Hostess workers strike may kill company - Page 4

StankApe · 17th November 2012, 03:58 PM

I meant sales.... not expand the actual business itself.

frankly, I'm kinda bored talking about this. I just hope that there isn't a significant sno-ball shortage.

balrog666 · 17th November 2012, 04:11 PM

Expanding any business without addressing the cost basis, particularly in any union contracts and prior pension and healthcare obligations, is recklessly stupid.

geni · 17th November 2012, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

I meant sales.... not expand the actual business itself.

Still wrong. But in fairness I doubt you have much of a background in say manufacturing.

Getting rid of a few unprofitable lines reduces sales but may well put the company as a whole back into profit.

geni · 17th November 2012, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by balrog666

Expanding any business without addressing the cost basis, particularly in any union contracts and prior pension and healthcare obligations, is recklessly stupid.

Those tend to be fairly minor issues in most cases. A least compared to working out if there is a worthwhile market and how much grounds your competitors have for reducing prices.

balrog666 · 17th November 2012, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Those tend to be fairly minor issues in most cases. A least compared to working out if there is a worthwhile market and how much grounds your competitors have for reducing prices.

Not for Hostess.

jhunter1163 · 17th November 2012, 05:00 PM

I doubt that the assets of Hostess will sell for enough to cover its liabilities. The only question is how much of a haircut its lenders are going to take.

From what I've read, I believe that this was inevitable; the bakers' strike just brought it about sooner than it otherwise would have happened.

jj · 17th November 2012, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

From what I've read, I believe that this was inevitable; the bakers' strike just brought it about sooner than it otherwise would have happened.

Indeed, however, management had the option to modernize and cut some of the worst product, but instead chose to take huge salaries and leave the company broke for the second time.

balrog666 · 17th November 2012, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Indeed, however, management had the option to modernize and cut some of the worst product, but instead chose to take huge salaries and leave the company broke for the second time.

Keep repeating that nonsense and maybe, someday, you might get someone to believe it ...

Solitaire · 17th November 2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

There's something missing from every story I read about this strike.

I saw several references to an 8% pay cut, but I haven't seen anything about from what to what? Is is $10.00 down to $9.20, or is it $20.00 down to $18.40?

Were these overpaid workers who didn't realize how good they had it? Or were these people struggling to live a decent living for whom one more slap in the face was just too much to bear?

Putting it differently, have these workers who lost their jobs really lost anything? If these were crummy jobs, they'll find new ones, and some of the people laid off will come out much better than what they were doing at Hostess. If these were great jobs, then, maybe they should have been a bit more realistic.

Good question, I'll have a look.

Quote:

Twinkies Will Keep Coming Despite Bankruptcy by Aaron Smith

The company has about 19,000 full-time and part-time employees, including 10,413 hourly workers and 8,436 salaried workers, according to a court filing. About 83% of the employees are union members. The company said that it pays about $63.2 million to its employees per pay period, and that it currently owes them $21 million for services rendered.

So on average $40235.556 per year. If we eyeball this curve – Distribution Of Annual Household Income In The United States – then they make maybe $30,000 a year. Hm, difficult. In a few regions of the country you might be able to survive with a family on that – rural to suburban, probably not urban.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But the possibility exists that the Teamsters had great jobs, and the Bakers had lousy jobs. While the Teamsters would probably be angry, the Bakers really have to put the Bakers first.

So I'm just curious what sort of deal the Bakers were being offered. Is it something that most of us who don't bake Twinkies for a living would envy, or would most of us say that we wouldn't work for those wages either?

Meanwhile, the managers/owners had a choice as well. Bummer that they couldn't attract good people who were willing to work at a wage that would make the owners some money, but that's the way the Twinkie crumbles. I guess they'll have to find some other job. Some of them will have to take a pay cut, I'll guess, but that's life. Their company failed. That is, kind of by definition, a sign of bad management, so a pay cut seems appropriate. Maybe they'll do better next time.

Assuming of course that they don't make out like bandits by selling the brand names and baking facilities to other parties.

Okay. I'll take another look.

Quote:

Workers React To Hostess Closing by Chris Isidore

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

An 8% overall cut in pay resulted in a 26.47% cut in the lower levels. That company failed because it was top heavy with management costs. Of course, a lot of American companies are top heavy.

jj · 17th November 2012, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by balrog666

Keep repeating that nonsense and maybe, someday, you might get someone to believe it ...

