No more Hostess or saps doughnuts

Posted in the Westfield Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
The Ultimate Kaptoz

Indianapolis, IN

#1 Nov 25, 2012
How many know that Wonder Bread also owned by Hostess company , They also own Saps bakery . We lost Rosalyn Bakery years back Now gone is Hostess and Saps products . Thanks to the Union thugs who rather have their workers on Obama welfare and food stamps for life. Thanks to those thugs who held a strike. Now 18 thousand more Hoosiers are jobless. I didn't see any local Dem legislators out there telling them not to strike or go back to work.Yes MANY MORE JOBS WILL BE LOST THANKS TO OBAMBI CARE AND TAXES RAISED ON THOSE MAKING 25K AND MORE.The bulk of taxes will be paid for by white middle class families.Their taxes will go up $5000 more starting in January.
Carl Sweeney

Indianapolis, IN

#2 Nov 25, 2012
Never heard of Saps bakery. People are too fat anyway. Bake at home.
I miss Ding Dongs

Terre Haute, IN

#4 Nov 25, 2012
And here’s what you won't hear the unions ever talk about:

--Hostess paid out almost $100 million in health benefits for retirees last year, but over half of it covered workers who never had worked at Hostess. The Teamsters’ onerous and antiquated “multi-employer pension plan” foists the pension obligations of a bankrupt company on to the balance sheets of surviving rivals—ensuring a steady death spiral in any declining industry. A similar “MEPP” almost killed YRC, one of the largest trucking companies.

--Union rules forced Hostess to run separate truck fleets for delivering bread vs. sweets. A sweets driver, serving a 7-11 store, was forbidden from restocking shelves with breads already delivered and waiting in the back—he had to call for a bread driver to swing by and handle.

--The union restrictions on the 5,500 distribution routes at Hostess made it unprofitable to serve tiny outlets, yet Hostess was barred from using smaller, sleeker—and non-union—distributors.

--Workers were asked to take an 8% pay cut and pay 17% of their health-care costs instead of zero. Welcome to the club, guys. For this, they would have received 25% ownership of Hostess plus $100 million of Hostess debt to be paid back to the unions.

But the bakers wouldn’t budge.

In the months ahead a chop-shop or food giant may resurrect various Hostess brands, but those 36 plants are shuttered, those 18,500 jobs are gone for good. The union preferred to picket while an 85-year-old company suffocated ... rather than risk having to face inevitable demands for similar concessions at other employers across the country.

Those demands will be forthcoming, anyway, because, as President Obama likes to say in slapping the rich with higher taxes, the math doesn’t work. The only questions are which union will be next, and whether anyone reasonable (or sane) will be listening.

Even a parasite is smart enough to know not to kill its host. In the case of unions, the presence of such preternatural intelligence isn’t yet readily apparent.
Moeltese

Kimmell, IN

#6 Nov 25, 2012
I like 3 dogs bakery in broad ripple
Big Boned Hillbilly

Jersey Shore, PA

#7 Nov 25, 2012
I banged Your mom in the parking lot at the Time Out in Warsaw. That woman was very eager to please. Talk about giving the dog a bone. I asked her why she chose to be with me? She replied "you seem to be the type that hadn't showered for a few days and might have a few skid marks in your under trousers."

She said she liked to romp with real men. And real men have a stink she finds irresistible and attractive.

I think her preference for such stuff goes back to the days and nights she spent hustling at the Blue & White truck stops.

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

Indianapolis, IN

#8 Nov 25, 2012
The union forgot who was the owner and who was the hired help. They have now been reminded.
Jim

Indianapolis, IN

#9 Nov 29, 2012
"Hostess Brands Inc. is asking for a judge’s approval to give its top executives bonuses totaling up to $1.8 million as part of its wind-down plans." Union thugs--a bit overplayed don't ya think?
nuffsaid

Indianapolis, IN

#10 Nov 29, 2012
Jim wrote:
"Hostess Brands Inc. is asking for a judge’s approval to give its top executives bonuses totaling up to $1.8 million as part of its wind-down plans." Union thugs--a bit overplayed don't ya think?
If I recall correctly....the 'top executives' you speak of are not the ones that picketed.
waddya think?
Jim

Indianapolis, IN

#11 Nov 29, 2012
Management proposed lower wages and benefits to labor and labor rejected it. Management is responsible for continuing to update a company's product line to meet demand. Management did not do its job. That's what I think.
nuffsaid

