Union Sticks It to Hostess and Leaves Workers Jobless

Realville, USA ^ | Nov 16, 2012 | Ombud

[SquarePants]

I guess there was a time when unions did some good. I know my great grandfather was a big supporter of them, but frankly I can't see where they do anything good at all anymore. From the time I was a kid, all I've ever understood about them was that they're associated with organized crime, and they're physically violent and proud of it. But over the last couple of years I've learned a little bit more, and I have to say I'm not at all enthusiastic about what I've seen.

First it was SEIU union thugs tossing beatdowns at TEA Partiers, and Democrat Congressmen letting them shout down citizens at constituent forums. Then it was the teacher's union in Wisconsin, trashing their statehouse and generally acting like a bunch of lawless creeps who I wouldn't trust with my children for a minute. Now it's a union killing their own employer and one of America's most ubiquitous brands.

The last couple of days I kept hearing about how Hostess management said they would be forced to cease operations and liquidate the company's assets if the union wouldn't agree to a deal. I figured it would be like most other labor disputes, with brinksmanship being tempered by the obvious reality that the workers would be better off with a job than with nothing at all.

But I was wrong. The unions decided to let their last hope of saving anyone's jobs go, and now the company looks like they'll be liquidated, and every single employee will lose their job. Amazing. Stating that the company doesn't have the resources to weather an extended strike, Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn announced today that everyone's losing their jobs, and the company's assets will be sold. Big win for the union, I guess, but it's a huge loss for the 18,000 workers. Correction. Ex-workers.

The most mystifying thing about is that most likely Twinkies and Ding-Dongs and their related products will survive. The product brands will be sold, and we probably won't have to suffer any type of interruption in our Twinkie supply, thank God. The ownership will get screwed, of course, having to sell the brands for whatever they can get. But the biggest losers are the workers. With unemployment at 8% and likely to go higher based on all the layoff announcements I've seen the past couple of weeks, how many of these workers do you ecpect to find jobs at all, much less better jobs?

To everyone's great relief, the union bigwigs who caused it all will be ok. None of them are likely to lose their jobs, and they'll no doubt prance on, free to create more suffering at whatever lucky company gets to host their next shakedown. I wonder how many of the people in that picture up top had any idea how successful they'd be at "sticking it to the man?" Somehow I doubt this is the outcome they wanted.

I'm not sure what the deal was that the Hostess workers' union rejected, but I have to wonder if the union bigwigs feel like their workers are somehow better off with another 18,000 of them out of work. Well, they got what they wanted.

[babyfreep]

No. We don’t deal with any tangible products. Just data. “Scan Based Trading” is our biggest product. We have an online app and I work Support.
I talked with a few at Hostess a lot.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks SquarePants.

Stating that the company doesn't have the resources to weather an extended strike, Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn announced today that everyone's losing their jobs, and the company's assets will be sold. Big win for the union, I guess, but it's a huge loss for the 18,000 workers. Correction. Ex-workers. The most mystifying thing about is that most likely Twinkies and Ding-Dongs and their related products will survive. The product brands will be sold, and we probably won't have to suffer any type of interruption in our Twinkie supply, thank God.

The union bosses will still get their paychecks, and go on to bigger and better unions to destroy more jobs. And of course, this is also a stealthy Obamacare story.

[SunkenCiv]

That's a Big Twinkie

[piytar]

This particular union’s bigwigs have now ticked off the Teamsters. Some union on union violence coming? For some reason I couldn’t care less if it does...

[Jack Hydrazine]

Soon to be made in China with melamine added as a flavor enhancer!

[ataDude]

Or... government twinks.

[piytar]

This blather totally ignores the insane burden fedgov regulations but on state economies.

[piytar]

Ooops, prev comment posted in wrong thread...

[windsorknot]

It’s what unions do best.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I could have bought and sold a virtual Twinkie. Too late now.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Googled it. Hey, and I’d not heard of that before.

Scan based trading means that Hostess owned that Twinkie till somebody bought it at the cash register, by scanning as is the modern mode. And here I was thinking that Wal-Mart had bought it wholesale.

[Bob]

The feds tried that with the Mustang Ranch. They couldn’t successfully sell sex and booze. How incompetent does that tell you they are?

[babyfreep]

Walmart may have - as Hostess doing SBT thru us with WM. Other retailers, though...several others.

[babyfreep]

I meant “Hostess wasn’t doing SBT thru us with WM”.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well no, would that not be two different things? If Wal Mart bought the Twinkies outright that were delivered to its warehouse, that’s not scan based trading any more, if Wikipedia’s article on it is correct. Scan based trading happened only when the Twinkies remained in Hostess’ legal possession until a retail customer rang it up at a register and paid.

[HiTech RedNeck]

oh. that’s what i thought.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Which would have given Wal-Mart more freedom to do what it wanted with the Twinkies. Instead of being contracted to do a consignment sale on Hostess’ terms, it owned the Twinkies and could mark them down to clearance shelves near end of code, give them away in promos, whatever.

[visualops]

Walmart is such a big buyer that it already can do pretty much whatever it wants with it’s vendors. Big buyers with clout have onerous rules, and the infraction of said rules causes chargebacks (fines against the cost of the merchandise). So they not only strike a favorable deal based on volume, but can incrementally lower the price all sorts of ways.

[HiTech RedNeck]

yeah, i’d just want to sell them the stuff outright, and let walmart worry about it from there