Disclaimer

Yep, unions to blame

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Brands#Bankruptcy_and_liquidation_.282012.29

How much would you bend until you break?

Bankruptcy (2004)

On September 22, 2004, Interstate Bakeries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company also named a new chief executive, Tony Alvarez. Interstate Bakery's stock, which had been at one time $34/share, fell to $2.05/share as they declared bankruptcy. At the time it was the longest bankruptcy in U.S. history. During bankruptcy, Interstate fought a 2007 bid from Mexican baked goods giant Grupo Bimbo and Ron Burkle of the Yucaipa Companies.[13]

With the leadership of Craig Jung, the company emerged from bankruptcy as a private company on February 3, 2009.[14] The plan included a 50 percent equity stake by Ripplewood Holdings and lines/loans by General Electric Capital and GE Capital Markets, Silver Point Finance and Monarch Master Funding. Interstate's union workers made contract concessions in exchange for equity.[15]

During the 2004–2009 bankruptcy period, Interstate closed nine of its 54 bakeries and more than 300 outlet stores. Interstate's work force declined from 32,000 to 22,000 employees. The company also dropped some regional brands and operating agreements, such as the agreement to produce Sunbeam Bread for the northeastern U.S. (now produced by LePage Bakeries of Auburn, Maine).[15]

So, it couldn't compete in 2004 and yet, here we are in 2012 and it's the unions fault, after they made concessions back then for company equity because they believed it was worth it. The company also had the opportunity to sell itself to Bimbo and Yucaipa, but no. So there's the "fool me once"...

Bankruptcy and liquidation (2012)

By December 2011 it was reported that Hostess Brands was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy a second time after it suspended payments for union pensions and was struggling to remain current on its $700 million loan.[17]

On January 10, 2012, Hostess Brands filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for the second time. In a statement in its filing, the company said it "is not competitive, primarily due to legacy pension and medical benefit obligations and restrictive work rules." The company said it employs 19,000 people and carries more than $860 million in debt. The company said it would continue to operate with $75 million debtor-in-possession financing from Monarch Alternative Capital, Silver Point Capital and other investors.[4]

...

In March 2012, Brian Driscoll resigned from his position as CEO.[20] Gregory Rayburn, who had been hired and named Chief Restructuring Officer only nine days earlier, assumed the leadership position. Fortune reported that unions within the organization had been unhappy with Driscoll's proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million "long term compensation" package. Additionally, the court had discovered that Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year prior. In an effort to restore relations, Rayburn cut the salaries of the four top Hostess executives to $1, to be restored on January 1 the following year.[21]

There's "fool me twice"

In July 2012, the New York Post reported that negotiations (lead by Silver Point Capital) with the Teamsters Union were close to a possible agreement that could allow Hostess Brands to cut employee pay and benefits, if the company maintained funding of existing pension plans.[22]

"Alright, we're trying to work with you here, we'll take a pay and benefit cut if you can at least guarantee the pension you've promised us"

In May, all 19,000 workers had been warned (as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) that they could face a mass layoff. In an email to the Appeal-Democrat Hostess spokesman Erik Halvorson said that the May notices were to alert employees to possible sale or wind down of the company, but that "our goal is still to emerge from bankruptcy as a growing company with a strong future."[23] These layoff notices listed the dates as July 7–21, but on July 5 another company spokesman told the Financial News & Daily Record that there were no immediate plans to start laying off Hostess employees.[24]

In November 2012, Hostess employees nationwide went on strike. The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers' International Union, which represents 6,600 Hostess employees, took the strike action after the latest contract proposal from Hostess Brands was rejected by 92 percent of its members.

Hmm... 92% of members rejected it. 92%. One might surmise there's some reason why an overwhelming majority said no... because 92% of the unionized workforce (over 5000 employees) are all lazy greedy scum? Not like the CEO with the $1.5M compensation package and other execs with the 80% raise... right? They all deserve it because they ran the company into bankruptcy, AGAIN.

In response, Hostess Brands issued the following statement: "A widespread strike will cause Hostess brands to liquidate if we are unable to produce or deliver products. If that's the case, the company will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,300-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders. We urge our employees to remain on the job to rebuild the company."[25]

On November 16, 2012, Hostess announced that it was ceasing plant operations and laying off most of its 18,500 employees. It stated that it intended to sell off all of its assets, including the well known brand names, and liquidate.[26][27] The CEO, Gregory F. Rayburn stated, "Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders."[28][29]

However, in order to actually liquidate, it needs the permission of U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Drain.[30]

And that brings us to today...

Blame the unions all you want because it's their fault the CEOs signed up for contract they couldn't make good on... even after the unions tried to work with them and made concessions, only to find out the execs gave themselves raises on the way out the door... likely knowing the whole time that the company was nose-diving. They grabbed theirs while the getting was good and then left the unions holding the bag. Shame on those unions for wanting what's due to them.

Like I said, I only hope the banks would work with people who can't make their mortgages as much as the unions tried to... but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm still of the opinion that if you were asked to take a wage cut when you knew the upper mgmt wasn't willing to take the same and in fact increased their wages, I would rather force the business into liquidation than to sit there and take it from upper mgmt.