Rather than engage in ad-hominem defamation, why don't you dig up some evidence to counter the obvious evidence in the public record. I will take it as granted that you have engaged in willful defamation unless you fully and completely provide testable, verifiable evidence for your assertion that my comment is "nonsense".

Thank you in advance for behavior in an ethical fashion.

balrog666 · 17th November 2012, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Rather than engage in ad-hominem defamation, why don't you dig up some evidence to counter the obvious evidence in the public record. I will take it as granted that you have engaged in willful defamation unless you fully and completely provide testable, verifiable evidence for your assertion that my comment is "nonsense".

Thank you in advance for behavior in an ethical fashion.

Post a real argument and I suspect you will get many responses.

Post "crap" many times and people will just ignore you.

jj · 17th November 2012, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by balrog666

Post a real argument and I suspect you will get many responses.

Post "crap" many times and people will just ignore you.

Thank you for stipulating that you have no evidence to support your false claim of "crap".

balrog666 · 17th November 2012, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Thank you for stipulating that you have no evidence to support your false claim of "crap".

Thank you for stipulating your argument is "crap".

Works both ways, every time.

Foolmewunz · 17th November 2012, 07:40 PM

Background reading. I think someone linked to this earlier, but I can't find the post to bump.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...kies-bankrupt/

I know it's more fun to point fingers and say "He did it!", but the article is pretty clear that they are all villains in this story. (It dates back to before the current strike/bankruptcy scenario.)

Jomante · 17th November 2012, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Background reading. I think someone linked to this earlier, but I can't find the post to bump.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...kies-bankrupt/

I know it's more fun to point fingers and say "He did it!", but the article is pretty clear that they are all villains in this story. (It dates back to before the current strike/bankruptcy scenario.)

Awesome article, really blows away some of the arguments made in this thread with solid facts. Thanks.

jj · 17th November 2012, 08:01 PM

http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2...t-hostess.html is also an interesting point.

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by jj

So, you're ignoring how the officers of this company made out like bandits on the money "saved" from the employees, without reinvesting a thing, and how they stripped it and ripped it?

Any evidence for these claims jj? Don't forget to show your math!

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by geni

Why would you describe extracting the most profitable outcome to be making something fail?

Maybe you'll be the first person in this thread to explain how a failed company is somehow more valuable than if that same company was making a profit.

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by geni

No they aren't. The factories weren't closed shops.

Ae you actually claiming that management was free to fire the bakers union workers and hire whoever they wanted?

Foolmewunz · 18th November 2012, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Any evidence for these claims jj? Don't forget to show your math!

How about you read the Fortune article I linked to so you can stop pretending to not have any information. It's got math in it, so you'll be pleased. (And it's a pretty even-handed article. Fortune's not exactly the Village Voice.)

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by geni

Not remotely.

The most straigtforward approach is to pick up on an an asset that other potential purchasers have missed (say land) and liquidate.

And this land increases in value when the company becomes unprofitable?

Originally Posted by geni

Next is rather than expanding you instead shrink the company in the process removing those parts of it that aren't profitable leaving a smaller but profitable core. This of course requires that there actualy be a profitable core rather than it just being accountacy smoke and mirrors.

And don't those parts you eliminated count as a loss?

Originally Posted by geni

Thirdly you can try cutting costs to below sustainable levels to make the company profitable while hoping that the assets +the profits over the 2-3 years before the thing collapses are more than you paid for the thing.

That doesn't even make sense.

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by jj

Indeed, however, management had the option to modernize and cut some of the worst product, but instead chose to take huge salaries and leave the company broke for the second time.

Evidence the union would agree to modernization?

Union resistance to modernization brought down big steel in the US. While new modern plants were built in China producing top quality steel at low cost US manufacturers were saddled with entrenched unions that prevented them from modernizing, because new equipment meant less union workers needed. So US steel companies were producing such expensive low-quality steel that not even Bush's misguided steel tariffs could save them.

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Jomante

Awesome article, really blows away some of the arguments made in this thread with solid facts. Thanks.

What arguments in this thread does that article "blow away"?

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

How about you read the Fortune article I linked to so you can stop pretending to not have any information. It's got math in it, so you'll be pleased. (And it's a pretty even-handed article. Fortune's not exactly the Village Voice.)

I read it. Can you quote the part that supports jj's claim?

Foolmewunz · 18th November 2012, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I read it. Can you quote the part that supports jj's claim?

Because you missed the part where they talk about the golden parachute the previous CEO had or the part about management voting themselves huge raises? Or you just want to hear someone else say it?

