in-advertising laws (and laws requiring free air time for opposing political viewpoints and a ban against drug ads!); we need to bring those back and make them apply to TV "news" as well.

We are only so polarized because corporations own TV and determine everything we watch, and many of us no longer read our news at all, or look for truthful news, which is extremely rare in TV Land.

Our president was correct in saying only we the people can change the culture of Washington. And only we the people can change the corruption of journalism in TV broadcasting.

Where my hope falters is, the greedy corporate bastards are completely willing to contaminate the planet to the extinction of our species just to gain a few more years of exorbitant profits in fossil fuels. They are completely willing to spend billions against science. The planet is at a tipping point.

We wouldn't face any kind of "fiscal cliff" now but for failure of a corporate-sponsored Congress to allow the sunset of tax cuts for the wealthy--that's been proven. And in the last year alone, Obama--without congressional assistance of any sort--has reduced the deficit by 200 billions, but most folks don't know that because your corporate sponsors want you to live in a constant frenzy of financial fear.

Instead of bashing unions because they have benefits/pensions we may not have--and today, only 6% of the American labor force is unionized--we should all be unionized and supporting unions! Unions brought us the 5-day, 40-hour work work week, breaks and lunchtimes, overtime pay, healthcare benefits, pensions, and OSHA regulations to help keep us safe at work. Today, some employees are being told they cannot even pee while at work!

In the past 30 years, Congress has written no laws--only corporate lawyers are writing laws. That's why corporations have such enormous legal advantages in every area of law. Only a third of the House of Representatives are lawyers; we need a constitutional amendment requiring that all federal lawmakers be lawyers, and write the laws themselves.

But let's start simply, by demanding corrupt, corporate-sponsored journalism be eliminated from TV.

Again, to those who talk only about executives who got huge raises.

That is not the whole story!

In march 2012 after the CEO raised his salary to 2 1/2 times his previous salary While lowering other managements salaries, the Hostess corporate board FIRED HIM and returned the CEO salaries to the previous level.

After filing for bankruptcy these same remaining executives took a cut to a $1.00 annual salary to save the company

But no, wealth class warfare must continue regardless of the facts.

I love it. Union pukes are all fired. How is that working for you Mr. Union Puke???

Uncle Bob 512 and all the above and below this applies to YOU.

Voters
Politicians manipulate voters every day with half-truths -- or outright lies -- about taxes, spending and many other issues that directly affect the nation's prosperity.

Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians -- and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights.

http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress

And Uncle Bob 512 copying and pasting crap from the DNC funded Propaganda Heritage Foundation is almost Plagiarism.

Read clb-462357 post #1.56 - Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:22 AM HST; you might learn something (Facts).

Add:

Why don't you bother to mention that the Bakers Union was demanding the same wages as Bimbo at $21 per hour to watch machines do everything. So what if the customers would have to pay $4.00 per loaf of bread, instead of their competitor's $2.00.

Why don't you mention that 12 Separate US Labor Unions were sucking the blood out of Hostess. You cannot even name those US Labor Unions can you, Uncle Bob 512.

Another point that clb-462357 did not mention was that the Venture Capitalists that were involved with Hostess are run by CEOs that are Registered Demoncraps. And you cannot name those Venture Capitalist Corporations can you Uncle Bob 512.

Dee Turner - Only a third of the House of Representatives are lawyers; we need a constitutional amendment requiring that all federal lawmakers be lawyers, and write the laws themselves.

Are you out of your mind. Lawyers by training are trained to win their arguments by any means, especially Errors of Omission, aka intentionally leaving out Facts, aka LIES. What MUST be done is TRUE Representation of the US Citizens with Random Selection of our Representatives like Jury Duty with Vetting. Then we once again return to Common Sense Laws, not BULLSH!T of bribed by Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups (as Millions USDs required just for Politicians to remain in Office).

Rickeroo - The Teamsters are highly skilled workers, and they know the Twinkie business.

Nope the Bakers Union are known as "Push Button Bakers", paid to watch machines do everything.

Rickeroo - Why don't they create their own snack food company?

Because the 12 Union Leeches that sucked the blood out of the Host(ess) do not create anything.

mgbirish - The great American Corporation Dream, close the business, destroy the union workforce and sell to some one else, hope you like your Twinkies made in China or Mexico! Regan started this @!$%#!

Showing just how uneducated you really are. President Clinton gave China Most Favored Trade Nation Status for Chinese "Donations" (Bribes) as mentioned during his Impeachment Hearings as "Chinagate"; and nope President Obama has not revoked China's Most Favored Trade Nation Status. LOL, most of you believe that it was a coincidence that President Clinton was the previous Governor of Arkansas, the Headquarters of Made In China Walmart. Too bad all of you were so facinated with President Clinton and the Jewish Lobby, Monika Lewinsky, "I did not have sex with that woman"; instead of the actual reasons that President Clinton MUST have been impeached for.

Miss Copper's Mom - Unions, those evil doers who strike fear and anger in the hearts of millions.

Yes, because after the Great Depression, they were taken over by "Italian Organized Crime" and adopted the "Union Tactics" of the Black Shirts of Fascist Mussolini and Brown Shirts of Chancellor Hitler.

Miss Copper's Mom - Oh, wait a minute, are those the guys who got us 40 hour work weeks and overtime pay, plus benefits like health care?

Nice FAILED ATTEMPT, your believing the Union's Propaganda (also adopted from Chancellor Hitler's Propaganda Machine). IT WAS President FDR during and prior to the US Entry into WWII that Nationwide instituted EVERYTHING as Federal Labor Laws, that the US Labor Unions Propaganda machine Claimed to have done.

As the US Labor Unions gains were all wiped out during the Great Depression.

