rfenst
13 years ago

I see you eyeballing my box of Twinkies.

HockeyDad wrote:



No. I got my own stash. Stay away. Just stay away- I am warning you!







(going to the festival?)( I would be there right now, but the drive is just way too far for me this weekend.)
rumraider
13 years ago
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- For many of Hostess Brands' 18,500 workers and their families, the closing of their iconic company Friday is a devastating emotional and economic blow.

But others say the jobs weren't worth saving because of pay and benefit cuts.





For a member of the bakery workers' union whose strike a week ago led Hostess to shut operations, it's a sad day. "It was a great job. A lot of people put kids through college, paid for mortgages," he said.

The worker, who spoke on the condition his name not be used, said he spoke out at the union meeting against going on strike. "I said, 'If you're unhappy with the situation, then you need to quit. There are people with responsibilities and mortgages. We all can't afford to strike,'" said the veteran who worked loading trucks.

Related: Hostess shuts down for good

The worker said he blames management more than he blames his fellow union members who went on strike. And he's worried about the future.

"I'm 61, I was two years away from retirement," he said. "There aren't many jobs out there for someone like me."

However, other workers said the concessions being demanded by Hostess were just too great.

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

Related: Laid-off workers face tough job market

"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."

While the Bakers' union voted against the concessions and went on strike, the 6,700 members of the Teamsters union narrowly ratified their own concession deal. Many of the drivers, who also served as Hostess' primary sales force, were earning more money than the bakers, getting commissions for the products they sold to grocery stores.

Related: Twinkies will survive

Tracy Fea, the wife of a Teamster working at Hostess, said she's particularly mad at the Bakers' union for the strike.

"While they [Teamsters at Hostess] were not at all happy about the additional concessions, they did not want to lose their jobs," she said. "My husband and I feel that if these employees [Bakers] were so unhappy ... then they should have quit so the company could continue on and the remaining employees that want to work could."

But Joe Lannan, a Teamster based in Kentucky, said he understands the bakers who walked out. He said he voted against the contract and would have struck if the vote had gone that way.

He said the split among Teamsters was between more senior workers and the newer drivers, such as himself. He's been at Hostess about a year.

"There were a lot of nervous guys, mostly with more senior drivers. I've seen a lot of teary eyes," he said.

But he's hopeful that a lot of the drivers will be able to find jobs due to the demand for truck drivers overall.

"The company has been in decline for years. There was no way it was going to get fixed," he said. "Everybody I worked with was looking for other jobs anyway."

Because of his commercial driver's license, Lannan was lucky enough to quickly find a new job, getting a call with a job offer as a fuel truck driver Friday afternoon.
cacman
13 years ago

"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."

rumraider wrote:


This is the whole problem with the "entitlement" programs. When someone says they'll make more money on unemployment (having it given to them) than working for it - there is a major problem. Where's the incentive for anyone to work? Mentality seems to be if you're not happy with your pay, force the folks who make more to give it to you instead of improving/educating yourself to earn a higher wage. Why should they have quit if they weren't happy??? Because now all these folks will get free money, food, and health-care as part of Unemployment and welfare. They won't be paying any uber health-care tax. If there was no easy unemployment & welfare, there would have been no strike. Take it or leave it. Bet the Union Reps aren't out of work.

The Twinkie will be back to work satisfying sweet-tooths nationwide before a lot of these "I'd be better on unemployment" idiots will.

And you can thank the big "O" for the higher insurance costs people are being FORCED to pay (highest tax increase in American history). How's that jobs program working our for you big "O"???

rant off
(where's Dennis Miller?)
rumraider
13 years ago
If Hostess can't make a profit after paying decent wages, they need to go out of business. Other corporations are raising prices and cutting portion size and turning very nice profits while paying good wages. Hostess tried to use the legal system to enforce their profits and they lost. Fuq them.
8trackdisco
13 years ago

Obama won't bail them out.

It's all White Bread...

tailgater wrote:



Funny.
8trackdisco
13 years ago

Yes. ^ Just because I'm union, doesn't mean live or die by it. Ill be non union soon. Right to work is in the Michigan law machine as we speak.

Maybe my point has been missed as well, I'm not a wordsmith as some of you can be.

Common ground, equality, a company wanting their employees to prosper for the good of both. Not make me a billionaire as I watch you starve from business. Not pay me till it bleeds from employees. I think maybe this approach is about the only one that fits what this country is supposed to be about.

Call me naive.

sd72 wrote:



It is hard to believe Michigan is going to be a Right to Work state. The booming Michigan economy is the epitome of Union success in America.

You don't see Michigan based companies with a strong union presence ever taking TARP funds or facing difficulties.
8trackdisco
13 years ago
If you've ever experienced the sloth and corruption of a union worker doing as little as possible, it becomes seared in your memory.

I've had two experiences when a job needed to be done, a union employee didn't do it because they were on a break and that work needed to be done had to be completed by another union employee that wasn't available.

See that twice (especially when you were raised to work hard and do your best regardless of sickness or circumstance and you'll see I have not time for them.

Union will become relevant again, once 12 year olds are working 10 hours a day, six days a week, and falling into meat grinders.
DrafterX
13 years ago

If you've ever experienced the sloth and corruption of union worker doing as little as possible, it becomes seared in your memory.

I had two experiences when a job needed to be done, a union employee didn't do it because they were on a break or the work that needed to be done had to be completed by another union employee that wasn't available.

See that twice (especially when you were raised to work hard and do your best regardless of sickness or circumstance and you'll see I have not time for them.

Union will become relevant again, once 12 year olds are working 10 hours a day, six days a week, and falling into meat grinders.



