Drake's is owned by Hostess

I'm with you Rhonda on the frozen Devil Dogs, though I haven't had one period in at least 10 years.

Last year the union gave up over a hundred a week each to help the company....

This isn't about unions.

as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

Yes, Jan, this IS about unions. It's about a union whose members had good jobs. It's about a union whose members were asked to take an 8% cut in pay and give up some benefits in order to keep the company open and save their jobs. It's about a union that bit off its face to spite its nose because of greed, greed and more greed.

No, it's about the death of American business because of men like Romney...

“Wall Street investors first came onto the scene with Hostess about a decade ago, purchasing the company and then loading it with debt. All the while, its executives talked of investments in new equipment, new research and new delivery trucks, but those improvements never materialized,” explains AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka.

“Instead, the executives planned to give themselves bonuses and demanded pay cuts and benefit cuts from the workers, who haven’t had a raise in eight years,” said the AFL-CIO head. “In 2011, Hostess earned profits of more than $2.5 billion but ended the year with a loss of $341 million as it struggled to pay the interest on $1 billion in debt. This year, the company sought bankruptcy protection, the second time in eight years. Still, the CEO who brought on the latest bankruptcy got a raise while Hostess demanded that its workers accept a 30 percent pay and benefits cut.”

This is the new business model, and you've been lied to to help them to continue.
you should be out there with torches and pitchforks after these men who lie and destroy...
instead of blaming President Obama and calling for NH to leave the country...

Jan,

Really? Richard Trumka? The man who claims the fiscal cliff is "manufactured"? Of course he NEVER "lies and destroys"

Thanks for the chuckle

Hilltopper, Where do you think the fiscal cliff came from if not manufactured?

Jan, Richard Trumka. The man behind violent United Mine Worker strikes that resulted in the death of a non union crane operator. Next you will be quoting Al Sharpton.

Mike, we are the fiscal cliff becdause of the failure President Obama and the Democrat Senate to pass a budget in over 3 years.

The entire company is closing and liquidating.

--It only took "one" union--

.? Healthy eating is the Obama economy?.

Quite a stretch

Surely people still have Twinkies squirrelled away conducting just such an experiment, much like the Pitch Drop Experiment has been going on for almost a century now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment

Thanks Ray Guarino for your hateful comment reminding us once again that hate is really a Democrat thing.

"Thanks Ray Guárico for your hateful comment reminding us once again that hate is really a Democrat thing." Try honey, to read the vulgar posts of the Jims and the Dump Obama's and the NF'S and come back and make that claim again with a straight face............ You have got to be joking or insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, a little attempt at humor (very little)

Not if it means pay drops by 9% everywhere in a "race to the bottom".

@Atlant - Not even sure what you mean. Are saying that 100% pay decrease for the whole company (many of whom were not members of the union striking) is not a "race to the bottom"?

A 32% decrease over 5 years. Certainly the threat of losing your job is how we all receive that kind of news. The question is, how little are you willing to work for while the CEO gives himself 300% raises?

And as per your custom, you certainly have data to back up your numbers, right Mike? You have the CEO's name and how he received a 300% pay raise but you don't feel the need to share that because ... And you have the data that shows the company proposed a 32% pay cut over 5 years too, right?

If only you owned a computer and could look this stuff up on your own Gary......

Let me give you a hint Mike ... start at the extreme right-wing news source CNN who reports is this way:

"The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year. "

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html

You are talking only about salaries, why don't you do a little reading and find out the rest of the story. "contract would also cut benefits by 27 to 32 percent."
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/twinkies-maker-hostess-vows-liquidate-company-strikes-persist/story?id=17725053#.UKZ_4-QrWSE

Creditors Say Hostess Pay Is Questionable
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577323993512506050.html

That is a very different charge than your first claim that CEO "gives himself 300% raises" and frankly is all quite beside the point ... the workers could have come back to work and continued to work on an agreement but chose not to and that choice cost a lot of people their jobs right before the holidays thanks to members of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), which constitutes only a fraction of the 18,500 that will lose their jobs. Too bad they didn't follow the lead of the biggest union within Hostess, The Teamsters who managed to come to an agreement.

Hostess CEO was to be awarded a 300% raise, and at least nine other top executives were to receive raises ranging between 35% and 80%.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bctgm-members-initiate-national-strike-at-hostess-brands-178175771.html

Mike,
Let's assume everything you posted is 100% correct. Here are the facts as I see them from your links:
1) new contract called for an 8% pay cut
2) benefits would be cut up to 32%
3) CEO gives himself a 300% raise

Additional facts to consider:
The average employee salary at hostess $61,218
Their CEO earns $1.5 million a year
They have roughly 18,000 employees

If their CEO lowered his own salary to nothing, working for free that would only free up $83.33 per employee or a .001% raise.

So if you were their CEO what choices would you have?

