MOST companies are struggling with pension obligations, even to make the minimum required contributions. I have no idea how the company was run, but wouldn’t expect the LA Times reporter to be unbiased.
Is it unreasonable to think union demands like artificially inflated wages, pensions, and other benefits kept them from spending enough on modernization?
I don’t know the answers, just not ready to swallow the LA Times story so easily.
If a company is losing money, the top management should be demanding cuts in workers salaries and benefits and not giving themselves bonuses and salary increases. This is why we have class warfare in the US. This has been going on for decades and it finally took a financial implosion (caused by Wall Street bankers and CEO’s) to have this issue erupt into the open. Dems understand this and will exploit this issue. The GOP does not even have a clue and continue to faithfully back corporate CEO’s motives in everything they do. The anger at the 1 percent is similar to the middle class backlash against the welfare class during the 1970’s.
One of the reasons why companies like 401(k)s. They have a fixed, up front cost and the company doesn't have to worry about how early employees retire or how long they live or whether the employees negotiate a better retirement deal which will then have to be funded for all past and current employees.
Hostess is a company that should have probably been dissolved years ago. I wonder which investors and suppliers are losing money by delaying bankruptcy and who would have lost money years ago but got paid in the interim.