Indianapolis, IN

#12 Nov 29, 2012
Jim wrote:
Management proposed lower wages and benefits to labor and labor rejected it. Management is responsible for continuing to update a company's product line to meet demand. Management did not do its job. That's what I think.
Of course it's always 'management' that wants to kill their
companies, isn't it Jim?
Never mind that the crippling effects of outrageous union demands and exhorbitant attorney fees constantly paid by companies to fight petty grievences over many years have been the cause of many union companies to cut back on updates to their manufacturing process and product quality.
Good thinking Jim!
Jim

Indianapolis, IN

#13 Nov 29, 2012
In a market economy, management makes decisions regarding investment, production and distribution based on demand and supply for labor and materials. Management didn't want to "kill" Hostess. Neither did labor. Labor had given concessions to management in 2004. Giving a 27% wage reduction over 5 years and giving up any sort of a pension benefit was too much, according to labor. As for fighting grievances, the grievance procedures are contractual and negotiated by both labor and management. When management chooses to fight a grievance it considers all costs (including attorneys' fees) if they make a rational decision regarding the fight. If the grievance is truly petty, they shouldn't fight it in the first place. If a manufacturer chooses to "cut back on quality" when his competitors don't, market share will be lost. The reason that Hostess was in bankruptcy again was a story of declining revenues. Management didn't come up with new or improved product lines to meet current demand.
nuffsaid

Matthews, IN

#14 Nov 29, 2012
I don't like workers or working people. Management is always right. I will always defend the owners of production. When I would hustle for money at the 501,it wasn't about being gay. I hated gays. It was all about the money. I'm a capitalist. I was my own boss. I chose who I would service. If I can do it,everyone else can too!

The only negative was I spent a lot of time battling gingivitis. Other than that,I acquired a lot of material things. Met a lot of important Republicans and spent my time drinking alcohol on someone's dime. And I didn't need a union.
nuffsaid

Indianapolis, IN

#15 Nov 29, 2012
nuffsaid wrote:
I don't like workers or working people. Management is always right. I will always defend the owners of production. When I would hustle for money at the 501,it wasn't about being gay. I hated gays. It was all about the money. I'm a capitalist. I was my own boss. I chose who I would service. If I can do it,everyone else can too!
The only negative was I spent a lot of time battling gingivitis. Other than that,I acquired a lot of material things. Met a lot of important Republicans and spent my time drinking alcohol on someone's dime. And I didn't need a union.
Looks like one of my admirers needs to emulate me to feel a sense of worth fro themselves. Pity.
nuffsaid

Indianapolis, IN

#16 Nov 29, 2012
Jim wrote:
In a market economy, management makes decisions regarding investment, production and distribution based on demand and supply for labor and materials. Management didn't want to "kill" Hostess. Neither did labor. Labor had given concessions to management in 2004. Giving a 27% wage reduction over 5 years and giving up any sort of a pension benefit was too much, according to labor. As for fighting grievances, the grievance procedures are contractual and negotiated by both labor and management. When management chooses to fight a grievance it considers all costs (including attorneys' fees) if they make a rational decision regarding the fight. If the grievance is truly petty, they shouldn't fight it in the first place. If a manufacturer chooses to "cut back on quality" when his competitors don't, market share will be lost. The reason that Hostess was in bankruptcy again was a story of declining revenues. Management didn't come up with new or improved product lines to meet current demand.
Let's first visit that "27% wage reduction over 5 years":
So you are saying that a union employee being paid 20.00 per hour in 2007 will be knocked down to 14.60 in 2012? I don't think so and you KNOW it's no so. It's just one of the many vague figures that union hacks toss out to a public that doesn't care to scrutinize the real numbers involved in a wage reduction request or agreement, which takes into account the actual union negotiated wage increases over same period. This would essentially nullify any tangible reduction. So asking employees to relinquish a percentage of any possible upcoming raises in a five year period, in order to help a company keep its nose above water, is akin to a "wage reduction" in the union jargon.
Union people keep harping on "2004 concessions given to the company". How come we never hear about the concessions given BY the company TO the unions over many decades? Those never count, do they?
And you also state that “management should not fight petty grievances”?
What a joke!
If management did not continuously have to fight the constant barrage of unfounded petty grievances, filed by the worthless who always want extra time off and penalty pay for invented reasons, of course with a willing union’s assistance, the company would have went out of business long before this.
Jim

