“From previous postings we learned that the baker’s union was reasonable and had approved concessions in previous contracts but the delivery drivers, who were raking in 6 figures, were the idiots”
That’s incorrect. You have it backwards. ALL the unions (including Teamsters) granted concessions EXCEPT the bakers. It was the bakers union that killed the whole deal, and in the long run, the Teamsters go royally hosed since the new owners dumped the delivery routes.
I copied the first thing google turned up about this:
“The Hostess unions thought they held a royal flush.
Mark Lennihan, The Associated Press
Twinkies first came onto the scene in 1930, but unions overplayed their hand last year and now non-union workers will produce the next version.
As it turns out, they weren’t even in the game.
After 18,500 Hostess employees lost their jobs because the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union went out on strike (the Teamsters did not want to strike) the company went into bankruptcy and shut down, as its executives had warned it would, given a labor stoppage.”
No, you are wrong. The baker’s union granted concessions in the previous two contracts and cut far deeper than the Teamsters did. So for this go-around the baker’s decided to hold there ground while the Teamsters nibbled at their feather bedded $100,000+ delivery routes.
They did so because any savings they agreed to was going to be consumed by the Teamsters.
In the end the baker’s decided that any cuts on their part was futile and that they would take heir chances post bankruptcy. As you said the Teamster’s got hosed and that was the baker’s union goal.
We need a little more Union vs. Union standoffs. Why aren’t the trade unions squaring off against the unions that endorse the leftist agenda?