President FDR's Universal Health Care For All US Citizens, Federally Funded Co Ops, and Clinics. US Health Care as managed by the Office of the US Surgeon General, and many programs instituted by the US Military Medical Service Corps (prior to and during WWII, creation of more Health Care Professionals resulting in many surplus US Military Reservists as Doctors and Nurses, that were released to Civilian Practice after their obligations.). It was during the 1950s that the "Italian Organized Crime" that owned the US Insurance Corporations Lobbied (Bribed) US Politicians to end the President FDR Health Care Programs for All US Citizens. The last vestage of President FDR's Health Care is what US Congress currently gets, without the Insurance Corporations, for $50 per month of Unlimited Medical Treatments.

Go ahead and call me a Liar, then at the same time call President Obama a Liar, due to his Interview on Face the Nation, September 20, 2009, as stated by President Obama the Insurance Corporations that manage Medicare overcharge the US Taxpayers by 14% to make profits of $17 Billion to $18 Billion per year (aka Fraud against the US Citizens, that President Obama rewarded the Insurance Corporation's behavior (Fraud) with $67 Billion of US Citizen's Money by US Law, his ACA. Of course you knew that Miss Copper's Mom because you read all of President Obama's ACA (Sarcasm).).

And the fact that President Obama in his President's Proposal (Demand) to US Congress demands "Across the Board Cuts" to all previously budgeted for Programs, Projects, Agencies including chopping the Benefits and Entitlements of the "47%" (actual 49%) to pay for the previously not budgeted for $2.1 Trillion that President Obama spent.

let me see if I got this right; A bankrupt company is going to pay MILLIONS of DOLLARS to it's Exec's? No wonder the company is bankrupt.......... oh that's the american way, right.

More likely that they will divert the final pay of company delivery people and line employees to executive termination bonuses.

Jeff:

When you own the company your goal is to make money. Paying employees and not getting enough in additional revenue to PAY for those workers won't allow you to last too long.

So when YOU own the company you are welcome to spend your money any way you want to whether it is building a jungle gym in the cafeteria, terminate the millions in payouts to management, or close the company because you can't make a profit. But until you own the company then you have no say in the matter.

Sort of like deficit spending, no?

ProBusiness:

Just because you own the company and are taking the risks doesn't mean you get to treat the workers like slaves.

Yes it is their money to do as they wish, but these are people lives. If you are going to have an affect on wide swaths of the american public, you're going to have to play by some rules.

And no you don't get to do whatever you wish with your money. If you're putting people in danger with your spending, you don't get to do that.

Ken,

They were not treated like slaves. They were free to leave any time they wanted to. The company sets the terms of employment. No one is forcing anyone to accept. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to work at the lower wage rate management is now offering. Now, sadly, because of another ridiculous union, no one will be employed making Hostess products and those who enjoy them won't be able to buy them.

They owe them the money -- how can they just abrogate a debt? Workers will be paid before the management or the debtors are paid.

Companies pay employees what they think they are worth. Obviously Hostess thought the managers were worth more than the greedy lazy workers that all just lost their jobs. Here's hoping they are all out of a job for years. Maybe then they would finally appreciate their job. If I was in the area and looking to hire people, if I saw hostess on their resume, it would tell me to move onto the next candidate.

Mr Burns,

In principle I agree with what you are saying. However, I would not "penalize" a potential employee because of the actions of his previous union.

yes those hard working CEO's...sitting in there air condition office...while some lazy ass worker out next to the oven...tote'n them hundred pound sacks of floor...mix'n that dough...dumping that on a conveyer belt to be cut into loafs...going into a nice hot oven...those factory worker's should be ashamed... while the millionaire CEO's rape the company...them dam unions need to respect this corporate greed...

You people are all forgetting that the payouts to ANY employee must go through the bankruptcy court handling the Hostess case. I really doubt that any executive is going to get a "golden parachute" and leave their jobs with a tidy sum. Even if they have an employment contract which dictates a certain amout of money upon leaving employment the court can void it easily. The court can even go back to suppliers who have received payments over the last 6 months and demand that money is sent back to the court!

Golden parachutes are not really effective when the company goes into bankruptcy and I am sure that in reality there will be no executive payouts to outgoing staff. This is just another liberal saw to back up their desires to take all businesses and force them to be "job producers" and not "wealth producers" which benefit the entire economy instead of being "make work" providers!

I change my stance, you are correct ctviking. Democrats do not allow workers to not join unions in some areas, so many workers may of had no choice to to accept the union.

If I saw union organizer or anything else like that however, I would never hire them and warn everyone I knew about the leech.

Ctviking, Mr Burns Yes employees that agree to not only donating there entire pension fund arguably worth billions to keep the company afloat, taking 50% pay cut, and agreeing to pay more of there benefits. Such people are horrible people to have working for you.

Probusiness - Makes perfect sense for a company to give employees raises who destroy a company. Where was product marketing? When was the last time a new product was offered? Why didn't the execs learn their lesson after the 1st bankruptcy?

Jeff-1592116 The company asked the judge for $1.9 million to pay the executives who are not jumping ship who will be overseeing the liquidation. Would you stay with a company where you had no incentive to stay or immediately look for a new job?

PLEASE do research before you put fingers to key board. I really dislike people who make up their fantasies and post it to the comment section.

The average professional baseball play gets paid over $5,000,000 a year and has an average professional career of 5 years. He grosses close to $20,000,000.

He does not over see a company that has 18,500 workers, sales of $2.5 Billion, salaries of almost $1 billion, losses in 2011 of $341 million and total debt of over $2 billion. The two hedge funds that funded Hostess up till now will lose, each, over $100 million to $200 million.

The teamsters forced out the CEO who MAY have had the knowledge to save Hostess.

So Jeff while you may root for your home town sports team, remember the average player is earning at least 3 times what the CEO of Hostess was asking for. Now you have your wish. No HOSTESS and eventually more than 20,000 people without a job. OH YES EX DEMOCRAT LEADERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE TAKEOVER OF HOSTESS. REMEMBER GEPHART? READ THE MAGAZINE FORTUNE FOR AN INDEPTH DAY BY DAY DESTRUCTION OF HOSTESS.

Ken,

The inefficient hostess system and the high wages makes Hostess Ho Hoes $5.49 per box. A box of little Debbie rolls (the equivilent of the Ho Ho) is $1.79 for the same size box.

