« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Deadline passes on Hostess strike ultimatum: is liquidiation likely?

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  November 15th, 2012 at 11:34 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Very possibly.  Background here and here: the short version is that Hostess Foods is in horrible financial shape; it’s in the process of trying to stave off bankruptcy via drastically renegotiated emergency union contracts with the Teamsters and bakers’ unions; the Teamsters took a look at the books, blanched, swallowed hard, and took the deal; the bakers’ unions did not, and decided to go on strike; and Hostess basically told the strikers that if they didn’t stop striking by end of business today that the company would just go ahead and shut down.  The end of business came and went; and now we’re going to see whether Hostess will go through with their promise/threat.

And how serious is this threat? This serious:

The Teamsters meanwhile are urging the smaller union to hold a secret ballot on whether to continue striking. Citing its financial experts who had access to the company’s books, the Teamsters say that Hostess’ warning of liquidation is “not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic” but a certain outcome if workers continue striking.

There’s almost 19 thousand jobs at stake, here, and as far anybody can tell the striking unions seem to be operating under the assumption that a nebulous somebody will swoop in to restart production, once Hostess is liquidated.  This is considered to be unlikely by pretty much everybody else involved in the situation, and by “unlikely” I mean “barking mad insane.” It’s pretty diagnostic that the Teamsters – which is a union that is not unfamiliar with hardball tactics – is trying to wave off the strikers.  It’s even more diagnostic that the strikers seem absolutely determined to run the company into the ground, and probably expect applause afterward.

This would be funny, except that a lot of people may lose their jobs tomorrow – including people who WANT to work.  Also, I happen to like Twinkies, and I’m going to miss them if they go away.  We’ll see tomorrow whether they’re about to start flying off of the shelves.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • tngal

    They cannot “lose their jobs tomorrow”, because that would drive up the unemployment numbers and that would make Obama look …not good. Now, I’m torn because I put forth the effort to make a heartfelt plea on the lovely stationary provided here at RS to have Hostess set up shop in my neck of the woods and would dearly love to have them here. But I can’t fight against the teamsters if they are in fact trying to keep the baker/tobacco union(?) from striking. And when “torn”, instinctively I reach to grab a comfort food, like a twinkee! So, my concerns are mounting…..

  • checkmate2012

    Say it ain’t so Moe :(
    I’m buying Twinkies tomorrow. And if they fold, it’s another reason to say, “the good old days”. Still sobbing.

  • checkmate2012

    tngal, I’m with ya. I didn’t know they, Hostessbrand, was based here in Dallas area, Irving, TX after our RTW spats. I’m very sad now if they go.

    BTW, you did your best on this fine stationary :)

  • Locked and Loaded

    Do liberals eat Twinkies? I suppose this is just one more of the bitter pills the knotheads (along with everybody else, unfortunately) will have to swallow before they wake up to the errors of their ways.

  • APA Guy

    It’s pretty much a done deal…

    “Hostess Brands Inc. is going through with a liquidation threat. The
    iconic company that produces Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread
    announced Friday it is winding down operations.”

    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news%2Fbusiness&id=8887806

    Are you happy now, unions? How about you, kos kids? I swear…these people won’t be happy until the rest of the country is as useless as they are.

    UNION NOW! Job? Not so much.

  • macbookben

    This is what happens in a host-parasite ecosystem.

  • heythisisdave

    I’m torn on this issue. On one hand, it shows everything that’s wrong about unions in America. On the other hand, less temptation when I walk down the aisle at the grocery store.

  • jaykali

    Obama will bail them out somehow

  • rbdwiggins

    “We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike,” said Gregory F. Rayburn, chief executive officer. “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.”

  • jaykali

    I think what Hostess needs is a carbon tax.

  • jaykali

    I am curious as to how company employees get unionized in the first place. I would never want to run a company with union employees. I would rather fire them before they get unionized which I am not sure is legal. Like how does Walmart keep its workforce from being unionized?

  • DerKrieger

    I work in the Wal-Mart Home Office here in Bentonville and we work very hard to stave off the unions through constant communication with our employees. The same is true if our OTR drivers. We have the largest non-union driver fleet in the country and the lowest driver turnover rate.
    We tell our store employees what they would lose if they unionized to push back against the perceived gains.
    Unfortunately our CEOs stupid support for Obamacare may add fuel to the unionization fire if we join the crowd and cut back part time hours to less than 30. Our employees already complain about not getting 40 hours.

  • APA Guy

    There are always Little Debbies, Dave :)

  • kycon

    You’re right. The vast majority of Americans are not equipped to learn it. Instead, they’ll buy into all the drivel about corporate executives looting the company, and then they’ll compare it to Bain Capital and make a lame Romney joke.

    Meanwhile, 18,000+ people will be out of a job a week prior to Thanksgiving.

  • dpmaine

    > I would rather fire them before they get unionized which I am not sure is
    > legal.

    It’s almost certainly illegal. Workers in most cases have the right to unionize, although it’s not absolute. But it’s pretty much a problem to fire people for attempting to organize.

  • timcooper62

    Same mentality here as we saw with once great Eastern Airlines. The union does not give a SH*& about the company. What a selfish mentality. And they call Republicans heartless.

  • Ausonius

    Based on a True Story:

    (Voice of Unionized Socialist Moron): This is the trouble with businesses! Always worried about profits! All companies should give their profits TO THE WORKERS! All companies should just be forced to break even!

    (Voice of Reason): And how would the company ever expand, or even repair things and do basic maintenance?

    (Voice of Unionized Socialist Moron): Ahhh, there’s always money for that! Companies just don’t wanna say so!

    (Voice of Reason): But what if there REALLY isn’t?! And if the company cannot come close to breaking even…and is losing money?

