if they let them back in, they deserve the same fate as their predecessors...
Posted on 04/30/2013 4:10:44 PM PDT by markomalley
The newly-revived Hostess snack cake company created a stir late last week when it indicated it wouldn’t be allowing any unions. As the Wall Street Journal reported:
Chief Executive C. Dean Metropoulos (of Metropoulos & Co, one of the two companies reviving the brand) said the company will pump $60 million in capital investments into the plants between now and September and aims to hire at least 1,500 workers. But they won’t be represented by unions, including the one whose nationwide strike sparked the 86-year-old company’s decision to shut down in November.
“We do not expect to be involved in the union going forward,” Mr. Metropoulos said in an interview Wednesday.
The comment was surprising only for its bluntness. When the company closed down last year, it blamed the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union. Its members had been on strike rather than agree to concessions with the ailing company, saying the offer was no good. The Teamsters, by contrast, had struck a deal.
Well, the company appears to have had a change of heart. Hostess issued another press release yesterday:
Several articles appearing in the press last week suggested that Hostess is opposed to having labor unions in its bakeries and is specifically seeking non-union workers. This is not the case. Hostess respects union rights and will not discriminate against job applicants on the basis of union membership or union activities. Hostess intends to hire the most qualified applicants, regardless of their age, race, gender, or prior or current union affiliation. If a majority of the individuals hired at a Hostess facility are from the former company’s unionized workforce, the Company will comply with any legal obligations it may have concerning bargaining with any union. (Emphasis added.)
The recent statements in the press attributed to various Hostess officials are incomplete and do not reflect the policies of Hostess. None of the Company representatives stated or intended to imply that Hostess will be avoiding union-represented employees or job applicants. It is the policy of Hostess to comply with all applicable laws in its hiring process and not discriminate against job applicants on the basis of any protected characteristic, including union membership.
The Company respects the right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to organize and bargain collectively through a union and the right to refrain from those activities. The Company will not interfere with those rights. The hiring process at all of the locations will be administered by third-party and Hostess human resources professionals – and not the persons to whom the statements were attributed – with assistance from various state and local labor and employment agencies.
It may be notable that Metropoulos said “the union” and not unions plural. I am guessing he was thinking only of the bakers union. Still, it was a gaffe.
As the last paragraph points out, his comments could have landed the company in some serious legal trouble with the feds. So it's pretty clear the lawyers wrote this one.
I put in calls to Hostess, the bakers union and Teamsters. Only the Teamsters responded and that was to give a “no comment.”
It appears the lowlife, greedy commies and Nazis in THE UNIONS are a little PO’d. Damn freeloaders.
I hope what this means is “I said what I meant, and I still mean it, but the lawyers have told me to ‘clarify’ my comments. We’re hiring far from the old union stomping grounds, and if the new people unionize, we’re moving again until we get a non-union workforce, but I’m not allowed to say that”.
A good friend of mine is a builder, he was working on a big health building. The director got a call from a group that said they wanted to talk about the community and how this health group could be more involved in helping. He met with them and they said he was not a good member of the community because the companies working on his building were unsafe and had bad relations with the community. He said thanks and thought he had done good. Next day they picked and listed him as the reason for it. He freaked and asked what can I do to make good? They said fire the non-union workers and we will stop. He went to do it and my friend said , “ if you do this they will know your soft and force you to change to all union employe’s , they will find out where your kids go to school and spike your tires if you don’t. He didn’t fire the companies. My friend found out the group was a union masquerading as a special interest group.
It amazed him how stupid these people are and how easily they are intimidated.
Did they misspeak? Or did somebody get to them?
++++++++++++
Their own lawyers, who know the labor laws, are the somebody who got to them.
Actually, I think the new owners said EXACTLY what they intended. They wanted the next set of workers to UNDERSTAND that their jobs are HISTORY if they unionize...and they told them so - and before they were hired, so they couldn’t file a grievance. It wasn’t a mistake. A third grader (practically) knows that the owners of a shop don’t have the right to determine if it’s unionized - only the oppressed workers make that call.
Brilliant move on the part of the owners, in my opinion.
A standard Alinsky tactic was to have somebody approach the children of a company president or banker at their school and hand the kid a note to take to dad. The note says, “Gee, I hope Richard likes it here and Black Middle School.” The threat is real, but not actionable.
How long will it take the Commie goons to sink Hostess *this* time?
if they let them back in, they deserve the same fate as their predecessors...
now the union goons will try and plant rabble rousers into the plant.
I predict it will be a very automated plant.
I wonder why they just did not move to an at will non-union state.
Should have moved to Texas. We are a right to work state which means the boss has the right to fire your butt
From the OP: If a majority of the individuals hired at a Hostess facility are from the former company’s unionized workforce, the Company will comply with any legal obligations it may have concerning bargaining with any union.
It states that the new company will comply with any legal obligations. Since the old company was dissolved, the new company doesn't actually have any legal obligations.
100%
Nice factory. Be a shame of something happened to that factory.
He had to publicly disavow his statement, otherwise he could have been prosecuted for not hiring parasites.
My money is on ‘someone’ has given them an offer they couldn’t refuse.
Making money for the new Hostess should be easier than the old Hostess. The new Hostess is underwater with pension obligations.
???
If they fold that easily, screw ‘em!
I’ll stick with Tasty Kakes. Tasty Kakes are moving
westward. I heard they will be going into the southwest, Arizona, for openers.
Be a shame of something happened to that factory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.