I would have to venture a pretty good guess that $2.70 is probably the real problem seeing as labor costs approach 50% of the costs and executive salaries would be betweenb 3 & 5% of the total cost.

what you don't realize is that Hostess already knew what it was going to do when they brought in the new CEO. They had NO intention of bargining in good faith. The current CEO is a restructure specialist - someone who specializes in restructring and/or shutting DOWN a company deliberately. He's the one who admitted on tv that there had been previous mismanagement and that the previous management team had given themselves up to 80 -100% RAISES while demanding that workers take paycuts. The previous management also raided the pension fund as well.

The company had NO intention of bargining. It was a ruse to shift blame.

Maybe Boeing should move out of your state. Hostess sound alot like Bain. The CEO will take the money and run to some tax free haven.

i think the union succeeded. instead of conceding more of their incentives to a company that continued to pile on debt WHILE increasing the pay of their management...they f*ed the management and shut the whole mother down.

As someone who was laid off in 2008 at age 60 , you may be rethinking your joy at shutting a company down and laying off 18,000 workers. It is not easy right now getting a full time job anywhere, I am working 2 part time jobs and took early SS just to keep a roof over my head. Shame on anyone who sees this as a victory.

@JKLD - You do not know what you are talking about. Rayburn was brought in to try and save the company. He successfully reached agreements that would have allowed that with all but one union. They had even come to terms with the Teamsters who drive their trucks on a deal to keep the company going. It was the bakers union (The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union) that refused to work with management and made demands that the company could not afford. This liquidation was certainly not the plan from the start with the new CEO as you claim. They would not have brought in a restructuring specialist if the intent from the start was to shut down and they certainly would not have negotiated in good faith and reached deals with their other unions. Rayburn was doing everything he could to try and save the company. I feel sorry for all of the employees who were not part of the BCTGM as well as the BCTGM workers who did not want to strike that lost their jobs because of the greed of the leadership of this one union. This was not about shifting blame, this was about one union's leadership being greedy and killing the company. Of course the union leaders responsible will not take a hit because their union has plenty of other dues paying members to keep paying their fat salaries while the 18,000+ employees of Hostess lose their jobs. As for your claim about management raiding the pension fund, I challenge you to post a link to a reputable source to support this claim. I have not seen this mentioned in any of the articles about this and think this is something that you made up to try and bolster your anti-management agenda. Yes, the previous CEO did boost his salary while asking the unions for concessions and that is why the company showed him the door. The management was trying everything they could to save the company

JS in ND,

A restructure specialist, which is what he is, has 1 job - restructure the company (doing it by whatever means possible, including terminations) or SHUT DOWN. That's what these people do for a living.

He fully admitted on TV that the cause of the company's problems was mismanagement + failure to keep up.

Previous management's renegotiation's had already cut wages while management got raises.

The BOD and the CEO knew exactly what was going to happen. That's WHY he was brought in.

BTW, one of the companies that's looking about buying the brands is the SAME company that offered to buy them for >$500MM several years ago and was rebuffed as a low-ball offer. Now the company is worth less that $200MM. Pretty stupid management decision - one of many.

JKLD, a restructure specialists looks first at devising means whereby the company continues to operate. Having to liquidate the company is a FAILURE to get that job done. He was not brought on to close down the company; he tried, but failed, to save it.

CME,

Unfortunately, there are incidents of RS's coming in with the hidden agenda of shut down. Considering that there had already been 6 CEOs in <10 years, with vast mismanagement over the years + a previous buyout offer that was rejected (by a company that's now considering buying the brands for a lot less than they had originall offered), + the heavily leveraged debt of previous bankruptcys + management RAISES while cutting workers salaries - the current CEO was sent in to save face but shut down the company if he couldn't save face.

While the union's refusal to accept any more cuts is admirable, management gets to blame them instead of themselves, which is exactly where the blame should lay.

If the company needs to be restructured, then it needs to be restructured.

Complaints and excuses are irrelevant.

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but is there anything stopping the 18,000 Hostess Employees from coming together and buying the Hostess assets then re-starting their own company as true stakeholders? Didn't the employees at United Airlines try something similar a number of years ago?

The only excuse is is the people trying to use the Unions as an excuse.

The workers already paid back MEANING THEY HAD THE MONEY IN THE BANK IT WAS THERE'S a pension fund worth likely half a billion to a few billion dollars.

Took a 50% pay cut.

Started paying more for there benefits

And that's just a fraction of what the UNION had already agreed to and was done to try and keep the company alive. The current CEO wanted a NEW 27% pay cut, New shift in the worker paying more for benefits, and that Pension the company swore they would pay back a DEMAND FOR THEM TO KEEP THAT MONEY NEVER PAYING IT BACK.

Jt-456250

They could if they still had that half a billion to 2 or more billion pension fund they all gave into for years. But they already gave that to the company to try and save it.

JKLDwhat you don't realize is that Hostess already knew what it was going to do when they brought in the new CEO. They had NO intention of bargining in good faith. The current CEO is a restructure specialist - someone who specializes in restructring and/or shutting DOWN a company deliberately.

Not exactly sure where you are getting your info, but the present CEO, Rayburn, took over for the prior CEO Driskill who walked out because the Bankruptcy judge denied his compensation contract. Rayburn was hired as CRO, an executive on staff at Hostess prior to Driskill leaving. He was voted in by the board to take over the CEO position. He specialized in Restructuring. Restructuring rairly means shut down. He restructured Indianapolis Downs, who came out of Bankruptcy, he restructured New York City Off Track Betting Association who came out of Bankruptcy. He tried to restructure Worldcom, but it failed. Some make it, some don't. No deliberation to it. Investors put their money into companies to make money. If its closed they make nothing and lose their investment.

He's the one who admitted on tv that there had been previous mismanagement and that the previous management team had given themselves up to 80 -100% RAISES while demanding that workers take paycuts. The previous management also raided the pension fund as well.