Yea, I'll take my unemployment and find a different job in the interim, but I sure as hell aren't going to make life easy for the management who agreed to the contract in the first place.

Just like the bank doesn't care if I get laid off or business if bad (assuming I'm self-employed), my contract w/ them still says I owe them mortgage each month. If the CEOs agreed to the union contract, then they should be obligated to pay... and if that means increasing the price of Twinkies to $5 a box instead of $4/box then that's what it takes... it's a failure on mgmts part to agree to the contract and not see the market would not bear $5/box for Twinkies.

But, that's fine... blame the union workers, scapegoat them for not working with management... just like how you blame the bank for not working with homeowners when they can't pay their mortgage. Oh wait, no, it's still the little guys fault for entering an agreement where he should've known it was unsustainable. It's ALWAYS the little guys' fault for not working with the "job creators" / fatcats.

Capitalism is working in this instance. I don't see the issue' date=' honestly. Workers won't do the job for a little less to save the company. They're going out of business. They believe their labor is worth more than it is, and they're paying the price for it.

This should have happened with GM and Chrysler. Too bad it didn't.[/quote']

I agree with you that capitalism worked. But I don't view it in the same prism.

If I were a lineworker, regardless of being a union member or not, and my boss asked me for a 27-32% reduction in wage and benefits, I'd tell him to f*(k right off.

While the company was demanding major concessions from union workers (wage and benefit cuts amounting to 27- 32% overall), the top ten executives of the company rewarded themselves with compensation increases, with one executive receiving a 300 percent increase.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/15/4988697/hostess-in-current-condition-because.html

It's one thing to ask the peons to accept current wages and benefits, it's another to reduce them when they're already working for peanuts. You can read more about the mismanagement and other financial troubles Hostess has had on your own, but capitalism works since people have apparently decided that Twinkies cost too much and therefore need to cease their existence under the Hostess brand.

It's fine line to make the Hostess and GM/Chrsyler analogy because the situations are different and affect a vastly different amount of people, but Hostess is doing the exact same thing GM and Chrysler would've had to've done, given the Chap 11 Bankruptcy they're filing -- it'll be a reorg with a judge deciding whether or not they still have to honor the union contract...

Capitalism FTW!

Am I trolling? Or do I really know a n00b cop in Columbus?

Here fishy fishy fishy...

I know Mick, personal friend of mine.

Rick Perry Won’t Join Petitioners Calling for Texas to Secede, Says Union is Fine As Is

http://gawker.com/5960133/rick-perry-wont-join-petitioners-calling-for-texas-to-secede-says-union-is-fine-as-is

A more worthwhile petition... (since minimally effective is >> 0%)

Nearly Half a Million Sign Petition Urging Macy’s to ‘Dump Donald Trump’

http://gawker.com/5960081/nearly-half-a-million-sign-petition-urging-macys-to-dump-donald-trump

Your triangle would have 'sassy' in one of the corners.

It applies to women since I am the observer and commentator. Furthermore, unless you are Derek Zoolander, how often is the colloquial term "good looking" applied to men, sassy britches?

There's a reason that triangle is drawn with "Emotionally Stable" and "Good Looking" as the foundation.

Besides it's a trick... when have you seen a woman with intelligence? (Sorry if I offended any of the women, but I haven't seen an oven w/ wifi yet, so wtf r u doing outside the kitchen? Love you ladies. :* )

http://disappearingromney.com/

You can people watch at home... Preferably on brazzers

But at least this thread is in the right section.

The same people that wait in line to save $200 on a one time purchase are often the same people that spend $150/mo on Starbucks (or fill in the blank with whatever other wasteful spending you want). These are the people that order the Big Mac value meal with a DIET soda.

1963 Triumph Sunbeam!

1983 Dodge Omni!

2002 Dodge Stratus!

Opel Kadett!

Halo, you must lover alot.

Daewoo LeMans!

Ford Focus RS!

I'm gonna disagree. I dont consider the average democrat to be liberal. I take every opportunity to discuss issues with democrats. I've found that most times, most democrats agree with the republican platform on the issues but insist on voting democrat because their union told them to or the government agency they work for told them to and they really dont pay attention to politics or economics so they just go along with what they are told.

That's sooooo weird. Because it's like the same thing for me when I talk to Republicans. Except instead of their "union" it's their church or pastor, or they insist because one candidate says the words "small business" more than the other one, that candidate must be better, since he's using the right buzzwords. Mathematics, facts, and policies be damned!

Chevy Spark!

I thought this was going to be a thread about mechsuits. Son, I am disappoint.

Her first car? Old Buick $600.

Safe? Sure

Green? Only GM green

But she can make all of her new driver mistakes and not be out anything.

Sounds like my 1987 Buick Park Ave that I 'inherited' when I started driving. Except mine was maroon, and Concert Sound II is STILL a kickass OE stereo.

But, c'mon conn-e-rot... you had to know that starting this thread would inevitably mean you would not only be "educated" on Smart cars, but also how you should and shouldn't provide for your daughter, how you should or shouldn't spend your money, and what all the other posters would do differently without stepping foot in your shoes...

I'm guessing this'll turn into a "No, I had the sh*ttiest first car" game of oneupsmanship to see who had it the roughest growing up and why they're better than the ones who didn't. Race to the bottom.

#ThisIsORDN