Do you:
A) give the employees salary increases that far exceed the profits driving the company out of business?
B) cut salaries allowing the company to stay in business but clearly make the employees unhappy?
c) Increase costs on consumers possibly driving away business putting the company out of business
d) Pack up shop and pull an Atlas Shrugged, selling the business off bringing in a huge profit for yourself putting everyone out of work and most likely driving more jobs overseas where other employees are willing to do the same jobs for much less?

Hostess is held by a Romney like holding company.
They are simply cashing out while using the employees as scapegoats.
But lets pretend I was CEO of Hostess.
When negotiating contracts with my unions I would not give myself raises while asking others to sacrifice.
I would take the same cuts as were proposed for the unions.
Just a small amount of humanity and humility goes a long way with real working Americans.

Hey Mike, it is that holding companies money making it run. Why can't they cash out? If they no longer like the business model and feel that it is not profitable who are you to besmirch them for wanting out? No different than if you find a better job, your telling me you should NOT take that job but rather keep with your old one?

You know what we could do is have the government take it over and have them run it.....yea thats a great idea!

Sorry Charlie,
Holding companies never risk their own money.

Mike- the hedge fund, Ripplewood, that invested to take Hostess out of bankruptcy in 2009 is run by a prominent Democrat named Tim Collins. The invested 130 million at first and then another 40 million in 2011. Dick Gephard consulting group also invested in Hostess to get them out of bankruptcy.

Both groups were seeking union concessions to keep Hostess viable.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/hostess-liquidation-curious-cast-characters-twinkie-tumbles

And here is the magic salemvoter,
That purchase cost debt is put on Hostess books.
The holding companies take out loans from Hostess to pay back the investors plus, and then start paying their planted non qualified management exorbitant salaries, charge management fees, and don't give to shakes if the Hostess lives or dies.

Isn't America great?

Mike- America is great. The investors in this case just happen to be Democrats. Can you imagine the uproar, if this was 4 weeks ago, and Bain was the principle investor.

Another example of the GOP race to the bottom.
www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002116.htm

Ljoel- you link to an article saying that states have a shortfall in their pension liabilities and say its Republican race to the bottom. Why? Because Rerpublicans understand that 1+1 does not equal 3. That just because Democrats say something should be free, doesn't make it free. Everything has a cost. Example, birth control and Democrat actions to make it free. Does that mean the workers in the birth control producing factories work for free? How about the cost of facilities to power those factories, free? Transportation costs from the factory to the distribution center, free? Medical testing to meet gov't regulations, free? The pharmacists that distribute the pills, free?

SV
MY.MY. I guess I have to explain everything to you like kindergartener!
The point of this link also flew miles above your head. So let’s see if you are able to comprehend this hypothetical example:
State a Becomes a "right to work"[for less] State which is attractive to new businesses because low wages mean lower costs. Sounds great right? {Who cares about such trivial things like the resulting lower standard of living that results?]

State B Wants that new business instead. State B decides it must weaken
regulations for dumping waste. The business can save money and aggravation
by moving to state B. Sounds great right? {Who cares about such trivial things like
the people who live near the new waste site?]

State A must now up the ante. State A eliminates the State business tax. That would be very beneficial to the bottom line of that business wouldn't it? [Who cares about such irrelevant things like the State having to shift cost to municipals and
cut highway funding and raise fees?]]

State B In order to "compete" with the now low wage State A passes a 'right to work"[for less'] bill to entice that business. Sounds great right? [And who cares
That both "A" and "B" are becoming more and more like Mississippi and America
as a whole sinks down together} Do you understand "race to the bottom now"?
Maybe your mom can explain it better.

LJoel- You are talking apples and oranges....state A is right work while state b reduces regulations on waste to compete with state a. Your argumnet is a non sequitur. Even if your argument remotely made sense, both states need to comply with the same federal regulations for waste disposal.

SV
What? Your reply makes no sense whatsoever.

Atlant- what political line in the sand. The company had filed for bankruptcy. Its revenue was less then its expenses. 1 +1 does not equal 3 (except in Washington).

I wonder where all the public unions are? Why didn't they picket in solidarity with the Hostess workers? Like when they asked for solidarity from the private unions in Wisconsin. As I recall, in Wisconsin, private unions spent millions to support the public unions and picketed side by side. The private unions even paid people to protest. Shouldn't the public unions reciprocate? Show support for Hostess union workers.

Perhaps your right. But more likely is the assets will be sold and then produced where it makes more sense; in an environment that is much less expensive..................

Drawing political lines? Have you even looked into this? Your wacked Atlant; they have been in bankruptcy before the election even got going.......and this is the second time in 10 years! Try using that snobby education you tout and look into it; I'll get you started with the left leaning Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/hostess-to-wind-down-operations-lay-off-18000-workers-and-sell-brands-following-labor-strike/2012/11/16/0e5a13f8-2feb-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_story.html

Hopefully someone will run it with non-union employees.

maybe they will reopen in right to work state, or get chased out of the country like the garment industry. in any event i'm putting away a couple of cases of twinkies to fund my grandchildren's education.