Indianapolis, IN

#17 Nov 29, 2012
The 27% reduction over 5 years was from a Forbes article. Management said it was necessary to compete and avoid bankruptcy. The example sited an individual making $45k in 2005 (the year before the 2004 agreement took place) and projected his 2017 gross wage to be $29k. Vague enough for you? During bankruptcy, creditors aren't going to let management give concessions to labor, that's why you never hear about them. It doesn't work that way. If the overall deal doesn't put the creditors in a better place than bankruptcy, no deals go through. It's probably why management did not make a counter offer to labor. It may be that selling the assets (to include the intangible value of the brand names) gets creditors to a better position than giving more to labor. I did not state that management should not fight petty grievances. I suggested that it was unlikely that large attorney fees would be approved to fight anything that was "petty". It's not prudent. Often times unions have to push a grievance to avoid a failure to represent charge. It's not so much about "willing assistance" as it is what they are compelled to do.
what

Terre Haute, IN

#18 Nov 29, 2012
here’s what you won't hear the unions ever talk about:

--Hostess paid out almost $100 million in health benefits for retirees last year, but over half of it covered workers who never had worked at Hostess. The Teamsters’ onerous and antiquated “multi-employer pension plan” foists the pension obligations of a bankrupt company on to the balance sheets of surviving rivals—ensuring a steady death spiral in any declining industry. A similar “MEPP” almost killed YRC, one of the largest trucking companies.

--Union rules forced Hostess to run separate truck fleets for delivering bread vs. sweets. A sweets driver, serving a 7-11 store, was forbidden from restocking shelves with breads already delivered and waiting in the back—he had to call for a bread driver to swing by and handle.

--The union restrictions on the 5,500 distribution routes at Hostess made it unprofitable to serve tiny outlets, yet Hostess was barred from using smaller, sleeker—and non-union—distributors.

--Workers were asked to take an 8% pay cut and pay 17% of their health-care costs instead of zero. Welcome to the club, guys. For this, they would have received 25% ownership of Hostess plus $100 million of Hostess debt to be paid back to the unions.

But the bakers wouldn’t budge.

In the months ahead a chop-shop or food giant may resurrect various Hostess brands, but those 36 plants are shuttered, those 18,500 jobs are gone for good. The union preferred to picket while an 85-year-old company suffocated ... rather than risk having to face inevitable demands for similar concessions at other employers across the country.

Those demands will be forthcoming, anyway, because, as President Obama likes to say in slapping the rich with higher taxes, the math doesn’t work. The only questions are which union will be next, and whether anyone reasonable (or sane) will be listening.

Even a parasite is smart enough to know not to kill its host. In the case of unions, the presence of such preternatural intelligence isn’t.

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

Indianapolis, IN

#19 Nov 29, 2012
Guess we can look forward to cheap plastic knockoff twinkies from China, baked in sweatshops by children.
Ralph

Bloomingdale, IN

#20 Nov 29, 2012
Uh Clem wrote:
Guess we can look forward to cheap plastic knockoff twinkies from China, baked in sweatshops by children.
With REAL plastic.

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

Indianapolis, IN

#21 Nov 29, 2012
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>With REAL plastic.
Knowing the Chinese, it will be genuine melamine.
Ralph

Bloomingdale, IN

#22 Nov 29, 2012
Uh Clem wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowing the Chinese, it will be genuine melamine.
I had to play straight man. Oh crap there is that non-diverse word, man. But you hit the nail.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Westfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Big O'S C B Shop (Dec '13) 20 hr Speedy 10
BEWARE-Julia Cox is a bird scammer and dishonest 22 hr Dave 7
Looking For A Former Band Member Sat Former Bandmate 3
smack in the chops for NOBAMA Sat Simon 47
Obama wants to be impeached Sat Simon 23
Police make arrest in 15-year-old Dominique All... Sat bite me 1
The Burger Chef Murders (Dec '13) Sat The Crime Stopperz 15
Westfield Dating
Find my Match

Westfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Westfield News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Westfield

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:07 am PST

NBC Sports11:07AM
Report: Andre Smith suffers triceps tear, MRI tomorrow
NBC Sports11:38 AM
Colts trudge to 6-3 halftime lead
Bleacher Report11:53 AM
Post-Week 12 Fantasy Reaction for Luck, Hilton, Wayne and Fleener
Bleacher Report12:11 PM
Clowney Is Just a Bit Offside on Pick-6
NFL12:13 PM
T.Y. Hilton scores TD, celebrates for newborn baby girl