You got to watch reading most of these blogs who clearly have their own agenda. Its not what you have written and its all been laid out here. snopes.com/politics/business/hostess.asp

The company had NO intention of bargining. It was a ruse to shift blame.

They certainly did bargain and 4 of the 5 unions that make up Hostess agreed to the terms of the contract. Only the Baker's Union would not agree. You cannot bargain with someone who is not willing to bargain. If it was good enough for 4 Union groups, why not for the last one? I'd say the Bakers had no intention of bargaining and it came back to bite them in the @#%!

"Restructuring" companies are exactly like Bain. Sometimes there's a half-hearted attempt to keep the company afloat but most of the time, they simply "harvest" the company in trouble--as Romney calls it. Same thing here.

Management accrued mountains of debt, tripled CEO pay, gave out managerial bonuses equal to 100% of annual salaries, and did nothing to alter its fat-and-sugar-laden products, market them better, or offer new products of any kind.

The unions gave up 27% of their wages, even as the company failed to pay $600,000 into the pension plan. Workers making $20 an hour were brought down to $12 an hour. Could you support a family on $12 an hour???

"Restructuring" here was a harvest, nothing more.

You do realize that Hostess intended to shut down anyway, don't you? That's why the current CEO was brought in. He is a restructure specialist whose speciality is redoing or shutting down companies. He fully admitted that previous management teams had screwed up and he's the one that exposed the rape of company finances and the worker's pension plan by previous management while they were demanding that the workers take paycuts.

Then at a minimum JKLD, the unions got punked into becoming the fall guy. At best, they committed murder/suicide.

The union had already taken concessions twice, and Hostess had reneged on commitments. Anyone who thinks the union had any blame at all in this is either not following the story or is an absolute fool.

Cappy,

Unfortuantely, you are correct. Whenever a specialist of this type comes into a company, the company will most likely be shut down. That's WHY they're there.

How silly! Exactly what would be the goal of tanking the company? The company will most likely be shut down because it is most likely bankrupt hence the original chapter 11 filing, they brought in a specialist in hopes of saving a sinking ship. The Union strike was the final torpedo.

sdc.clark,

Advantages?

easy - they don't have to pay back the millions of dollars they "borrowed" from the workers' pension fund, for one thing.

Debts owed by the company are settled for pennies on the dollar.

Just 2 of things that they stand to gain.

Management walks away with piles of $ while workers get shafted.

Eric in Oregon,,,,, I'll vote for absolute fools.

JKLD, where are you getting this BS that the management will be walking away with "piles of cash? The bankruptcy court will be overseeing ALL payouts from Hostess and, believe this, they will be more than sensitive to the public perception of what is going on with the company. It is even possible for ALL companies and individuals who received payouts in the last six months to be forced to pay it back, in full, or be held in contempt of court! There is virtually no way to "sneak" huge management "bonuses" undet the rug! Once again the liberals are "making it up as they go along"!

Dan M-1100664 every one of the 6 CEOs of the last 10 years for Hostess Increased there pay by hundreds of thousands to Millions. The current CEO asked the Judge for over 1 and a half million to pay bonus to exes. This was after the executives got bonus before the bankruptcy.

Hostess bankruptcy: The brutal face of American capitalism

21 November 2012

Hostess Brands has sought authorization from the bankruptcy courts to liquidate its bakery business and wipe out the jobs and pensions of 18,500 workers. The 82-year-old company, maker of the well-known brands Wonder Bread and Twinkies, submitted plans last week to close 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers, approximately 5,500 delivery routes and 570 bakery outlet stores throughout the United States.

Company executives blamed their move on a week-long strike by 5,600 members of one of the largest unions at the company, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM). Management gave strikers until November 15 to accept demands for deep wage and benefit cuts and further plant closings—or face liquidation.

But the workers—who are passing through their second company bankruptcy in a decade—said enough was enough. A typical worker saw his pay cut from $48,000 to $34,000, or $16.12 an hour, after the company’s first trip through bankruptcy in 2004.

The latest contract demands would have cut pay to about $25,000, along with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for health insurance. These are poverty-level wages, less than what many workers would receive on unemployment.

When workers rejected this blackmail, the company responded ruthlessly—locking its gates, announcing mass layoffs and terminating the company pension plan. The news media overwhelmingly sided with management, denouncing the workers for striking and suggesting they had chosen collective suicide rather than accepting economic reality…

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/nov2012/pers-n21.shtml

Got it backwards there RAR...............The unions gave the striking workers the bird.

Ya, none of the union bosses lost their jobs now did they. It's just like the "A" holes in Washington D.C. ...the union bosses never pay the price when they "F" up just like in Washington. That's the problem with Washington and the Union bosses. The only way they know how to do things is..... screw the average American while all of them still live high on the hog.

RAR, I never saw the union offer to reduce their pay if they received "performance bonuses" if the company did well! I only heard that the union wanted "more" and would not even think about what was best for the company! The "greed" here is mainly on the side of the union!

Dan M-11000664 you keep showing you know very little about this. The Unions took a near 50% pay cut before this round, agreed and paid more for there benefits before this, and Loaned the company a several hundred million dollar(AT LEAST more likely a billion or two) pension fund before this. The unions agreed to another pay cut, pay more for benefits. The major sticking point was the CEO wanted to Go back on there promise to pay back the pension fund they had taken and spent to keep the company alive. And the CEO wanted them to take a larger pay cut then agreed to.

The Union already gave more then enough to keep a company that could be saved alive. Instead the company saw new executive take millions out of the company and loans made against the company piled on it by the CEOs.

Willie,

How stupid you are. This has NOTHING to do with the POTUS and EVERYTHING to do with total mismanagement of a company.

Was it the POTUS fault that management raided the workers' pension fund? Or was it the POTUS fault that management cut workers' wages while giving themselves a 80-100% RAISE?

Stuff your ignorance where the sun doesn't shine and get some intelligence.

If that's possible.

JLK spends a lot of time here...wonder why he has so much FREE time?

