Hostess Brands (Twinkies) on verge of liquidation
- Thread starter Mr Nice
- Start date
- Status
That's great news... some people will go back to work.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Sounds like the execs were looking to pin their mistakes onto the workers, and succeeded. Except now they're executives of nothing.
I feel sorry for the workers who lost their jobs thanks to greedy executives. I read that the CEO's salary tripled from $700,000 to $2.1 million in the interim before this bankruptcy. Many other senior execs saw giant pay hikes too. Some of the creditors tried to stop this as an attempt to go around the previous bankruptcy, but were unsuccessful.
There's a lot of blame to be shared all around. Everybody take a slice.
This is my BIGGEST gripe.
If these executives wanted to keep the company viable WHY DIDN'T THEY LEAD BY EXAMPLE?
Never ONCE did they cut their own salaries!
Of course it is equally amusing to see the silence around here because here at BITOG most of the members believe that managlement can do NO wrong ever. LOL
Instead they wanted to fill their own pockets to the brim while adding cut after cut to the people that actually make the product we all buy. The rank and file employees.
I don't blame the union for using the poison pen approach, because these obnoxious brass tacks only care for themselves and NOBODY else.
Sounds like the execs were looking to pin their mistakes onto the workers, and succeeded. Except now they're executives of nothing.
I feel sorry for the workers who lost their jobs thanks to greedy executives. I read that the CEO's salary tripled from $700,000 to $2.1 million in the interim before this bankruptcy. Many other senior execs saw giant pay hikes too. Some of the creditors tried to stop this as an attempt to go around the previous bankruptcy, but were unsuccessful.
There's a lot of blame to be shared all around. Everybody take a slice.
This is my BIGGEST gripe.
If these executives wanted to keep the company viable WHY DIDN'T THEY LEAD BY EXAMPLE?
Never ONCE did they cut their own salaries!
Of course it is equally amusing to see the silence around here because here at BITOG most of the members believe that managlement can do NO wrong ever. LOL
Instead they wanted to fill their own pockets to the brim while adding cut after cut to the people that actually make the product we all buy. The rank and file employees.
I don't blame the union for using the poison pen approach, because these obnoxious brass tacks only care for themselves and NOBODY else.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
If these executives wanted to keep the company viable WHY DIDN'T THEY LEAD BY EXAMPLE?
Ripplewood Holdings invested $150 million dollars into Hostess and lost it all.
Hostess paid out $150 million in health care benefits to it's retirees last year, but over half of the retirees had never worked for the current Hostess, thanks to the demands of the union that the employer pays for the pension plans of a bankrupt company on the shoulders of the surviving rival. (Remember that Hostess filed for bankruptcy back in 2004)
Union rules forced Hostess to run separate truck fleets for delivering breads vs. sweets. These routes were making the delivery charges (and salary costs) for their products much higher compared to the rivals of Hostess. Yet union officials blamed management for not meeting financial predictions. (Gee, I wonder why they couldn't meet their financial goals....)
Workers were asked to take an 8% pay cut and pay for 17% of their health care premiums. In return, they would get to own 25% of Hostess, plus $100 million of the debt would be paid back to the unions.
How many more examples do you need?
To anybody who proudly supports the Bakers Union: If you owned a business, would you want all of your employees members of the Bakers union? Think long and hard before truthfully answering that.
If these executives wanted to keep the company viable WHY DIDN'T THEY LEAD BY EXAMPLE?
Ripplewood Holdings invested $150 million dollars into Hostess and lost it all.
Hostess paid out $150 million in health care benefits to it's retirees last year, but over half of the retirees had never worked for the current Hostess, thanks to the demands of the union that the employer pays for the pension plans of a bankrupt company on the shoulders of the surviving rival. (Remember that Hostess filed for bankruptcy back in 2004)
Union rules forced Hostess to run separate truck fleets for delivering breads vs. sweets. These routes were making the delivery charges (and salary costs) for their products much higher compared to the rivals of Hostess. Yet union officials blamed management for not meeting financial predictions. (Gee, I wonder why they couldn't meet their financial goals....)
Workers were asked to take an 8% pay cut and pay for 17% of their health care premiums. In return, they would get to own 25% of Hostess, plus $100 million of the debt would be paid back to the unions.
How many more examples do you need?
To anybody who proudly supports the Bakers Union: If you owned a business, would you want all of your employees members of the Bakers union? Think long and hard before truthfully answering that.
They are all in it for themselves.
Management wants a quick buck before the boat sinks.
Super senior investor want to liquidate the company to get the brands and equipments.
