"We did everything we could to save the company," said Joseph Ortuso, a Teamster and sales route driver from New Jersey who'd been with Hostess or its acquisitions for more than two decades. "We never gave up during bankruptcy. We fought in the marketplace to retain our business. In the end, somebody else made the decision."
"They're losing [5,000] jobs," Ortuso said of the bakers' union, "but they're costing 18,900 people their jobs."
Ken Hall, the Teamsters secretary-treasurer, said his union didn't doubt Hostess' claims after seeing its books.
"I think it's obvious there was no bluff," said Hall. "Our financial advisers had looked at their books, they had total access. We pushed them in negotiations to where we thought it was the absolute limit, that we would get the most for our members and [still] have a pathway back to prosperity for the company. The bakers' union disagreed with that."
"Frankly, I feel sick about what's going on here," Hall added. "It's a tragic day for 18,000 workers."
very. They are more at odds with the Baker's union than hostess as this point. I read an article earlier and the Teamster's rep was less than positive about the baker's union's actions.
they arent going to liquidate hostess, all of that is just a ruse. and even if they did, someone else would buy it up and realize they have to pay a decent wage. those workers arent greedy, the management is
Hostess got the Teamsters to cut their workers pay saying the company needed to do this to avoid bankruptcy a year ago. Then the execs got raises and Hostess went in for another pay cut this week with the Teamsters and they either had to accept it or it was game over.
Now Hostess get's to blame the Baker's for going belly up
Executives aren't even needed. A bakery can run without them, but it can't run without bakers...
Sorry, you can't run a 19000 employee company without executives.
Sorry, you can't run a 19000 employee company without executives.
Sure you can. It might not run optimally, but it'll run. It'll certainly run better than it would without bakers.
...regret going on strike? 18,000 jobs gonzo.
It's not just the union's fault (although they didn't help things). Where does management get off giving themselves a series of raises as the company goes through bankruptcy multiple times? The unions were greedy? So were the executives who gave themselves massive raises as the company was being gutted. Asking the little guy to take one for the team so that executives of a failing company can take even bigger salaries is fucking ridiculous.
What does that have to do with rewarding failure? It seems like this has been the dialogue at every major US company over the last thirty years:Look at it from an executives point of view-
2 jobs, each paying 200k. One will not go out of business (notHostess) one might go out of business (Hostess). Which one do you pick?
I'm not saying it's right btw. it is what it is.
What does that have to do with rewarding failure?
Every job I've ever had has told me that if all I come to work for is a paycheck, I'm probably not worth hiring. Does no one take pride in their work anymore? Does no executive want to face the challenge of fixing a broken company? Are they seriously only in it to get hugely fuck-off rich? Do we expect only the bakers to care about the greater good of the company, because management can't be bothered? Why can they find good executives in Japan or Korea without offering the exorbitant salaries they offer in America to executives who do nothing but drive the company into the ground?It doesn't matter if it's the current CEO or an incoming CEO, CEO compensation would have to be > than market rate in order for a CEO to want to come to a sinking ship.
and a million bucks is seriously a drop in the bucket when your yearly revenue is 2.5B (or w/e)
Margins on what they sell are also terrible, so a company making products outside of the country would have an enormous competitive advantage due to the cost of labor.
Sorry, you can't run a 19000 employee company without executives.