A. I'm female.

B. I took today off - vacation and T'giving holidays :-)

@ JKLD

I agree with you, This has NOTHING to do with the POTUS . . .

Secondly, I don't see that you broke protocol, you didn't call anyone a name, I've seen worse.

Third, you don't owe anyone on here an explanation of why you have time to spend on here, or if you're a male or not. What you said is very mild to some of I've seen said.

Ignore them, they know no better!

Enjoy your Thanksgiving Holiday!!!

JKLD,

While this specifically has nothing to do with our President, it is a similar philosophy that doomed this company and will ultimately doom this country. Why should anyone get a pension? A company should guarantee that you continue to earn close to your salary until you die?

These people who say that Hostess closing has nothing to do with Obama are dead wrong! If you increase costs to a company through direct and indirect taxation, regulation, and labor costs you guarantee that more companies will die, and very soon! Obama and his ilk just think that corporations are tax creators, job creators, and benefit creators with no rights to expect any kind of return on investment! If the investors do not receive any kind of return on their capital, they will keep their money and our economy will die a painful, slow death!

In the negotiations, management wanted to switch to a 401K plan in 2015. The workers were willing to switch Jan 1 2013. The company negotiated a pension plan with the workers and agreed to it. When the company said they couldn't afford the high cost of pensions, the workers agreed to the switch to a 401K plan.

Why should anyone get a pension?

BECAUSE THEY PAID FOR IT. Your Argument is why our country is in such dire straights. You are saying it's ok for a business to steal money from it's empolyees.

I hope they get better help from their union than I did from the 2 unions I have been affiliated with in the past. Despite the money I had to pay them every month just so I could work in a particular field or at a particular company, one union regularly refused the members requests to decide for themselves whether or not they approved of the employers offers during contract negotiations (they would decide for us what was acceptable and what wasn't) and once we started getting laid off, many of us "non-senior" members were told, "Sorry, we're not a hiring hall for you guys." (i.e. - tough luck, find your own new job). The other union seemed to make a habit of letting the employer renege on the contract when it came to new hires, and treat the "non-senior" union members differently than "senior members" (like not giving the junior members their scheduled pay raises that were in the contract, and then the union allows the company to make a "settlement" by paying us a months worth of back pay instead of the 3 years of back pay that we were owed). The senior members also kept complaining about how the junior members were "robbing" them of their overtime (they ended up convincing the union to let the company lay us off to protect the senior members). Do a little historical and legal research and you'll also find that unions get away (usually legally) with doing things that would likely land employers either in jail or with a lawsuit.

Like my father used to say, "Unions can be good or bad, depending on who is running them." - Union does not always equal "good" - if you have the wrong people running them, they can be just as bad as the employers they were designed to protect you from. I have worked for small companies that, in my opinion were better than a union job any day. Think of this, if a union appoints 5 people to represent 200 workers, the employer now only has to bribe 5 people instead of 200. Those 5 representatives can keep telling the workers that they're "looking out for them", even if they're just keeping themselves on the employers good side.

Wrong.

There are several other companies already in contention to buy the brands. One is a mexican bakery company that's family owned and does $4B/yer. In fact, they offered to buy Hostess years ago for >$500MM and was turned down.

Imagine all those Diabetics who won't see Hostess cupcakes or twinkies near the checkout counter. Won't be able to spike their sugar readings.

Wrong? Didn't you just agree with me?

Yes, Enough, he did agree with you, but JKLD is so fixated on his little mantra, he did even realize it!!! Even if a buyer is found, the buyer is under no obligation to take over the Union contracts. The buyer can and probably will start fresh, which could leave the Union members out in the cold!!

I noticed early this year, at least, Twinkies have shrunk in size, shorter, but the package is still the same size, so I don't buy them any more.

Still like the SnoBalls though I don't know if they're smaller too or not, as they're cellophane wrapped tightly!

This sounds rather rowdy now that I re-read it.

Go Figure!!!

Why do libs constantly try to force their mentallity on everyone? Some of them are actually cheering the closing of Hostess because it may keep those "evil twinkies" out of the mouths of children! Trust me, they will just replace them with something else, and maybe even less healthful! Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!

You do realize that Hostess intended to shut down anyway, don't you? That's why the current CEO was brought in. He is a restructure specialist whose speciality is redoing or shutting down companies. He fully admitted that previous management teams had screwed up and he's the one that exposed the rape of company finances and the worker's pension plan by previous management while they were demanding that the workers take paycuts.

JKLD please posting the same thing everywhere.

Because a stupid statement deserves the truth.

Well JKLD you've supplied one of them in spades. Now let us get on with the truth.

sdc, multiple inane responses to others is not the truth. This company was way over-leveraged, and the unions had made multiple concessions in the past, only to be paid back like this. While it was demanded that the workers give and give and give, management continued to take and take and take. You might do yourself a service and check what management will be walking away with, versus what the workers will.

It is clear there are many union haters posting here, but all you are succeeding in doing is showing your ignorance. But at least you are able to stand up for the big guys while the little guys get trampled. Good for you.

JKLD, are you a union rep? :o)

Funny, a "restructuring specialist" kept my company alive by kicking out all the unions and restructuring it the right way.

When you want to shut your company down, why hire a CEO when you can just sell it to a holding company instead?

Cappy...just what I was thinking...or a disgruntled ex-employee?

Cappy,

No, I'm the legal profession. However, I've had relatives who have worked in union and non union positions. I also live in a right to work state.

However, because of my work, I'm often in contact with both management and employees, union and non union. I've watched employers use illegals and legal non-English speaking employees and refused to give them safe working conditions because of the attitude that they don't have to, even tho they do. I've watched employers REFUSE to pay people because they think they can get away with it.

No, I'm not union. Far from it. I'm completely neutral. However I've seen what companies do do to their employees because they think they can get away with it.

You're nuetral, what a joke and you claim to be in the legal profession. What you are is clueless.

Joelotsanumbers: Oh, your comment is SOOOO useful! NOT

A family owned Mexican bakery company offered >$500MM for the company several years ago and was turned down.