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Because you missed the part where they talk about the golden parachute the previous CEO had or the part about management voting themselves huge raises? Or you just want to hear someone else say it?

Was someone in this thread denying that top management got raises?

Random · 18th November 2012, 08:29 AM

It seems pretty clear that Hostess was probably doomed long before this strike. If you go into bankruptcy proceedings with $600 million in debt, and come out with $800 million in debt, something is wrong at a fundamental level. Americans are just not eating enough Twinkies.

Foolmewunz · 18th November 2012, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Was someone in this thread denying that top management got raises?

You. Post 137.

Oh, but wait, you didn't actually claim that. You were just asking questions.

Scopedog · 18th November 2012, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

...The only question is how much of a haircut its lenders are going to take.

No, everybody's going to make a fortune on the bankruptcy and this is an enormous success for the lenders! Haven't you been reading the thread?

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

You. Post 137.

Oh, but wait, you didn't actually claim that. You were just asking questions.

jj claimed that all of the concessions made by the unionized workers went straight into the pockets of top management, and nothing was put forth trying to improve the company.

Any evidence of this?

jj · 18th November 2012, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

jj claimed that all of the concessions made by the unionized workers went straight into the pockets of top management, and nothing was put forth trying to improve the company.

Any evidence of this?

Where did you come up with "all"? None of it went to improving either equipment or product, though.

Now, how much did the upper management take out of the money taken from labor? Do tell. You want to argue with the teamsters?

jj · 18th November 2012, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Maybe you'll be the first person in this thread to explain how a failed company is somehow more valuable than if that same company was making a profit.

Perhaps you could actually discuss what somebody has said, instead of what you want to defend, for once?

jj · 18th November 2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Any evidence for these claims jj? Don't forget to show your math!

So, you won't read the link cited just above your post, you'll simply ignore facts in evidence and demand that I do your homework.

Um, no.

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Where did you come up with "all"? None of it went to improving either equipment or product, though.

Now, how much did the upper management take out of the money taken from labor? Do tell. You want to argue with the teamsters?

Originally Posted by jj

So, you won't read the link cited just above your post, you'll simply ignore facts in evidence and demand that I do your homework.

Um, no.

jj, this is where you:
1. Show the dollar value of the concessions.
2. Show where those dollars went.

jj · 18th November 2012, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

jj, this is where you:
1. Show the dollar value of the concessions.
2. Show where those dollars went.

Read the cite. This is where you don't demand that people repeat, and repeat, and repeat the same work for your rhetorical posing.

WildCat · 18th November 2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Read the cite. This is where you don't demand that people repeat, and repeat, and repeat the same work for your rhetorical posing.

The labor concessions mentioned totaled in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The executive pay raises totalled ~$5 million.

Where did the rest of the money go jj? Oh, and realize during this time the owners were dumping hundreds of millions into it also.

jj · 19th November 2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8AI0XS20121119

So, apparently I'm not the only one who came to the same conclusion. Now are you going to accept the facts of the matter, or are you going to blame this on politics? The blindness of Libertarian worshipers of the "free market" is truly astonishing, and the failure to see where a "free market" leads from the point of view of history seems much like willful ignorance.

The_Animus · 19th November 2012, 03:27 PM

I can't speak to the accuracy of the following picture as I don't have its source, so this is just posted because its related to the topic.

Meadmaker · 19th November 2012, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by jj

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8AI0XS20121119

So, apparently I'm not the only one who came to the same conclusion. Now are you going to accept the facts of the matter, or are you going to blame this on politics? The blindness of Libertarian worshipers of the "free market" is truly astonishing, and the failure to see where a "free market" leads from the point of view of history seems much like willful ignorance.

In case anyone was looking for step 3, there it is.

Yes, somebody has to lose in order for someone else to gain in this manner, but the guys who actually ran the company and drove it into liquidation were planning on giving themselves a whole bunch of money to compensate themselves for their hard work.

sir drinks-a-lot · 19th November 2012, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by jj

So, apparently I'm not the only one who came to the same conclusion. Now are you going to accept the facts of the matter, or are you going to blame this on politics? The blindness of Libertarian worshipers of the "free market" is truly astonishing, and the failure to see where a "free market" leads from the point of view of history seems much like willful ignorance.

Seems the ignorance is all yours.

