Union Kills the Twinkie

[cavman]

Were not only losing twinkees but also ho hos, sno balls, donettes, and wonder bread. Tis a sad day. Someone will buy the recipe and rights ti the name twinkee.

Sno Balls can burn in hell. I never liked those.

[Richard Dawkins]

Good night, sweet prince...

[Pyro]

Sno Balls can melt in hell. I never liked those.

Fixed.

[Tornicade]

well i did some more research about the 46% number and I believe i May have quoted a hack . but here is an excellent article illustrating all the mismanagement that took place and why the Union had no faith that the company would be able to reorganize under the current management.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...kies-bankrupt/

[Phills14]

I went into the Hostess outlet on Colonial today and talked to one of the soon to be fired workers once all their inventory is delivered or sold. He told me the rules were the same they had 20 years ago. A guy delivering Twinkies to a store only delivered Twinkies, they had to have a separate driver per contract for the Wonder bread. So instead of one guy with one truck, they had two guys with two trucks to do duplicate routes. Instead of being efficient and allowing the company to have 10 guys doing 10 routes, they had 20 guys doing 10 routes. I felt bad for the guy, but bought some cupcakes half off. I think it was the first time in at least five years I had Hostess cupcakes.

That sounds like Twinkie guy was part of 1 union while the Wonder bread guy was part of the other. They can't do each others jobs as per the union contract I'm sure. This scenario is the exact reason why unions can cause more harm than good. Anyone with half a brain could realize you are duplicating your costs in this scenario and consolidating is the appropriate thing to do. However; the unions are all about their members and protecting their jobs even though it makes no sense whatsoever for the company as a whole.

[KI4MVP]

^^ that's just idiotic. Companies, not unions, should be in control of how many employees they have and what those employees do.

[JiggleIt]

Might sound like a stupid question but...why can't companies just decide not to work with unions at all?

[Lee]

Might sound like a stupid question but...why can't companies just decide not to work with unions at all?

When a company is unionized, you have the choice of working with the union or letting your entire staff go and start from scratch. Starting from scratch has its own level prohibitive costs, plus certain states dont allow for you to let a workforce go just because of a Union.

Here in AZ we dont have such issues yet I was able to find a high paying job by some miracle.

[JiggleIt]

When a company is unionized, you have the choice of working with the union or letting your entire staff go and start from scratch. Starting from scratch has its own level prohibitive costs, plus certain states dont allow for you to let a workforce go just because of a Union.

Here in AZ we dont have such issues yet I was able to find a high paying job by some miracle.

And the way it works with unions is that the workers are contacted en masse by a union at some point and asked if they'd like to push for unionization, correct? And then the workers choose together whether they'd like to unionize? And then the company is forced to negotiate with the union? How could a company convince its employees not to unionize?

How often is unionization turned down by employees? My father in law mentioned a large company not far from where I'm moving whose workers turned down unionization within the last few months.

[Doc Shakalou]

And the way it works with unions is that the workers are contacted en masse by a union at some point and asked if they'd like to push for unionization, correct? And then the workers choose together whether they'd like to unionize? And then the company is forced to negotiate with the union? How could a company convince its employees not to unionize?

How often is unionization turned down by employees? My father in law mentioned a large company not far from where I'm moving whose workers turned down unionization within the last few months.

I'm no expert, but I think that employees that turn down unionization probably do it because they're happy with how they're treated. Good pay, good benefits etc. Then they don't have to deal with union dues and the like. I could be way off, that's just my best guess.

When I was younger I worked at a Heinen's grocery store and they were unionized. I was always annoyed by that because I had to shell out union dues and I never really received any benefit from it. I'm not even really sure that the union did anything to protect the employees. A friend of mine got fired because he didn't come in to work for a while. He didn't keep calling off, he showed up and talked to the manager and told him he couldn't work for a month or so because of a medical condition. He supplied him with a note and everything. Well he ended up being fired anyway.

They were also incredibly sexist. Only the guys did parcel pickup (loading groceries into cars) and that was the best aspect of the job because people tipped. Only the girls ran the registers. I remember going on break with a female friend of mine who worked there. She was there longer so she made about a buck more an hour than I did. Well I would pull out the money I made in tips from parcel and count it in front of her. She was always pissed off that she didn't get to do it. I worked for a couple hours on Christmas Eve and multiple people tipped me in 20s.

