« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Let Them Eat Cake: As Hostess Workers Get Hurt, Bakery Union Bosses (& Their Kids) Do Well


With more than 18,000 Hostess employees now unemployed due to a union strike, one of the more disturbing parts about the entire travesty is statement in a press release issued by bakers’ union boss Frank Hurt:

Throughout this long and difficult process, BCTGM members showed tremendous courage, solidarity and devotion to principle.  They were well aware of the potential consequences of their actions but stood strong for dignity, justice and respect.

Eighteen thousand Americans are now without jobs to put bread on their tables (pun intended). Yet, Frank Hurt will not be hurt in the least by the strike he led his members into taking, or the resulting unemployment of both his members, as well as other Hostess employees.

‘Irresponsible’ union bosses take care of their members themselves.

As with most union bosses, Hurt and the rest of the officers at the Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers (BTCGM) have themselves covered with six-figure salaries, their own fully-funded pension plan, as well their own benefit plan.

While Hostess employees now face unemployment, Frank Hurt doesn’t get hurt at all. He gets to walk away with his six-figure salary, his benefits intact, and a fully funded pension plan still intact–because it’s all paid for by his union’s members.

This is why Hurt’s statement is so outrageously calloused hurtful as he (and his union) knew the likely outcome of their strike would be the unemployment lines, and the union boss himself  had encouraged the strike:

Bakery union President Frank Hurt has come out against the proposal.

I would never sign this piece of crap,” he wrote in a union publication a few weeks back, speaking of the Hostess labor proposal.

The hard line taken by Hurt, as expected, is not sitting well with everyone at the negotiating table.

“It’s irresponsible,” said one source close to the Chapter 11 reorganization, alluding to Hurt’s position after he had stayed away from the talks.

Hurt’s hurtful blame game.

Over the last week, the bakers’ union boss has gone out of his way trying to shift the blame for Hostess’ demise away from the union strike he orchestrated and onto the company’s management team.

However, as the Teamsters noted last week:

The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist.

It seems this is a common mistake for the bakers’ union, which has seen it membership fall from more than 117,000 in 2000 to just 82,372 at the end of 2011.

Even though his union lost roughly 30% of its membership over the last decade and Frank Hurt condemns the pay cuts and other concessions his members took at Hostess, as the union’s president, Hurt saw his total compensation rise nearly 45%–from $181,840 in 2000 to $262,654 in 2011, according to Department of Labor reports.

Meanwhile, as his union members’ industry pension fund is in critical status, less than half funded (over $10 billion in liabilities as of 2011), bakery union bosses are sitting pretty. They have their own union pension fund (paid for by union members) that is 100% funded.

5500 Form for Bakery industry pension fund (2010)

All in the family (a nepotist in every union).

As is the case in other unions, nepotism is something that bakers’ union bosses apparently embrace.

In addition to the six-figure salaries paid to the union’s executive staff, both Hurt and the union’s secretary-treasurer have their kids working inside the union’s headquarters, pulling down over $71,000 and nearly $49,000, respectively.

No jobs, but they do have “dignity, justice and respect.”

While Frank Hurt and his fellow union bosses spin their tales of how bad Hostess management was, they can be comforted in knowing that their union strike caused the unemployment of more than 18,000 Hostess employees right before the Holidays.

Although they may not have money for Christmas presents, and not much to be thankful for tomorrow (or the day after, as they head to the unemployment lines), at least Hostess employees have, as Frank Hurt put it, their “dignity” and “respect.”

As for Frank Hurt, he and his kids won’t be missing out on much since they still have their pay, benefits, and pensions–all paid for by their (now unemployed) union members.
______________________

“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com

Get LUR updates on Twitter

Image credit.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • macbookben

    With 18k fewer union workers earning their daily bread, union bosses will have to take a bigger slice of the pie from the rest of those poor saps.

  • afreemaniii

    I’ll admit that I think unions are fine in the private sector. If people want to give their own money to someone else to agree with their private employer on a work contract, then more power to them. Public sector unions, on the other hand, should be outlawed, but that is a different story.

    That being said, how can any union member look at the salary and benefits that union heads pay themselves and agree with it? Mr. Hurt was pulling in over a quarter million dollars a year while he was telling other people to not collect a paycheck. I’m guessing his pay was at least 5 times higher than the people who are now unemployed. How does that make sense to anyone in that union?

    Perhaps someone can clear something up for me. Do union members vote on the salary and benefits packages the union stewards and heads make? If not, then that is yet another reason not to have a union. If so, why wouldn’t you make sure those guys have some skin in the game? Why wouldn’t you want their pay pegged to the average salary of their members and have some language to hit their pocketbook during a strike? That would change their tune in a heartbeat. Suddenly an offer wouldn’t be just a pile of crap, but could be a meaningful place to start negotiating.

  • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

    In answer to your question: “Do union members vote on the salary and benefits packages the union stewards and heads make?” Technically, no.

    In many unions, base salary will be spelled out in the union constitution–however, constitutions are decided upon by delegates at union conventions. While delegates may be the elected officers of a local union, as with most political offices, the closer to the “higher ups” one can be, the better chances there are for staff positions in the international. So, there isn’t usually too much pushback at union conventions when it comes to ‘bucking the system.’

  • Pingback: Op- Ed Thread - Page 2

  • Pingback: Twinkies Shrugged? Bakery Union Bosses Got Cake and Ate It Too | Spotlight On Corruption

  • Pingback: Unions kill the Twinkie - Page 7 - Pelican Parts Technical BBS