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.

[visualops]

scan based trading is only going to work in particular situations. It benefits the vendor only so much as it gives an inside track on sales and inventory levels, and likely might get you in a store that you might otherwise not (since the retailer is not making any investment in inventory) but that is a double edged sword since it isn’t sold until...sold. From a manufacturers or distributors perspective that would be rather tenuous IMHO. It’s beneficial to a retailer if they essentially are not having to invest in inventory if there isn’t a buy-back policy (unsold items returned to vendor). Some retailers want more control, for instance larger chains have their own distribution centers. Some suppliers directly supply stores rather than the DC’s though (fresh food for instance). It depends on the product. They are also likely to get a better price buying up front and assuming some of the risk. I can see where there would be some advantages for both sides.

[Fightin Whitey]

That is a really nice story, Eva.

Takes me back to simpler (and I think better) times, when families did what they could and got by as well as possible and viewed something like a “boughten” shortcake as a wonderful treat and rarity.

(p.s. With apologies to the perfectly fine Twinkies among us, of course!)

[HiTech RedNeck]

Also, the recipe for these things didn’t read like the parts list on Junior’s chemistry set.

[Fightin Whitey]

You gotta point there.

On the other hand I live near a university town and everybody there avoids beef, sugar, nuts, gluten, fructose, lactose, fractose and craptose...

And somehow they’re still always sick and tired and whinin’ about it.

Oh for the good old days lol...

[babyfreep]

Our suppliers give retailers promotional costs, on occasion, too. Most of the advantages of SBT are on the retailers’ side. They don’t have to stock perishable items and split the shrink cost with their suppliers. It frees up retailer resources, too. They don’t have to keep inventory or manage orders and deliveries.
I have a feeling the retailers Hostess is doing SBT with will be selling thru the product and still paying them per sale.

[babyfreep]

And Bimbo, who just might take over these sugary snack names, is one of my biggest SBT customers (along with some others mentioned here).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2960754/posts

[HiTech RedNeck]

They sound like a logical choice. The product is at their level. I understand Bimbo has its own line of Hispanic themed sweet snacks. They’d probably sell on both sides of the border. Twinquis here we come.