Comments
81 - 100 of 215 Comments Last updated May 6, 2013

Since: Apr 12

Hunt Valley, MD

#86 Mar 26, 2013
non-starter wrote:
From the article above, "I donít know necessarily that it was mismanaged. I canít say that it was. I think there were some outside factors that gave the management team some challenges that maybe we wonít have in the future to deal with."
I wonder if one of those factors is moving the bakery facilities to a right to work state.
I wonder if one of those factories is moving the bakery facilities to a right to work for less state.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#87 Mar 26, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>Beauracracy ???
First of all it's Bureaucracy, secondly REORGANIZATION & RE-ORGANIZATIONAL aren't the same word, moron !!!
What a complete dumb-ass !!!
No one could have been born as stupid as you are, you must have had to really work at it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reo ...

re∑or∑ga∑ni∑za∑tion
noun \Definition of REORGANIZATION

: the act or process of reorganizing : the state of being reorganized; especially: the financial reconstruction of a business concern

********** re∑or∑ga∑ni∑za∑tion∑al adjective *******Slewche, read here

Since: Apr 12

Hunt Valley, MD

#88 Mar 26, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Corrected incorrectly by a moron again. I suppose now you will have to go out and find some website up to back up your incorrect spelling correction.
Next time you correct someone's spelling, slewchebag, make sure you have a clue yourself first.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reo ...
re∑or∑ga∑ni∑za∑tion
noun \Definition of REORGANIZATION
: the act or process of reorganizing : the state of being reorganized; especially: the financial reconstruction of a business concern
********** re∑or∑ga∑ni∑za∑tion∑al adjective *******Slewche, read here
See reorganization defined for kids Ľ
Anything to avoid the actual substance of a post, right slewsie?
You think next time the bakers' union is "shorted" in contributions to their pension plan, they can vote for the contract and then move on? Individually if the union employees are such strong work candidates, instead of putting 14,000 other employees out of work, maybe they could vote to keep the company going, then leave? I forgot, unions aren't there for the people they represent, they are for the union bureaucracy.
Did the bakers' union kill off the reorganizational bankruptcy or not? The answer is yes, the bakers' union forced the company into liquidation instead of reorganization. Self inflicted wounds by the union again.
It couldn't have been that the top executives gave themselves huge raises just prior to filing for bankruptcy. Funny how that is never mentioned.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#89 Mar 26, 2013
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if one of those factories is moving the bakery facilities to a right to work for less state.
I think most of the purchased assets will move to right to work states. The union drove the final nail in the coffin of the previous company. Not moving to a right to work state would amount to financial malpractice.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#90 Mar 26, 2013
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
It couldn't have been that the top executives gave themselves huge raises just prior to filing for bankruptcy. Funny how that is never mentioned.
Approximately $3 million out of a $341 million loss in 2011. Yeah, it was the management raises and not the union work rules that drove the company under(sarcasm).
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#92 Mar 26, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
You "think" it's spelled ---
Beauracracy ???
First of all it's Bureaucracy, secondly REORGANIZATION & RE-ORGANIZATIONAL aren't the same word, moron !!!
What a complete dumb-ass !!!
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>Beauracracy ???
First of all it's Bureaucracy, secondly REORGANIZATION & RE-ORGANIZATIONAL aren't the same word, moron !!!
What a complete dumb-ass !!!
No one could have been born as stupid as you are, you must have had to really work at it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reo ...

re∑or∑ga∑ni∑za∑tion
noun \Definition of REORGANIZATION

: the act or process of reorganizing : the state of being reorganized; especially: the financial reconstruction of a business concern