17th November 2012, 03:58 PM	#121
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	I meant sales.... not expand the actual business itself. frankly, I'm kinda bored talking about this. I just hope that there isn't a significant sno-ball shortage.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

17th November 2012, 04:11 PM	#122
balrog666 Eigenmode: Cynic Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,525	Expanding any business without addressing the cost basis, particularly in any union contracts and prior pension and healthcare obligations, is recklessly stupid.
	__________________ A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain Diversity--When all colors and creeds believe exactly as liberals want them to. Or Else! -Coyote

17th November 2012, 04:46 PM	#125
balrog666 Eigenmode: Cynic Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,525	Originally Posted by geni Those tend to be fairly minor issues in most cases. A least compared to working out if there is a worthwhile market and how much grounds your competitors have for reducing prices. Not for Hostess.
	__________________ A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain Diversity--When all colors and creeds believe exactly as liberals want them to. Or Else! -Coyote

17th November 2012, 05:33 PM	#127
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,493	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 From what I've read, I believe that this was inevitable; the bakers' strike just brought it about sooner than it otherwise would have happened. Indeed, however, management had the option to modernize and cut some of the worst product, but instead chose to take huge salaries and leave the company broke for the second time.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

17th November 2012, 05:49 PM	#128
balrog666 Eigenmode: Cynic Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,525	Originally Posted by jj Indeed, however, management had the option to modernize and cut some of the worst product, but instead chose to take huge salaries and leave the company broke for the second time. Keep repeating that nonsense and maybe, someday, you might get someone to believe it ...
	__________________ A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain Diversity--When all colors and creeds believe exactly as liberals want them to. Or Else! -Coyote

17th November 2012, 04:11 PM	#123
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,561	Originally Posted by StankApe I meant sales.... not expand the actual business itself. Still wrong. But in fairness I doubt you have much of a background in say manufacturing. Getting rid of a few unprofitable lines reduces sales but may well put the company as a whole back into profit.

17th November 2012, 04:13 PM	#124
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,561	Originally Posted by balrog666 Expanding any business without addressing the cost basis, particularly in any union contracts and prior pension and healthcare obligations, is recklessly stupid. Those tend to be fairly minor issues in most cases. A least compared to working out if there is a worthwhile market and how much grounds your competitors have for reducing prices.

17th November 2012, 05:00 PM	#126
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,557	I doubt that the assets of Hostess will sell for enough to cover its liabilities. The only question is how much of a haircut its lenders are going to take. From what I've read, I believe that this was inevitable; the bakers' strike just brought it about sooner than it otherwise would have happened.

17th November 2012, 06:28 PM	#129
Solitaire Neoclinus blanchardi Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Johnson City, Tennessee Posts: 1,735	Originally Posted by Meadmaker There's something missing from every story I read about this strike. I saw several references to an 8% pay cut, but I haven't seen anything about from what to what? Is is $10.00 down to $9.20, or is it $20.00 down to $18.40? Were these overpaid workers who didn't realize how good they had it? Or were these people struggling to live a decent living for whom one more slap in the face was just too much to bear? Putting it differently, have these workers who lost their jobs really lost anything? If these were crummy jobs, they'll find new ones, and some of the people laid off will come out much better than what they were doing at Hostess. If these were great jobs, then, maybe they should have been a bit more realistic. Good question, I'll have a look. Quote: Twinkies Will Keep Coming Despite Bankruptcy by Aaron Smith The company has about 19,000 full-time and part-time employees, including 10,413 hourly workers and 8,436 salaried workers, according to a court filing. About 83% of the employees are union members. The company said that it pays about $63.2 million to its employees per pay period, and that it currently owes them $21 million for services rendered. So on average $40235.556 per year. If we eyeball this curve – Distribution Of Annual Household Income In The United States – then they make maybe $30,000 a year. Hm, difficult. In a few regions of the country you might be able to survive with a family on that – rural to suburban, probably not urban. Originally Posted by Meadmaker But the possibility exists that the Teamsters had great jobs, and the Bakers had lousy jobs. While the Teamsters would probably be angry, the Bakers really have to put the Bakers first. So I'm just curious what sort of deal the Bakers were being offered. Is it something that most of us who don't bake Twinkies for a living would envy, or would most of us say that we wouldn't work for those wages either? Meanwhile, the managers/owners had a choice as well. Bummer that they couldn't attract good people who were willing to work at a wage that would make the owners some money, but that's the way the Twinkie crumbles. I guess they'll have to find some other job. Some of them will have to take a pay cut, I'll guess, but that's life. Their company failed. That is, kind of by definition, a sign of bad management, so a pay cut seems appropriate. Maybe they'll do better next time. Assuming of course that they don't make out like bandits by selling the brand names and baking facilities to other parties. Okay. I'll take another look. Quote: Workers React To Hostess Closing by Chris Isidore Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance. An 8% overall cut in pay resulted in a 26.47% cut in the lower levels. That company failed because it was top heavy with management costs. Of course, a lot of American companies are top heavy.
	__________________ GENERATION ∞: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

