[silverleaf]

You have to look hard to find out any reporting on what “draconian” cuts the union claims the company was demanding

Here are a few clues to what the unions turned down. Mind these came from a company that was already in Banrkrupcty

Here is the 8% cut- only for one year. Then raises thereafter
http://www.perishablenews.com/index.php?article=0024285

Here is restructuring to put new hires under a 401K plan, which what nonunion and management get - and to reenter Teamster pension plans on a case-by-case basis

Also some changes to wasteful featherbedding work rules

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/story/2012-04-14/twinkies-hostess-unions-bankruptcy/54280314/1

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Business/Teamsters-says-it-cannot-endorse-Hostess-final-offer-but-puts-it-to-union-vote

[MamaTexan]

You have to look hard to find out any reporting on what “draconian” cuts the union claims the company was demanding

It's my understanding from a thread yesterday that these terms were ordered (or agreed upon) by a bankruptcy court, so it's not like the company arbitrarily gave the union an ultimatum of some kind.