They are currently one of several companies now looking at buying the brands.

Owners want millions and give their employees peanuts.

Chuck, own something sometime and see how willingly you share it with others. Employee that don't like the contract terms offered has the right to sell their labor elsewhere -- looks like a lot of them are going to have to do just that!!

CMD mgmt,

And that's the problem, isn't it? You want to keep it all but not give anything to the very ones who actually DO the work that makes the $ for you.

No problem with a company making a profit, nor you making money as well. But you have a duty to compensate your employees fairly for the work that makes that $. After all, without employees, you have no company, unless you're the owner AND the only employee.

The attitude of 'if you don't like it go elsewhere' is ok BUT remember this - word of mouth has ruined many a company. All it takes is 1 and they tell 2 who tell 4 who tell 16...etc.

Your 'company' can be ruined because of your @!$%#ty attitude alone. I've seen it happen many times. And the owner stands on the side, scratching his ass and trying to figure out WHY he had no income coming in.

The "owners" of most business are stock holders! These include teacher's retirement funds, firemen's 401k's, senior citizens trying to live on their life's savings, a police officer's extra money being invested so that he can help send his kid to college! These are "evil" and "money grubbing" cash-whores who deserve to have their saving taken for the betterment of the valiant "unions" and their brave "soldiers"! How can ANY company be allowed to close if they are losing money?

The reality is that the company had no intention of bargining in good faith. The current CEO is a restructure specialist who was brought in to either totally restructure the company or close it down entirely. That's what these people do. The union's fault was not realizing that as soon as they brought the guy in. In reality, they had no chance in the first place.

Problem is, employees keep giving and employers keep taking.

Please, Chuck! I have worked in union-controlled businesses and have seen them protect some of the lowest, laziest, wastes-of-space in the world! Some people would never be able to get, keep, and retire from ANY job if they did not have this union shield over them! I have also seen corrupt unions destroy individual workers lives because these individuals were working too hard or just happened to be in a job that they wanted to give to a friend or relative! Seniority never overcomes the buddy-buddy union system!

If the democrats want to become as irrelevant as the Republicans all they have to do is hitch their wagon to the unions, public employee unions, teacher unions etc. I have voted for Obama twice and once for Walker and once against his recall. I was a union brick layer and the old guys just kept voting themselves more and more benefits until everyone went non-union. I went back to school, I am a CPA with a masters in Intl Mgt. Unions today protect the most incompetant, those that can't make it otherwise. YES 100 years ago they fought for all workers but now just the mediocre the less than average. The wonderful things that unions won for all workers, like workplace safety, 40 hr week etc are now law and in the best interests of the employeers if they don't want medical liability suits filed against them. This is reality now, the good paying union jobs for unskilled workers are GONE. Either have skills or enjoy your career at walmart.

PC509a: The workers had already given back millions to the company in an effort to keep it going--management reneged on their agreements.

So management decided they'd tank it themselves--after stealing/refusing to put up the required amounts for/from the pension plan, they made the Union take the fall for it.

Get the BIGGER picture here?

Actually, John, they WERE contributing to their own benefits. In fact, management raided their penison fund for millions of dollars and never paid it back. That pension fund was one that the members contributed to.

While the company was demanding that the workers take drastic pay cuts, the managment team was getting up to 80/100% RAISES in salary. In fact, the previous CEO doubled his salary after the last contract negotiation that included drastic worker cuts.

Yeah, John blame the greedy unions (workers) after all it wasn't the bad decisions of the CEO who admitted he made bad decisions that brought the company down! He is walking away a millionaire AFTER he gave himself a 300% raise and an 80% raise to the other top execs, yeah they deserve their money for ruining an 80 year company!! It was the greedy employees who should be to blame! NOT!!!

JKLD, People like John talk about a strong middle class but they don't realize that to have a strong middle class that mean people need to be paid living wages. No, people like John think the rich and stupid CEO's are the middle class so he fights to protect them not realizing that it is the CEO who are hurting America! With their less than stellar business decisions! I find people like John listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, who earns $400 million a year, and expect to get the truth. Rush's only truth is he wants to protect HIS assets and will say anything to do that!

You are confused John. EMPLOYERS are greedy. Ask those CEO's who have $2 TRILLION stashed overseas.

Actually the new CEO had cut the wages of the highest earning executives to $1 a year. He was brought in to bring the company back to profitability. There had been talks of a previous sale but those had fallen through due to the issues with the union contracts. What other company would want to have to deal with that?? The teamsters were able to reach and agreement but not the bakers union. Regardless of bad management if you have a job and the company is trying to get back on its feet after losing money and you go on strike instead of waiting it out then you put the company out of business. Lets keep in mind these were court ordered concessions to help bring the company out of bankruptcy. Some of the biggest companies in the world have gone through bankruptcy and come out stronger and better. The goal is not to shut the company down that is just ridiculous if that is the case they could have liquidated the first time through. Obviously they wanted to try to get back to profitability but still even with all of this "supposed" greed from uppermanagement. What was the number one factor that cost 18,000 their jobs??? The UNIONS! Period! Had they not gone on strike those people would still be employed.

Its not like this was a hugely profitable company that was treating its employees badly, this was a company that was loosing money and trying to find a way to stay in business but was driven out because of union contracts. It is likely the brand will be brought and jobs shipped out of the country to other locations where the brands can be produced at a lower cost (high cost of doing business in the U.S.) and back on the shelves soon! The company that may likely buy the brand is based out of Mexico and a successfull company that owns brands such as Ms. Bairds and Ms. Smiths.

blg95

One of the companies that's thinking about buying the brands had made a previous offer of >$500MM to buy the company. It was turned down and called a low-ball offer. I read this week that the company is now valued at <$175MM because of all the problems.

Bld95

Nice cut and paste there.Would you like me to provide the link you got that info from?

The exec's pay was reduced to $1 after the bankruptcy court found out they had all been given 65-80% raises.