********** re∑or∑ga∑ni∑za∑tion∑al adjective *******Slewche, read here

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#94 Mar 26, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Approximately $3 million out of a $341 million loss in 2011. Yeah, it was the management raises and not the union work rules that drove the company under(sarcasm).
So ummmmm...less than .01 percent. Must have made quite an impact on the financials.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#98 Mar 26, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Let's get a few things clear. Hostess didn't fail for any of the reasons you've been fed. It didn't fail because Americans demanded more healthful food than its Twinkies and Ho-Hos snack cakes. It didn't fail because its unions wanted it to die.
It failed because the people that ran it had no idea what they were doing. Every other excuse is just an attempt by the guilty to blame someone else.
Take the notion that Hostess was out of step with America's healthful-food craze. You'd almost think that Hostess failed because it didn't convert its product line into one based on green vegetables. Yet you only have to amble down the cookie aisle at your supermarket or stroll past the Cinnabon kiosk at the airport to know that there are still handsome profits to be made from the sale of highly refined sugary garbage.
It's true that the company had done almost nothing in the last 10 years to modernize or expand its offerings. But as any of the millions of Americans who have succumbed to Twinkie cravings can attest, there has always been something about their greasy denseness and peculiar aftertaste that place them high among the ranks of foodstuffs that can be perfectly satisfying without actually being any good.
Hostess management's efforts to blame union intransigence for the company's collapse persisted right through to the Thanksgiving eve press release announcing Hostess' liquidation, when it cited a nationwide strike by bakery workers that "crippled its operations."
That overlooks the years of union givebacks and management bad faith. Example: Just before declaring bankruptcy for the second time in eight years Jan. 11, Hostess trebled the compensation of then-Chief Executive Brian Driscoll and raised other executives' pay up to twofold. At the same time, the company was demanding lower wages from workers and stiffing employee pension funds of $8 million a month in payment obligations.
Hostess management hasn't been able entirely to erase the paper trail pointing to its own derelictions. Consider a 163-page affidavit filed as part of the second bankruptcy petition.
There Driscoll outlined a "Turnaround Plan" to get the firm back on its feet. The steps included closing outmoded plants and improving the efficiency of those that remain; upgrading the company's "aging vehicle fleet" and merging its distribution warehouses for efficiency; installing software at the warehouses to allow it to track inventory; and closing unprofitable retail stores. It also proposed to restore its advertising budget and establish an R&D program to develop new products to "maintain existing customers and attract new ones."
None of these steps, Driscoll attested, required consultation with the unions. That raises the following question: You mean to tell me that as of January 2012, Hostess still hadn't gotten around to any of this?
Another unattributed posting from our resident plagiarist.

Looks to me like Hostess' unions stole their workers livelihoods and their pensions with inefficient work rules, and turning down the bankruptcy court's offer.

Nice work rules, inefficient, bloated, and outdated.

Hostess' union rules:
No truck could carry both bread and snacks even when going to the same location
Drivers were not permitted to load their own trucks
Workers who loaded bread were not allowed to also load snacks
Bringing products from back rooms to shelves required another set of union employees
Multi-Employer pension obligations made Hostess liable for other, previously bankrupted, retirement plan contributions from employees that never worked for Hostess at all
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#99 Mar 26, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>You "think" it's spelled ---
Beauracracy ???
First of all it's Bureaucracy, secondly REORGANIZATION & RE-ORGANIZATIONAL aren't the same word, moron !!!
What a complete dumb-ass !!!
No one could have been born as stupid as you are, you must have had to really work at it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reo ...

re∑or∑ga∑ni∑za∑tion
noun \Definition of REORGANIZATION

: the act or process of reorganizing : the state of being reorganized; especially: the financial reconstruction of a business concern

********** re∑or∑ga∑ni∑za∑tion∑al adjective *******Slewche, read here

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#101 Mar 26, 2013
Through all the hyperbole and smoke screens being thrown up by those who supported the union, one fact remains, the Management of the Company shut it down. Their decision, not that of the unions. Ultimately the power to make that decision is in the hands of Management or Ownership, not unions. Union members work, only if the Management/Ownership of the company allows them to. The only place that is not true is at General Motors, where, thanks to Mr. Obamaís rape of the stockholders, the UAW now has some say in management/ownership.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#102 Mar 26, 2013
Yep, senile guys blames management, even though they went into bankruptcy, with HUGE DEBT !!!
Capt Crunch

Sedona, AZ

#103 Mar 26, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Repeat a lie often enough, right ???
Poor non-sense, every word you write is partisan POOP !!!
non-starter wrote: I found it, you just won't publish that you got it off Yahoo or Wiki answers ....
THEN the lies began, LMAOROTFU~!
non-starter wrote: No, I guessed, because you
weren't forthcoming with your source
OR MY NEW FAVORITE-
non-starter wrote: I found similar postings on Yahoo answers and Wiki answers
You posted to the urban dictionary to support your position...It's called tampering and you're clearly a duplicitous/dishonest POS... Have a nice lie... Oh sorry, I surely meant life.
Pure drivel!
redeemer