17th November 2012, 06:38 PM	#130
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,493	Originally Posted by balrog666 Keep repeating that nonsense and maybe, someday, you might get someone to believe it ... Rather than engage in ad-hominem defamation, why don't you dig up some evidence to counter the obvious evidence in the public record. I will take it as granted that you have engaged in willful defamation unless you fully and completely provide testable, verifiable evidence for your assertion that my comment is "nonsense". Thank you in advance for behavior in an ethical fashion.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

17th November 2012, 06:41 PM	#131
balrog666 Eigenmode: Cynic Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,525	Originally Posted by jj Rather than engage in ad-hominem defamation, why don't you dig up some evidence to counter the obvious evidence in the public record. I will take it as granted that you have engaged in willful defamation unless you fully and completely provide testable, verifiable evidence for your assertion that my comment is "nonsense". Thank you in advance for behavior in an ethical fashion. Post a real argument and I suspect you will get many responses. Post "crap" many times and people will just ignore you.
	__________________ A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain Diversity--When all colors and creeds believe exactly as liberals want them to. Or Else! -Coyote

17th November 2012, 06:42 PM	#132
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,493	Originally Posted by balrog666 Post a real argument and I suspect you will get many responses. Post "crap" many times and people will just ignore you. Thank you for stipulating that you have no evidence to support your false claim of "crap".
	__________________ The Power to Quit

17th November 2012, 06:52 PM	#133
balrog666 Eigenmode: Cynic Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,525	Originally Posted by jj Thank you for stipulating that you have no evidence to support your false claim of "crap". Thank you for stipulating your argument is "crap". Works both ways, every time.
	__________________ A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain Diversity--When all colors and creeds believe exactly as liberals want them to. Or Else! -Coyote

17th November 2012, 07:40 PM	#134
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,512	Background reading. I think someone linked to this earlier, but I can't find the post to bump. http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...kies-bankrupt/ I know it's more fun to point fingers and say "He did it!", but the article is pretty clear that they are all villains in this story. (It dates back to before the current strike/bankruptcy scenario.)
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

17th November 2012, 07:59 PM	#135
Jomante Thinker Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 221	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Background reading. I think someone linked to this earlier, but I can't find the post to bump. http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...kies-bankrupt/ I know it's more fun to point fingers and say "He did it!", but the article is pretty clear that they are all villains in this story. (It dates back to before the current strike/bankruptcy scenario.) Awesome article, really blows away some of the arguments made in this thread with solid facts. Thanks.
Jomante Thinker Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 221

17th November 2012, 08:01 PM	#136
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,493	http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2...t-hostess.html is also an interesting point.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

18th November 2012, 06:53 AM	#137
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by jj So, you're ignoring how the officers of this company made out like bandits on the money "saved" from the employees, without reinvesting a thing, and how they stripped it and ripped it? Any evidence for these claims jj? Don't forget to show your math!

18th November 2012, 06:55 AM	#138
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by geni Why would you describe extracting the most profitable outcome to be making something fail? Maybe you'll be the first person in this thread to explain how a failed company is somehow more valuable than if that same company was making a profit.

18th November 2012, 06:56 AM	#139
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by geni No they aren't. The factories weren't closed shops. Ae you actually claiming that management was free to fire the bakers union workers and hire whoever they wanted?

18th November 2012, 06:56 AM	#140
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,512	Originally Posted by WildCat Any evidence for these claims jj? Don't forget to show your math! How about you read the Fortune article I linked to so you can stop pretending to not have any information. It's got math in it, so you'll be pleased. (And it's a pretty even-handed article. Fortune's not exactly the Village Voice.)
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

18th November 2012, 06:59 AM	#141
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by geni Not remotely. The most straigtforward approach is to pick up on an an asset that other potential purchasers have missed (say land) and liquidate. And this land increases in value when the company becomes unprofitable? Originally Posted by geni Next is rather than expanding you instead shrink the company in the process removing those parts of it that aren't profitable leaving a smaller but profitable core. This of course requires that there actualy be a profitable core rather than it just being accountacy smoke and mirrors. And don't those parts you eliminated count as a loss? Originally Posted by geni Thirdly you can try cutting costs to below sustainable levels to make the company profitable while hoping that the assets +the profits over the 2-3 years before the thing collapses are more than you paid for the thing. That doesn't even make sense.