To dissect the mind of a conservative brain that has been so trained by the right wing propaganda.
1] When a business succeeds....
“I did build that" all by myself. I did not need any help from commerce. I did not need those roads and bridges. I don't need hard working employees. I don't need transportation for my customers. I didn't really need those government small business loans.I did make this successful business all by self. How dare President Obama suggest otherwise?
2] When a business fails....
The business assumes no reasonability what so ever. 'My taxes were too high.
I had to follow common sense regulations. The darn unions would not accept a big enough pay cut to allow me to triple my CEO'S salary. It’s president Obama's fault. It had nothing to do with my business plan. It had nothing to do with people not demanding twinkles like they used too. It’s everyone else’s fault. I bear no responsibility whatsoever."
Do any of you repubs ever listen to yourselves? Do you ever stop and think?

It's their business and their money. They should be able to do with it what they want.

Frequently when a company is obviously in trouble, they have to pay more than the competition for management, because:
1) Going to work for (or continuing at) the company as it is going down is more risky than jumping ship before the company closes its doors. (The manager who stays faces unemployment, the risk of being associated with a failed company, and public attacks on his character.)
2) Working for the company is more stressful and requires more work and more difficult work than does working for a company that is not in financial difficulty.

"It's their business and their money. They should be able to do with it what they want.'
But not union's. Oh that's different. Ya right.

Ljoel- The union entered into a contract with the company to provide a service for a period of time i.e labor. Does that give the union ownership in the company, NO. If you entered into a contract with me to do some work around your house, do I then have part ownership in your house?
The union was offered a 25% ownership stake in the company and they turned it down.

The union is free to do what ever they want with their money, not the companies.

SV
I'm not at all surprised my sarcasm flew over your head. "PC" said
"It's their business and their money. They should be able to do with it what they want." In other words Commenter’s here have no right to criticize windfall pay raises to
CEO "It's their bussneess." while simitanously bashing unions and their moves.
That is hypocrisy plan and simple. GET IT NOW?

kind of like a severance package.......makes sense.

That was a raise he gave himself when he anounced the 32% cut in salaries for the underlings, thesSeverance package will be above and beyond that cool two and a half million.

Complete fabrication (as usual for Mr. Healy ... it is what he is paid to do after all) ... there is no 32% cut.

CNN who reports is this way:

"The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year. "

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html

Of course Gary will only tell half the story, what about their benefits Gary? Are benefits not part of an employees compensation?

"The contract calls for extreme wage and benefit cuts which amount to 27- 32%"
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bctgm-members-initiate-national-strike-at-hostess-brands-178175771.html

Mr. Healy,

You do realize that your link source: prnewswire.com's article source is the BCTGM International Union, hardly an unbiased source and article---

Where do you think any of this information comes? Either the guys firing all the employees or the guys being fired. Hardly a non partisan in the bunch.

When you own a company, you can do what you want with it. If you don't like the way things are going, you can sell it, liquidate it piece by piece, or whatever, It's yours. It's called "business", Mike, and it's the way the system works in the United States.

If the owners of the company think that they will be more successful with a turnaround specialist than with a baking specialist, then who are you to argue that they were mistaken? They are both the ones with skin in the game, and the ones with the most knowledge about the company's business.

as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

At least they didn't take taxpayer money to do it like every lib's favorite green company Solyndra ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282073/solyndra-execs-cashed-bankruptcy-andrew-stiles#

Cazzie, if you Google "obamacare medical device tax" (without the quotes), you will see that the Medical Device Tax was part of the Obamacare bill.

It was a total of 32% cut in compensation while the management company raided the cash box.
It was the company who closed the doors, not the union.

The union decided to strike. Which is their option. The company did not have the assets to ride out the strike. The Teamsters asked the bakery union to have a vote. The bakery union did not. The company cannot print money like some do in Washington. Instead of a 8% pay cut the workers got a 100% pay cut. The union president, and his officers, are still collecting their salary. The workers get unemployment and their health insurance will be ending. It was not a wise decision. They could have kept their jobs, at lower wages, and looked for another job at the same time.

Your making assumptions salemvoter.

Atlant- Did you post the correct link? There is northing in that article that even mentions wealthy investors stripping the assets at Hostess. Instead it talks about tax rates in the 50's and 60's. He doesn't tell you that in addition to tax rates being higher in the 50's and 60's, tax filers also had a larger range of deductions they could claim against the higher tax rates AND more people paid federal income taxes. instead of receiving a check in the form of the Earned Income Credit.

As for Krugman, he talks about large houses and servants, check out the estate he lives on. The guy is a hypocrite.

Atlant, the wealthy investors in Hostess are Democrats. Its cute that you used the word "Bained". Are you trying to imply the investors are Republicans.