[Phills14]

Might sound like a stupid question but...why can't companies just decide not to work with unions at all?

It's a difference of state laws. You hear the term right to work state. What that means is if you are hired into a job where a union is present, you are not obligated to join that union. You can choose to work outside of that union and maintain your job. According to Wikipedia there are 23 states that are classified as right to work, most of them are located in the south. These states have very little unionization.



In the other 27 states if you are hired into a union environment you are obligated to join the union if one exists. Typically you have to work anywhere from 30-90 days as a probationary employee and you aren't officially part of the union but after that, you are a full due paying member whether you like it or not. Once a union is formed it's very difficult to remove it from the work place. The company has 2 options, fire everyone and start new. As Lee pointed out, that's not the best way to go. Or you sit and wait for another union challenge. Say for example, the Teamsters is the current union. Employees are unhappy with the teamsters and want to make a change to the AFL-CIO. In this scenario the company can step in and ask that there be no union representation. The bargaining unit would then hold a vote for A. Retain the Teamsters, B. Remove the Teamsters and go with the AFL-CIO or C. Remove the Teamsters and go non-union.

[Malt]

It's a difference of state laws. You hear the term right to work state. What that means is if you are hired into a job where a union is present, you are not obligated to join that union. You can choose to work outside of that union and maintain your job. According to Wikipedia there are 23 states that are classified as right to work, most of them are located in the south. These states have very little unionization.



In the other 27 states if you are hired into a union environment you are obligated to join the union if one exists. Typically you have to work anywhere from 30-90 days as a probationary employee and you aren't officially part of the union but after that, you are a full due paying member whether you like it or not. Once a union is formed it's very difficult to remove it from the work place. The company has 2 options, fire everyone and start new. As Lee pointed out, that's not the best way to go. Or you sit and wait for another union challenge. Say for example, the Teamsters is the current union. Employees are unhappy with the teamsters and want to make a change to the AFL-CIO. In this scenario the company can step in and ask that there be no union representation. The bargaining unit would then hold a vote for A. Retain the Teamsters, B. Remove the Teamsters and go with the AFL-CIO or C. Remove the Teamsters and go non-union.

The way to disband a union is also very shady and controlled by... The union. Once you make a deal with the devil, there's no getting out.

[KI4MVP]

The twinkie may be saved

Private equity firm Sun Capital Partners wants to buy bankrupt bakery Hostess Brands Inc., Fortune has learned.

The proposal would be to operate Hostess as a going concern, including reopening the shuttered factories and continuing union representation of Hostess workers.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...out/?hpt=hp_t3

[Tornicade]

The union provision regarding the dual routes was an effort by the union to save jobs. The management could of very easily vetoed the arrangement and passed on a concession somewhere else.

Instead they chose to incur duplicate operating cost instead of finding an alternative way for a fe thousand people to keep their jobs.

lets not forget that the last bankruptcy reduced the workforce at hostess from around 32 000 to 18,000.

The Union saw the numbers and even with taking an 8 percent pay cut had no confidence ripplewood wouldnt be shutting down the door in a few more years regardless.

Lets not forget that the union knew there was two offers for more money on the table to take over the company when ripplewood came into the picture. It appears they gambled someone else would have the oppurtunity if hostess chose to liquidate.

buyng out the hedge funds and replacing management is a win win for this company it goes through.

[KI4MVP]

The union provision regarding the dual routes was an effort by the union to save jobs. The management could of very easily vetoed the arrangement and passed on a concession somewhere else.

Instead they chose to incur duplicate operating cost instead of finding an alternative way for a fe thousand people to keep their jobs.

lets not forget that the last bankruptcy reduced the workforce at hostess from around 32 000 to 18,000.

The Union saw the numbers and even with taking an 8 percent pay cut had no confidence ripplewood wouldnt be shutting down the door in a few more years regardless.

Lets not forget that the union knew there was two offers for more money on the table to take over the company when ripplewood came into the picture. It appears they gambled someone else would have the oppurtunity if hostess chose to liquidate.

buyng out the hedge funds and replacing management is a win win for this company it goes through.

why should the company have to give any concessions to cut unneeded jobs. The company is in business to make money, not to ensure employment. If they want to cut jobs that aren't needed, they shouldn't have to ask anyone. It's just wrong and it turns people against unions, allowing the right to work laws to pass.