18th November 2012, 07:04 AM	#142
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by jj Indeed, however, management had the option to modernize and cut some of the worst product, but instead chose to take huge salaries and leave the company broke for the second time. Evidence the union would agree to modernization? Union resistance to modernization brought down big steel in the US. While new modern plants were built in China producing top quality steel at low cost US manufacturers were saddled with entrenched unions that prevented them from modernizing, because new equipment meant less union workers needed. So US steel companies were producing such expensive low-quality steel that not even Bush's misguided steel tariffs could save them.

18th November 2012, 07:10 AM	#143
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by Jomante Awesome article, really blows away some of the arguments made in this thread with solid facts. Thanks. What arguments in this thread does that article "blow away"?

18th November 2012, 07:19 AM	#144
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz How about you read the Fortune article I linked to so you can stop pretending to not have any information. It's got math in it, so you'll be pleased. (And it's a pretty even-handed article. Fortune's not exactly the Village Voice.) I read it. Can you quote the part that supports jj's claim?

18th November 2012, 07:21 AM	#145
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,512	Originally Posted by WildCat I read it. Can you quote the part that supports jj's claim? Because you missed the part where they talk about the golden parachute the previous CEO had or the part about management voting themselves huge raises? Or you just want to hear someone else say it?
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

18th November 2012, 07:35 AM	#146
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Because you missed the part where they talk about the golden parachute the previous CEO had or the part about management voting themselves huge raises? Or you just want to hear someone else say it? Was someone in this thread denying that top management got raises?

18th November 2012, 08:29 AM	#147
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,458	It seems pretty clear that Hostess was probably doomed long before this strike. If you go into bankruptcy proceedings with $600 million in debt, and come out with $800 million in debt, something is wrong at a fundamental level. Americans are just not eating enough Twinkies.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

18th November 2012, 08:42 AM	#148
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,512	Originally Posted by WildCat Was someone in this thread denying that top management got raises? You. Post 137. Oh, but wait, you didn't actually claim that. You were just asking questions.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

18th November 2012, 09:12 AM	#149
Scopedog Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 275	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 ...The only question is how much of a haircut its lenders are going to take. No, everybody's going to make a fortune on the bankruptcy and this is an enormous success for the lenders! Haven't you been reading the thread?
Scopedog Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 275

18th November 2012, 09:33 AM	#150
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz You. Post 137. Oh, but wait, you didn't actually claim that. You were just asking questions. jj claimed that all of the concessions made by the unionized workers went straight into the pockets of top management, and nothing was put forth trying to improve the company. Any evidence of this?

18th November 2012, 01:36 PM	#151
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,493	Originally Posted by WildCat jj claimed that all of the concessions made by the unionized workers went straight into the pockets of top management, and nothing was put forth trying to improve the company. Any evidence of this? Where did you come up with "all"? None of it went to improving either equipment or product, though. Now, how much did the upper management take out of the money taken from labor? Do tell. You want to argue with the teamsters?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

18th November 2012, 01:38 PM	#152
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,493	Originally Posted by WildCat Maybe you'll be the first person in this thread to explain how a failed company is somehow more valuable than if that same company was making a profit. Perhaps you could actually discuss what somebody has said, instead of what you want to defend, for once?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

18th November 2012, 01:39 PM	#153
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,493	Originally Posted by WildCat Any evidence for these claims jj? Don't forget to show your math! So, you won't read the link cited just above your post, you'll simply ignore facts in evidence and demand that I do your homework. Um, no.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

18th November 2012, 01:44 PM	#154
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,006	Originally Posted by jj Where did you come up with "all"? None of it went to improving either equipment or product, though. Now, how much did the upper management take out of the money taken from labor? Do tell. You want to argue with the teamsters? Originally Posted by jj So, you won't read the link cited just above your post, you'll simply ignore facts in evidence and demand that I do your homework. Um, no. jj, this is where you: 1. Show the dollar value of the concessions. 2. Show where those dollars went.

18th November 2012, 01:49 PM	#155
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,493	Originally Posted by WildCat jj, this is where you: 1. Show the dollar value of the concessions. 2. Show where those dollars went. Read the cite. This is where you don't demand that people repeat, and repeat, and repeat the same work for your rhetorical posing.
	__________________ The Power to Quit