8trackdisco wrote:



Only if they can find a job that lets them work over 29 hours.. 😟
sd72
13 years ago
You're right. Corporate greed is in charge now, unions are on their way out. Unfortunate that job safety, good wages, and worker training will go with them.
Sadly, it will be our kids and grand kids falling into those meat grinders, off of buildings, getting electrocuted, and working for peanuts. Not someone you read about 100 years ago in a cotton mill, or steel plant.
Again, you're right.
8trackdisco
13 years ago

Only if they can find a job that lets them work over 29 hours.. 😟

DrafterX wrote:




Hostess going under is being celebrated in New York. Bloomberg is toasting this success with a 15.99 ounce soft drink.

This is part of Obama's healthier America.
8trackdisco
13 years ago

You're right. Corporate greed is in charge now, unions are on their way out. Unfortunate that job safety, good wages, and worker training will go with them.
Sadly, it will be our kids and grand kids falling into those meat grinders, off of buildings, getting electrocuted, and working for peanuts. Not someone you read about 100 years ago in a cotton mill, or steel plant.
Again, you're right.

sd72 wrote:



Greed swings. Unions got fat, happy and cocky.

UAW workers were striking Ford in the early 80s, and I remember seeing an incredibly obese woman, barely able to speak english pumping her strike sign yelling "I ain't gonna work fo no 18 dollars an hour!"

In today's wages; about $52 an hour. She probably didn't graduate high school (or was a recipient of social promotion).

Hope she (and you) enjoyed it.
rumraider
13 years ago
Those uppitty workers really pisz me off. We should crush the middle class, pay the po' folk $2 an hour (revoke minimum wage law) and give the profit to the CEO. No middle ground! One side wins it all, the other loses it all!
rfenst
13 years ago

If Hostess can't make a profit after paying decent wages, they need to go out of business. Other corporations are raising prices and cutting portion size and turning very nice profits while paying good wages. Hostess tried to use the legal system to enforce their profits and they lost. Fuq them.

rumraider wrote:




Unless a business can pay a decent wages, it needs to go out of business?
Remind me to loan money to or invest in whatever business you are running.
Fuq profit!
rumraider
13 years ago

Unless a business can pay a decent wages, it needs to go out of business?

Remind me to loan money to or invest in whatever successful business you are running! Fuq profit!

rfenst wrote:



You need to re-read my post. I mentioned profit didn't I? It sounds like you are advocating slavery.
rfenst
13 years ago

You need to re-read my post. I mentioned profit didn't I? It sounds like you are advocating slavery.

rumraider wrote:



No. I am advocating maximizing profit at the cost of employee pay- if that is what it will take to have a chance to remain profitable and stay in business.

Slavery is when one person owns another. Hostess doesn't own those on strike and doesn't owe them anything, but minimum wage and safe and reasonable working conditions. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere, but not on government paid unemployment benefits.
sd72
13 years ago
Rfenst is a lawyer, I believe they call it servitude. But what do I know, I'm a union lackey, that has no business sharing in the profits I made for the company I work for.
rfenst
13 years ago

Rfenst is a lawyer, I believe they call it servitude. But what do I know, I'm a union lackey, that has no business sharing in the profits I made for the company I work for.

sd72 wrote:



No, you are not, not unless you own stock.

Maybe the Hostess workers should agree to work at the lower wage being offered in exchange for stock. Then, if the company is profitable, they can share in the profit. 220 people here in Orlando who are not on strike may end up losing their jobs Tuesday. I feel for them, but not for the idiots walking away from jobs when they don't reasonably have another in sight labor is a commodity- and it is overpriced here in the U.S right now. It's too bad, but that;s just the way things are right now. Hopefully that will change, but may not.

rumraider
13 years ago

No. I am advocating maximizing profit at the cost of employee pay- if that is what it will take to have a chance to remain profitable and stay in business.

Slavery is when one person owns another. Hostess doesn't own those on strike and doesn't owe them anything, but minimum wage and safe and reasonable working conditions. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere, but not on government paid unemployment benefits.

rfenst wrote:



So you see no point when a business becomes unprofitable and should be shut down? Are you advocating welfare for corporations but arguing against unemployment benefits for individuals? Why do companies and their senior management get to remain unscathed by bad decisions but individuals have to "take accountability"?

I don't expect to win word games against a lawyer but let's say servitude instead of slavery then. If you take away those unemployment benefits you give corporations another tool to push pay downward. Should people accept substandard wages to allow senior management to raise their own pay and maximize profits, or should they let their families go hungry while they teach corporations a lesson? Not having to face such a **** choice is the reason governements can sometimes be useful. Unemployment gives them a chance to go look elsewhere. It doesn't last forever and it won't make them rich. Not everyone is a leach, some just fall on hard times (you know, like when bad decisions by senior management bankrupt a company).
rfenst
13 years ago
The last employee who complained to me that she did all the work, but I made all the money was terminated on the spot. She had become toxic. Jealous employees are irreperable. Maybe the Hostess workers should agree to work at the lower wage in exchange for stock. Then, if the company becomes profitable, they can share in the profit.

220 people here in Orlando who are not on strike may end up losing their jobs Tuesday. I feel for them, but not for the idiots walking away from jobs when they don't reasonably have another in sight, in this economy.

Labor is a commodity- and it is overpriced here in the U.S right now. It's too bad, but that's just the way things are. Hopefully that will change, but it may not.
bloody spaniard
13 years ago


Twinkies, they could survive a nuclear holocaust, but not 4 years of Obama.

Gene363 wrote:




I don't know how you came up with that but it's hilarious!=d>


Good luck to the Hostess folks. May another carcinogenic junk food maker pick them up.
Users browsing this topic