Union kills the Twinkie

[CJ]

You think because your in a union that you can't see both sides? I could when I was in a union. I took as 33% pay cut (and I did vote in favor of it) where I last worked union to help the company be more competitive. If I couldn't see both sides would I have voted for it? Then what happened? Less than a year later the execs took a big bonus and management got decent raises. We had to go another 5 years before we got another contract with a 3% pay raise.

You were being overpaid, management was not. They are not in a union, you don't give them what they want, they switch companies.

It has been stated before the 8% pay cuts at hostess were insignificant to the company and the total of all the cuts equaled about 500k. When you're paying millions in bonuses and pay raises to execs. IF everyone in the company had been taking paycuts and no bonus's the result would have been different. Personally I would have went to work but looked for another job full time also. I can understand the fuck it why help them get more bonus's attitude tho.

The total of the cuts equaled $500,000 anually? Assuming the average salary was $40k (and it's probably more) you're telling me the whole company had 156 union workers?

You fundamentally do not understand how a free market system works. It's evidenced in you trying to apply union mentality to management. This must be the 5th time I've explained this in this thread. Management by and large isn't union. If you don't pay them enough, they will leave. They are not like a union, their salaries are not overinflated. They are not paid more than they are worth. You decrease their salaries, a large portion will find work elsewhere. That's not true for union employees. They are not worth what they are paid, they are forced to take the pay cuts, because a non-union company wouldn't pay their pay rates - they can't leave and find another company. Does that make sense?

[4eyedwillie]

Nice thinly veiled threat. Are your employees union? Would you encourage them to form one since FT asserts it would make your job easier?

If my employee's wanted one I wouldn't complain about it BUT if you treat people fairly and pay them good it will never happen. To many exec's think they are the only ones that matter and that their employee's are not important That attitude seems to be rampant on this site. It takes BOTH sides working together to make a company work. Since the 80's that attitude seems to have been lost. In the 70's and earlier the ratio on salaries between ceo's and workers was 30-40 to one. Now it's 300-400 to one.

[CJ]

If my employee's wanted one I wouldn't complain about it BUT if you treat people fairly and pay them good it will never happen. To many exec's think they are the only ones that matter and that their employee's are not important That attitude seems to be rampant on this site. It takes BOTH sides working together to make a company work. Since the 80's that attitude seems to have been lost. In the 70's and earlier the ratio on salaries between ceo's and workers was 30-40 to one. Now it's 300-400 to one.

No, that is wrong. If you're not paid fairly then you leave and find someone who does. If you can't find another company that pays what you want, then you are not worth that amount. That is how the free market system works. What you are advocating is socialism. People banding together and forcing a company to absorb costs the free market system would not pay. This is the difference.

[4eyedwillie]

You were being overpaid, management was not. They are not in a union, you don't give them what they want, they switch companies.



The total of the cuts equaled $500,000 anually? Assuming the average salary was $40k (and it's probably more) you're telling me the whole company had 156 union workers?

You fundamentally do not understand how a free market system works. It's evidenced in you trying to apply union mentality to management. This must be the 5th time I've explained this in this thread. Management by and large isn't union. If you don't pay them enough, they will leave. They are not like a union, their salaries are not overinflated. They are not paid more than they are worth. You decrease their salaries, a large portion will find work elsewhere. That's not true for union employees. They are not worth what they are paid, they are forced to take the pay cuts, because a non-union company wouldn't pay their pay rates - they can't leave and find another company. Does that make sense?

We received a pay raise to bring us up to what every other mechanic in the field was making. Then the other airlines filed bankruptcy and slashed their peoples wages. In order to be competitive the mechanics agreed to a paycut for the good of the company. Then management took bonuses. Doesn't seem fair to me. If one group takes a paycut all should or at least not take bonuses.
As for the number's I used info from another site and did not check it. So here are the numbers.

Assuming 6000 members in the bakery union with hostess (I looked and could not find a hard number, but teamster have 6700 and are the largest union)

6000 x 17.00 x 40 hours x 52 weeks x .08= 16,972,800
I originally took the amounts from another site, my bad. Still I can't see that amount of money breaking a company that size.

[4eyedwillie]

No, that is wrong. If you're not paid fairly then you leave and find someone who does. If you can't find another company that pays what you want, then you are not worth that amount. That is how the free market system works. What you are advocating is socialism. People banding together and forcing a company to absorb costs the free market system would not pay. This is the difference.

What is wrong with treating your people as equals who can make or break you just as easily as a bad decision on your part? If BOTH sides are pulling the company will succeed no matter what happens. If only one is pulling and the other is being run over then it can only succeed in-spite of it's self.

[DON SVO]

It has been stated before the 8% pay cuts at hostess were insignificant to the company and the total of all the cuts equaled about 500k. When you're paying millions in bonuses and pay raises to execs. IF everyone in the company had been taking paycuts and no bonus's the result would have been different. Personally I would have went to work but looked for another job full time also. I can understand the fuck it why help them get more bonus's attitude tho.

This is retarded, I'm "letting the cat out of the bag" so you can start talking on a level playing field with us.

The executives at Hostess are paid by a venture capital firm.. the execs were brought in to restructure the company, the current CEO has been there only since February and was originally the restructure chief. The original CEO bailed in March and he has been acting CEO since. So let me repeat this for you:

THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.