    (Voice of Unionized Socialist Moron): Well then, the government should come in and take over things. It worked for Detroit!

    (Voice of Reason): Well, actually no, it didn’t. GM is still losing money, and Chrysler production may leave America completely.

    (Voice of Unionized Socialist Moron): These companies lie all the time and hide their profits so they don’t have to pay their workers better. They always have the money!

    Except when they do not!

  • APA Guy

    Even the damn kos kids are saying the worker strike was a TERRIBLE idea, particularly in this economy…that speaks volumes about the imprudence of this action by the union.

  • lineholder

    Teamsters statement released today:
    http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-statement-hostess-brands%E2%80%99-announcement-cease

    Maybe it’s an RTW versus Union mentality “thing”, but I can’t help but wonder what these folks were thinking to consider this strike. Our country has been facing a recession for the past three years. In terms of job market, we’re definitely in an employer’s market not an employee’s market. Utopian fantasies don’t pay the bills.

  • Bill S

    The Kos Kidz are just pissed at losing their Twinkies.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Well, under NLRA you have a certain, limited ‘right’ to unionize. Unless a favored union is already in, in which case you’re hosed.

  • lineholder

    Off-topic, Moe, but is there a reason that no comments are being allowed for LUR’s diary about the NLRB? I wanted to ask what options we as citizens might have (if any) in protecting our personal information.

  • lineholder

    kowalski, I’ll just post the question here and maybe one the mods can pass it on to LUR, please.

    HIPAA sets a precedent for release of information by requiring authorizations prior to release. HIPAA also sets a precedent in another way, i.e. that if the state legislation pertaining to release of information is tighter or stricter than federal legislation, then state legislation trumps federal legislation.

    Is there any way to make use of these precedents in conjunction with the Privacy Act of 1974 as a means of guarding against invasion of privacy or harassment coming from Unions and the NLRB?

  • westcoastpatriette

    I’m a cupcake girl — never cared much for the Twinkie since I’m a chocolate nut. How sad. One more of life’s simple pleasures eaten up by greedy unions — and stupid liberals. Stay tuned. It will be these kinds of unintended consequences of the left’s agenda that will cause their drip, drip, drip downfall.

  • westcoastpatriette

    lineholder, I think HIPPA only pertains to health records not personnel records for all employers. Could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

  • jaykali

    I really don’t understand how Walmart can hold off. It seems like if people are allowed to unionize its the inevitable conclusion.

  • jaykali

    I guess some low wage workers might buy that idea.

  • Jack_Savage

    Exactly. That is the definition of greed.

  • lineholder

    That’s correct, WCP. But the Privacy Act of 1974 deals with individually identifiable information. And HIPAA sets a precedent in that respect.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Still think you’re mixing apples with oranges, lineholder.

    The Privacy Act is a federal law that pertains to information gathered by the federal government. HIPAA pertains to medical records. LUR’s diary pertains to the private sector employers whom the NLRB wants to force to cough up personnel records of their employees to assist unions in organizing — which is completely unrelated to HIPAA or the federal Privacy Act. See what I’m saying?

    IOW, I’m sure there are laws on the books regulating the protection of private sector employees’ personnel records but they are separate from federal regulations created for federal agencies and employees and would vary from state to state. That’s why the NLRB feels free to go after the private sector employers, basically, pulling another huge power grab on state’s rights to regulate in this area.

  • streiff

    Privacy Act covers information that can be accessed by name AND is stored by the federal government. Unless there are state laws that limit this, there probably isn’t any legal issue no matter how bad it looks.

  • gunnyg2002

    I try to look at this as a short term loss for a long term gain. Someone will pick up the pieces, boot the unions and go Galt, bringing Hostess back w/o the parasites.

  • kycon

    I don’t think it’s inevitable. If Wal-Mart is able to compensate their employees competitively, and they do their outreach over what unionizing would cost the people who join, they’ve got a great chance of keeping it out.

    Unions used to be about protecting the little guy, but they left that behind years ago. Now they’re simply tools that are used to raise money and support whatever agenda those at the top of the union want to push.

    This Hostess strike is a perfect example. Even the Teamsters were urging these people to get back to work. I never thought I’d be on the same side of any issue with the Teamsters.

    Luckily union membership is dropping, down from just over 20% in 1983 to just under 12% in 2011. With any sort of luck, that trend will continue, and the union leaders will have to find another way to push their anti-worker agendas.

  • lineholder

    That’s more or less the question I was asking, streiff, i.e. can states implement laws limiting disclosures of individually identifiable information that federal government obtains when it comes to release of that information to third parties, in this case Unions.

    Under HIPAA, release of information to third-parties is limited to cases pertaining solely to TPO (treatment, payment, and operations) Authorization is required from the individual in advance to release information to any other third parties. HITECH expanded the scope of HIPAA to include business associates and the penalties for unauthorized release of information are very high.

    NLRA and the Privacy Act were enacted prior to HIPAA and HITECH, so the legal precedent that has been established in the latter pieces of legislation didn’t exist to limit third-party disclosure of individually identifiable information. Now that it does exist, is that legal precedent something that could be utilized in this case?

  • APA Guy

    You can sympathize with the union leadership, I can’t and won’t. Going to the mat in this economic climate when millions of qualified Americans can’t find work is inexcusable, regardless of the management.

  • dpmaine

    From what I can tell though it was membership, not leadership, that was the hold out. That’s why I would tend to sympathisize some with management who wanted to break the strike and go back to work.

    I cannot fathom why membership would vote against working, even if the company did go to liquidation anyways in the days or months ahead, every extra day of work is an extra day you have to prepare for the worst.