Unions want to defend their existing contracts and if fail to do so, prevent an example other companies can use to break out of their contracts.
Employees want their unsustainable income and benefit to stay.
and don't forget politicians want to score points when they have nothing to do with it.
Management wants a quick buck before the boat sinks.
Super senior investor want to liquidate the company to get the brands and equipments.
Unions want to defend their existing contracts and if fail to do so, prevent an example other companies can use to break out of their contracts.
Employees want their unsustainable income and benefit to stay.
and don't forget politicians want to score points when they have nothing to do with it.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
They are all in it for themselves.
Management wants a quick buck before the boat sinks.
Super senior investor want to liquidate the company to get the brands and equipments.
Unions want to defend their existing contracts and if fail to do so, prevent an example other companies can use to break out of their contracts.
Employees want their unsustainable income and benefit to stay.
and don't forget politicians want to score points when they have nothing to do with it.
An investor who looks to mitigate his losses is not a bad guy in my book.
They are all in it for themselves.
Management wants a quick buck before the boat sinks.
Super senior investor want to liquidate the company to get the brands and equipments.
Unions want to defend their existing contracts and if fail to do so, prevent an example other companies can use to break out of their contracts.
Employees want their unsustainable income and benefit to stay.
and don't forget politicians want to score points when they have nothing to do with it.
An investor who looks to mitigate his losses is not a bad guy in my book.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
They are all in it for themselves.
Management wants a quick buck before the boat sinks.
Super senior investor want to liquidate the company to get the brands and equipments.
Unions want to defend their existing contracts and if fail to do so, prevent an example other companies can use to break out of their contracts.
Employees want their unsustainable income and benefit to stay.
and don't forget politicians want to score points when they have nothing to do with it.
+ 1 The Teamsters official involved said the baker's union "committed suicide"
They are all in it for themselves.
Management wants a quick buck before the boat sinks.
Super senior investor want to liquidate the company to get the brands and equipments.
Unions want to defend their existing contracts and if fail to do so, prevent an example other companies can use to break out of their contracts.
Employees want their unsustainable income and benefit to stay.
and don't forget politicians want to score points when they have nothing to do with it.
+ 1 The Teamsters official involved said the baker's union "committed suicide"
FLASH - A Twinkie Lifeline?
Bankruptcy judge gets parties to agree to mediation:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/nati...-180005031.html
Bankruptcy judge gets parties to agree to mediation:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/nati...-180005031.html
I love the little golden devils ! although i dont buythem often. Since this story broke our local stores shelves have been empty of almost all Hostess products ! you cant hardly find them.. that tells me folks are buying them up and putting them in there deep freezers.. I find some, im buying them !
Looks like Hostess has decided to call it quits. I kind of believe that they have no desire to reach an agreement anyway. Probably make more money selling it off anyway. However is don't think that it is right to blame the unions for everything. The execs didn't have a problem when they were buying up the companies with all the liabilities and I understand the last time they came out of bankruptcy the pension fund wasn't an issue. I believe it would be fair to say that the execs blew it by not looking ahead and seeing the change in the market, not changing their marketing plan, or at least what little they had. They also had no problem with trying to give themselves a healthy salary increase. Somehow I don't feel to sorry for the investment company. That is what they do, they take risks. They could have sold it before but didn't. Sometimes you live by the sword and sometimes you die.
The execs wanted a golden parachute before the company was run into the ground by various reasons.
Cut and Gut is the theme for many board members at many companies.
Cut and Gut is the theme for many board members at many companies.
You see some of the ads on Ebay?!?!? $20,000 and still up for a box of Twinkies!!!
Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
They are all in it for themselves.
Management wants a quick buck before the boat sinks.
Super senior investor want to liquidate the company to get the brands and equipments.
Unions want to defend their existing contracts and if fail to do so, prevent an example other companies can use to break out of their contracts.
Employees want their unsustainable income and benefit to stay.
and don't forget politicians want to score points when they have nothing to do with it.
An investor who looks to mitigate his losses is not a bad guy in my book.
Likewise for union who operates like a business to keep its people with maximum profit.
The point is whether each of them is sustainable. Investor who put good money after bad, hoping to be the last, most senior secured debt holder, may lose out if their calculation went bad. It is always very risky trying to catch a falling knife.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
They are all in it for themselves.
Management wants a quick buck before the boat sinks.
Super senior investor want to liquidate the company to get the brands and equipments.
Unions want to defend their existing contracts and if fail to do so, prevent an example other companies can use to break out of their contracts.
Employees want their unsustainable income and benefit to stay.
and don't forget politicians want to score points when they have nothing to do with it.