The venture capital firms want the company (Hostess) to succeed. Since they are paying the salary, THEY can pay whatever the fuck THEY want.

THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.

8% of 13,500 employee annual earnings? Let's do some simple math on the cheap.

let's say that the average Hostess employee (from janitor to floor manager) makes $25,000/yr.

0.08 * 25,000 = $2,000

2,000 * 13,500 = $27,000,000.00

Yes. 27 MILLION DOLLARS. And my number is very low.

The executives... who are paid from a firm helping restructure the company... gave up bonuses and December pay. Why? because it looks better. Their pay has nothing to do with Bob the Doughboy.

THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.

However, $27,000,000 paid DIRECTLY BY HOSTESS might help.

[4eyedwillie]

This is retarded, I'm "letting the cat out of the bag" so you can start talking on a level playing field with us.

The executives at Hostess are paid by a venture capital firm.. the execs were brought in to restructure the company, the current CEO has been there only since February and was originally the restructure chief. The original CEO bailed in March and he has been acting CEO since. So let me repeat this for you:

THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.

The venture capital firms want the company (Hostess) to succeed. Since they are paying the salary, THEY can pay whatever the fuck THEY want.

THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.

8% of 13,500 employee annual earnings? Let's do some simple math on the cheap.

let's say that the average Hostess employee (from janitor to floor manager) makes $25,000/yr.

0.08 * 25,000 = $2,000

2,000 * 13,500 = $27,000,000.00

Yes. 27 MILLION DOLLARS. And my number is very low.

The executives... who are paid from a firm helping restructure the company... gave up bonuses and December pay. Why? because it looks better. Their pay has nothing to do with Bob the Doughboy.

THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.
THEY ARE NOT PAID BY HOSTESS.

However, $27,000,000 paid DIRECTLY BY HOSTESS might help.

Your numbers are as wrong as my original numbers were. See the above post, I was more generous with pay than you were.

Where did you get the info that hostess isn't paying them? Link? Since the equity firms piled their debt to purchase hostess onto them I can't see them paying the execs salaries.

[talisman]

27 million dollars is a lot more Twinkies to sell.

[Forever_frost]

And, you can find people who can mix dough a lot easier than you can find people who understand how to run a company. Supply and demand

[4eyedwillie]

And, you can find people who can mix dough a lot easier than you can find people who understand how to run a company. Supply and demand

Doesn't sound like they knew how to run a company either.

[CJ]

We received a pay raise to bring us up to what every other mechanic in the field was making. Then the other airlines filed bankruptcy and slashed their peoples wages. In order to be competitive the mechanics agreed to a paycut for the good of the company. Then management took bonuses. Doesn't seem fair to me. If one group takes a paycut all should or at least not take bonuses.
As for the number's I used info from another site and did not check it. So here are the numbers.

Assuming 6000 members in the bakery union with hostess (I looked and could not find a hard number, but teamster have 6700 and are the largest union)

6000 x 17.00 x 40 hours x 52 weeks x .08= 16,972,800
I originally took the amounts from another site, my bad. Still I can't see that amount of money breaking a company that size.

Ahh, wait a minute here, you're an airline mechanic? For which airline? My brother was one of the AA directors at DFW over the mechanics.

As for the fairness part. Fairness is irrelevant in a free market system. The employer doesn't have the ability to pigeon hole you, if they don't pay you enough, you leave and take a job elsewhere. In a union setting you are pigeonholed, because you were being paid a salary the free market won't pay. That's what I was saying previously. If you can get management to take a pay cut or bonus reduction then go for it. However, most of the time they won't absorb that loss, they have the freedom to leave.

[DON SVO]

Your numbers are as wrong as my original numbers were. See the above post, I was more generous with pay than you were.

I said my numbers were low.

Where did you get the info that hostess isn't paying them? Link? Since the equity firms piled their debt to purchase hostess onto them I can't see them paying the execs salaries.

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=f2d05306-bb26-4e35-9eb4-47f4b4902a56

This is a quick one, but the first paragraph details a lot of what I said including being an outside hire and not affecting the Hostess bottom line.

Doesn't sound like they knew how to run a company either.

That is completely speculative. The current CEO has been in place less than 9 months. You cannot expect a company to completely 180* after 10+ years of mismanagement.

[4eyedwillie]

27 million dollars is a lot more Twinkies to sell.

17 million but yes that's alot of twinkies

[CJ]

What is wrong with treating your people as equals who can make or break you just as easily as a bad decision on your part? If BOTH sides are pulling the company will succeed no matter what happens. If only one is pulling and the other is being run over then it can only succeed in-spite of it's self.

They're not equals. One set works for a union, one works in the free market. Like I said before you if can convince management to take a pay cut then that's a good thing - and it was justified. However, it probably wouldn't work. Management and the union workers are different, they can't be compared using the same mentality, it's a common mistake blue collar works make.

[4eyedwillie]

I said my numbers were low.

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=f2d05306-bb26-4e35-9eb4-47f4b4902a56

This is a quick one, but the first paragraph details a lot of what I said including being an outside hire and not affecting the Hostess bottom line.

Nope you were assuming everyone in the company was in the bakers union. They're not.
There are 6700 people in the teamsters union there and that is the largest union so the number of bakers is probably around 6000.