Ripplewood did not do much with developing new, healthier products. American diets have changed and Hostess did not. Another company will keep the brands alive. What I don't understand, having been an Electrical Union member in the past, is why does the bakery business need collective bargaining? With sales slipping, unions serve no purpose, as they try to keep jobs instead of having layoffs in greater numbers. Simply put, no winners here, for management, workers or consumers.

You do realize they are giving the employees the shaft at the same time they are asking permission from the judge to pay OFFICERS mulitple MILLIONS in BONUSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what... Is it right that they get Millions probably not, would you take the Millions if you were getting it probably so. A business owner has the right to run there business the way they see fit. That is part of freedom, just like unions have the right to strike, its freedom, but of course there is always a cost of freedom.

you whiny bitch would you please grow up. defined pension plans do not work, it will take everything this country has just to save SS. In the 90s the board overseeing accounting required public companies to put their pension liability on the Balance Sheet and business got rid of them quickly, hence the birth of 401Ks. I had a step cousin tha worked for this company, the kid was mentally challenged just fact, these jobs are not for rocket scientist. The middle class will come back, it just wont include unskilled labor makeing good wages in union jobs. Get a career, get skills or don't complain about your walmart career.

Actually, it wasn't just 1 CEO making bad decisions. They had 6 CEOs in <10 years.

Right, Willie - believe whatever you will. I assume you would also believe in a Dickensian world, correct?

So willie are you willing to take a $10,000 pay cut?

Sure, atelier. Expecting employees to cut benefits by 30% while management gets millions in bonuses for under-performing is perfectly rational in con world.

hey numb nuts, they just got every thing cut 100% and people like me that pay taxes not you will now cover the costs of the unemployed. It is not a nice world but take your head out of your behind and look at reality. and all of you psuedo liberals that talk and talk but have never done anything for anybody else but yourself you are parasites, go work in a soup kitchen whatever just for a change quit bitching and do something for some one else, action ok, you are every bit as bad as the tea party/Klan bitch about everything but contribute exactly nothing.

Excuse me, Dan--what part of your post is an actual contribution to this dialogue--but there does seem to be quite a deal of, oh gee, BITCHING in it!

Look, it used to be an American goal that a rising tide floats all boats. These days, a rising tide--and a waning one as well--floats flotillas of the 1%. The other 99%--not so much.

Are you not aware that wealth inequality is only worse in Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Switzerland?? Is that what you really want for our nation?

Truth, you might want to check into the plants that Bimbo already runs, and successfully at that. Union. Yep. Nice try.

I wouldn't be so eager to jump on the union bandwagon more often than not they hurt companies more than they help employees. And in this case they THOUGHT it was better to take a 100% pay cut than an 8% pay cut...yeah that's smart. I am not aware of where all the Bimbo bakeries are located but Fort Worth, Houston, Lubbock and I believe a new facility in Rockwall are all in Texas. It should also be noted that Texas is a "right to work" state. It appears that many companies are relocating to Texas because of that but also because of the lower tax rates offered in Texas. Simple enough...TEXAS ROCKS!!!

Actually my company and I bet yours if your job is anything real pays for a portion of your health care, you couldn't afford $1000/month for a family of four on an average wage of $50,000/year.

Keep NOT supporting union shops and watch YOUR employer paid portion of your health insurance go away! Then you WILL find out how much unions help those of us NOT in unions!

Why not subsidize benefits 100% the top execs have theirs paid! Instead of attacking unions how about focusing on the REAL problem, always increasing health care costs? If businesses would back a single payer plan then THEY wouldn't have to subsidize ANY health care costs!

Enjoyed your paid holiday, Georgia. You have unions to thank for that too.

Lots of low-information union haters on this board. They have no idea what unions have done for them, whether they actually belong to a union or not. But they got theirs, so screw everybody else...sounds about right (emphasis on "right").

We pay 100% of our benefits. It even tells us that on our open enrollment paperwork. $800/mo for employee +3. On $40k/year or less. And I'd still rather not even think of unionizing. Yes, unions got us some good stuff out of our employers for a little while. Those things (most likely including that paid vacation) are all being taken away slowly but surely. But we still don't need unions - federal regulations would be good enough if there were anyone smart enough in office to take on the challenge.

LWNJ, the problem is that what unions USED to do for us, and what they do TO us now are very different things. I would give anything to not have to be part of the one that I'm in. It's exceedingly clear that unions don't actually care at all about the individual workers, just that they can make management pay as much as possible. I've seen firsthand that the union leadership will make whatever decisions directly benefit themselves regardless of what it means for the membership in general. They'll demand that they get more this and increased that, even when it is obvious that the demands mean lots of layoffs, because it doesn't matter to them, they keep their jobs, so who cares.

Jeff, not sure what Union you belong to, but when WE negotiate a new Collective Bargaining Agreement we ask the membership what is important to them and that's what we focus on at the table. Oh, by the way, YOU are the Union. People look at a Union as this magical entity that is supposed to get all these things for them or do all this stuff for them, when in reality the workers are the Union. Kind of like our country's governing system was before politics ruined it. We elect our representatives to speak for us in Washington and instead they vote on behalf of whomever writes the biggest check. As far as all the comments on here about "union bosses" who are only looking out for themselves, they are elected officials too. If you don't like them, vote them out! Yes, I am a proud Union officer. I have held nearly every single office in my Local and as President, successfully negotiated our previous CBA, which included a raise at the national average which was then eaten by our ever increasing health care costs. Our current CBA was ratified with a drastically lower pay increase and higher health care cost. So where is the "Union Greed"? People ask me "What does the Union do for me?" My answer to that is, what have you done for yourself? YOU are the Union!

maybe a little tort reform also and anymore as a proud union officer you are nothing more than a parasite, and I am a former union member that went back to school and then got a real job. I have voted for Obama twice and Walker once and once against the recall. If the democrats hitch their wagon to the unions they will become irrelavant as the GOP

Also the typical stupidity of the stupid. Your employer pays NOTHING of your insurance, it is a salary expense. The more they pay for that then the less you receive. That is the fatal flaw of unions what they just don't understand, THERE IS NEVER A FREE LUNCH. don't you get it, you increase benefits you increase cost, wow another unskilled worker that became a "union officer"

GeorgiaGal: Sounds like sour grapes to me. Oh, I see. Georgia. That explains it.