An investor who looks to mitigate his losses is not a bad guy in my book.
Likewise for union who operates like a business to keep its people with maximum profit.
The point is whether each of them is sustainable. Investor who put good money after bad, hoping to be the last, most senior secured debt holder, may lose out if their calculation went bad. It is always very risky trying to catch a falling knife.
Originally Posted By: 65cuda
Looks like Hostess has decided to call it quits. I kind of believe that they have no desire to reach an agreement anyway. Probably make more money selling it off anyway. However is don't think that it is right to blame the unions for everything. The execs didn't have a problem when they were buying up the companies with all the liabilities and I understand the last time they came out of bankruptcy the pension fund wasn't an issue. I believe it would be fair to say that the execs blew it by not looking ahead and seeing the change in the market, not changing their marketing plan, or at least what little they had. They also had no problem with trying to give themselves a healthy salary increase. Somehow I don't feel to sorry for the investment company. That is what they do, they take risks. They could have sold it before but didn't. Sometimes you live by the sword and sometimes you die.
The problem is the previous management didn't sort through those various union contract and consolidate them, then the last bankruptcy wasn't done to rid of these problems. It is impossible to get more than a few union together to agree with something, even if they all have good intentions. Then of course when the assets are worth more than the company as a whole, you can't blame the hedge funds for trying to part it out.
Looks like Hostess has decided to call it quits. I kind of believe that they have no desire to reach an agreement anyway. Probably make more money selling it off anyway. However is don't think that it is right to blame the unions for everything. The execs didn't have a problem when they were buying up the companies with all the liabilities and I understand the last time they came out of bankruptcy the pension fund wasn't an issue. I believe it would be fair to say that the execs blew it by not looking ahead and seeing the change in the market, not changing their marketing plan, or at least what little they had. They also had no problem with trying to give themselves a healthy salary increase. Somehow I don't feel to sorry for the investment company. That is what they do, they take risks. They could have sold it before but didn't. Sometimes you live by the sword and sometimes you die.
The problem is the previous management didn't sort through those various union contract and consolidate them, then the last bankruptcy wasn't done to rid of these problems. It is impossible to get more than a few union together to agree with something, even if they all have good intentions. Then of course when the assets are worth more than the company as a whole, you can't blame the hedge funds for trying to part it out.
The real problem was sales were down 28% since 2004, their first year of bankruptcy. No amount of concessions will help that. Here is an article from Aug. showing how bad the bankruptcies were managed.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/
Anyone here is welcome to pool their funds and participate. Show your superior business acumen and put your money where your mouth is!
Too many here drink the kool aid served about evil managers and their corrupt wages and so forth. Baloney.
Take the risk first, then let's see how you feel about it.
Too many here drink the kool aid served about evil managers and their corrupt wages and so forth. Baloney.
Take the risk first, then let's see how you feel about it.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Anyone here is welcome to pool their funds and participate. Show your superior business acumen and put your money where your mouth is!
I'm waiting for the union to buy all the assets of the now bankrupted Hostess, make it an employee owned company, have themselves follow all the rules that they had when they were just employees (instead of now being owners), and make the huge profit that they thought the owners should have been making all these years.
No, I'm not going to hold my breath.
Anyone here is welcome to pool their funds and participate. Show your superior business acumen and put your money where your mouth is!
I'm waiting for the union to buy all the assets of the now bankrupted Hostess, make it an employee owned company, have themselves follow all the rules that they had when they were just employees (instead of now being owners), and make the huge profit that they thought the owners should have been making all these years.
No, I'm not going to hold my breath.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Anyone here is welcome to pool their funds and participate. Show your superior business acumen and put your money where your mouth is!
Too many here drink the kool aid served about evil managers and their corrupt wages and so forth. Baloney.
Take the risk first, then let's see how you feel about it.
Of course all these superior business leaders could stop their whining about how terrible it is to make a go of it and the evil greedy workers. Maybe they ought to realize that working oh so hard all those hours doesn't mean that they working smart. Nobody held a gun to your head to get in business. It works both ways.
Anyone here is welcome to pool their funds and participate. Show your superior business acumen and put your money where your mouth is!
Too many here drink the kool aid served about evil managers and their corrupt wages and so forth. Baloney.
Take the risk first, then let's see how you feel about it.
Of course all these superior business leaders could stop their whining about how terrible it is to make a go of it and the evil greedy workers. Maybe they ought to realize that working oh so hard all those hours doesn't mean that they working smart. Nobody held a gun to your head to get in business. It works both ways.
- Status
Similar threads