Saint Paul, MN

#104 Mar 26, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
Through all the hyperbole and smoke screens being thrown up by those who supported the union, one fact remains, the Management of the Company shut it down. Their decision, not that of the unions. Ultimately the power to make that decision is in the hands of Management or Ownership, not unions. Union members work, only if the Management/Ownership of the company allows them to. The only place that is not true is at General Motors, where, thanks to Mr. Obamaís rape of the stockholders, the UAW now has some say in management/ownership.
So how did the Pres.Obama rape the stockholders when he bail them out and kept their corp. solvent NOA?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#105 Mar 26, 2013
redeemer wrote:
<quoted text>So how did the Pres.Obama rape the stockholders when he bail them out and kept their corp. solvent NOA?
Red, google GM stimulus plan. See how the "recovery/too big to fail" financial plan was structured! If they go follow the bankruptcy laws in the normal course, there would have been a reorganization, a payment plan put in place and a trustee set up to make sure they followed the plan. The UAW didn't want that to happen, because, all union contracts would have been suspended and probably re-done, under the trustee. Instead, they convinced Washington to take over ownership, allowing them partial ownership and told the regular stockholders, those who actually invested in the company, to go to hell! Ugly story Red,,, Very Ugly story!!
anti obiden

Minneapolis, MN

#106 Mar 26, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
BCTGM members are well aware that 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.
Certainly, the company agreed to an out-sized pension debt, but the decision to pay executives more while scorning employee contracts during a bankruptcy reflects a lack of good managerial judgement.
good news - just keep the unions out and you can make a profit, it is called AMERICA !
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#107 Mar 26, 2013
Now letís go back to this business about the Bush administrationís complicity in the auto bailouts. Thereís was a lot more involved than simply writing blank checks. Perhaps this part of the bailout story warrants a revisit.

As the Washington Examinerís David Freddoso writes in Gangster Government:

When President Bush threw GM and Chrysler their first lifelines (with President-elect Obamaís assent), he did so without congressional approval. After Congress voted specifically to prevent an auto bailout, Bush turned to the overly broad and hastily written TARP statute, which Congress had passed under extreme duress and threats from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson that their failure to act would cause financial Armageddon.*

What did this mean in terms of the future of the auto bailouts?

ďPresident Bush erred when he said he had Ďabandoned free market principles to save the free market,íĒ writes Freddoso.
redeemer

Saint Paul, MN

#108 Mar 26, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Red, google GM stimulus plan. See how the "recovery/too big to fail" financial plan was structured! If they go follow the bankruptcy laws in the normal course, there would have been a reorganization, a payment plan put in place and a trustee set up to make sure they followed the plan. The UAW didn't want that to happen, because, all union contracts would have been suspended and probably re-done, under the trustee. Instead, they convinced Washington to take over ownership, allowing them partial ownership and told the regular stockholders, those who actually invested in the company, to go to hell! Ugly story Red,,, Very Ugly story!!
I google GM NOA,I also read the proxy reports from that last five years,and the GM stock quotes,and the shareholders and CEO are very happy that they have turn GM around,they seem to be very profitable now,the UAW have all gotten large bonus's,so whats the problem? are is it that you're just sore that the uaw employees and management our working find together?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#109 Mar 27, 2013
redeemer wrote:
<quoted text>
I google GM NOA,I also read the proxy reports from that last five years,and the GM stock quotes,and the shareholders and CEO are very happy that they have turn GM around,they seem to be very profitable now,the UAW have all gotten large bonus's,so whats the problem? are is it that you're just sore that the uaw employees and management our working find together?
At what cost to the American Tax payer RED. Look at the big picture!

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#110 Mar 27, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Now letís go back to this business about the Bush administrationís complicity in the auto bailouts. Thereís was a lot more involved than simply writing blank checks. Perhaps this part of the bailout story warrants a revisit.
As the Washington Examinerís David Freddoso writes in Gangster Government:
When President Bush threw GM and Chrysler their first lifelines (with President-elect Obamaís assent), he did so without congressional approval. After Congress voted specifically to prevent an auto bailout, Bush turned to the overly broad and hastily written TARP statute, which Congress had passed under extreme duress and threats from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson that their failure to act would cause financial Armageddon.*
What did this mean in terms of the future of the auto bailouts?
ďPresident Bush erred when he said he had Ďabandoned free market principles to save the free market,íĒ writes Freddoso.
We Christian have an old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right" I have nevered defended Corporate welfare, at any level! So what is your point? OH, just to Bash Bush again??? Have at it! On this one he deserves it!
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#111 Mar 27, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>At what cost to the American Tax payer RED. Look at the big picture!
Pretend, we need less jobs in America and pretend the workers aren't tax payers..After all, you pretend you're a man, investor, and intelligent..

Of course, NOBODY buys it...

(Face->palm) LMAOROTFU~!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Men who don't like football 13 min Sammie 4
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 11 hr SpaceBlues 32,489
The 1% Should Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes 15 hr Go Blue Forever 30
Obamacare More Unpopular Than Ever 15 hr Sadie 9
Obama: "no strategy" on Isis. 16 hr Wendall 12
Minneapolis: A Hotbed For Radical Islam 16 hr JamesA 77
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 18 hr LMS 26,227
•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••