Why is it that the reddest states in the Union--especially southern ones-- take the most from the fed in "entitlements?"

Why is it the reddest states--and mostly southern states-- that have the worst records in education?

Unions brought you the 8-hour day, the 40-hour work week, laws against children under 14 at work, breaks and lunchtimes, overtime pay, OSHA safe working conditions, healthcare benefits, pensions, bereavement days, sick days, personal religious days, required vacations, family leave, and much, much more. Whether or not you have ever belonged to one, unions have greatly benefited you personally.

Today in America, the next generation to lead clearly understands the power of compassion. You might try it yourself, someday, before you pass.

Amen. Twinkies contain the 4 basic food groups: Sugar, salt, grease, and preservatives. :D

It's called the American way, AO.

WalkWithMeInHell

$14/hour x 52 weeks is only $29,120 /year. That is NOT more than an entry level lawyer! Get a grip do some math, this is barely above poverty level for a family of 4. I know that Fox News doesn't want you to own a calculator but really don't make yourself sound like an idiot without checking on facts first!

Duma$$!

That would be why both parents work. Also, add your ins benefits into your salary. Do you think it's free for a Co. to provide ins. for 18,000 employees? Duma$$?

Juls, very nice. Except many people that do not belong to unions do not get insurance benefits. Their employers find ways to evade it, such as limiting hours, etc., but you haters just keep piling on about unions. Maybe we should all go back to before unions existed. Then you might be fortunate enough to work seven days a week for pay that would not enable you to ever even dream of making it as far as even the lower middle class. And benefits? Yeah, forget that.

Excellent! That was stated very well. I worked a non-union job while trying to finish College at night for 25K a year. Once I finished College, I went to 60K a year that included benefits of course. When I think back at that job I was doing, I think 25K was too much.

I can never understand why a broom sweeper or delivery driver thinks they are worth 40K a year.

CHALK one more up for the Unions and their democratic constituents. They sure are wellschooled in the destruction of PRIVATE BUSINESSES and free enterprise.

.....but,they're not worried! Ole Barack has told them,and they mindlessly believe, that life and a living is owed to them.

They get a free Obama phone,food stamps,financial assistants from the feds as well as extended,extended unemeployment benefits (which they aren't entitled to,since they caused the company's demise).

NOT since the fall of Rome and Greece, have STUPID people caused the destruction of a nation! Witness the 2012 election results!

WalkwithMeinHell: I take it, then, you're completely comfortable that wealth inequality in America is only worse in Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Switzerland.

I was hired as a deputy district attorney for about $28,000. In 1983. Along with full health benefits and a pension plan, thanks to unions that preceded my career.

Perhaps you were first hired as an attorney 30 years ago, as well?

Randy-1096325, Not everyone has poor work ethics, if you think they paid you too much then you were probably NOT doing your best!

Everyone who works a 40 hr work weeks should at least be paid a fair living wage. When gas is $4, a gallon of milk is $3.98, that 25k, is less than poverty! If 25k is so easy to live on then I dare YOU to do it for a year. Then come back and tell us how easy it was. Remember that $40,000 today has the same buying power as $25,000 had 20 years ago.

No one to blame but the unions. What did they do for you (Hostess employees). You can hold hands while in the unemployement line.

The top 1% of income earners: adjusted gross income of $343,927 or more. The 1.4 million Americans with this reported 16.9% of all the country's taxable income.

That's right. One percent of taxpayers reported almost 17% of all taxable income. But that same tiny group also kicked in 37% of all the taxes paid!

I don't come close to making $344,000 a year, but I am glad that someone is, otherwise we all would be paying a lot more in taxes!!

Read more at #JdYwLo87cshrA5ji.99

Read more: #ixzz2CuVBViLI
Become a Fan of Kiplinger's on Facebook

They would still make them in the US. It would never be profitable to ship baked goods from Mexico and have them remain fresh. This is why Hostess (and others) have bakeries all over the country instead of one location.

LOL, a "Fresh" twinkie? Clearly "fresh" is a subjective term when it comes to Hostess pastries.

Bimbo already sells product in the US, and most of it is made here as well. But glad to see you won't purchase anything not made in the US. I'd be willing to bet you are full of it.

*Warning* Twinkies do not have an indefinite shelf life. According to a Snopes on the topic, it is only 25 days. It is pretty amazing though since I couldn't imagine eating homemade cookies or cupcakes 25 days after I made them unless I had frozen the dough.

Those Hostess chocolate cupcakes with the white squiggle? When I worked as a baker (Jack of many trades, here), I once saw an ad in a baking industry mag offering them for sale with a guaranteed 5-year shelf life!!

Don't know their real shelf life--the ad was posted in the 1970s--but we all had a great laugh about it in our natural foods store!

I've never even seen an unwrapped Twinkie, never mind actually eating one....

from the Wall St Journal: "When U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Drain gets the case in White Plains, he should contact the U.S. Attorney to consider charging upper management with plundering the company. Whatever compensation committee on Hostess’ board approved pay raises and bonuses for upper management, they should also stand accountable for fraud and embezzlement. While Hostess is a privately held company, there’s no difference with another former Texas-based company called Enron...... Judge Drain must ask Rayburn and Driscoll many questions about executive compensation and what happened to the company’s operating capital." Now why did the WSJ, of all papers, write that? Because the Hostess bosses are PARASITES and THIEVES!

So does this tend to happen only in Texas

nunavut: I saw that, too--and the WSJ is a conservative paper. We may yet see criminal charges; I hope so.

Certainly management had a fiduciary duty to keep paying into the pension plan,but they continually raided it, instead. That's embezzlement by definition, and their fiduciary obligation counts as an enhancement allegation.

that is not even funny.