American Twinkies.

Lexicon

Lexicon

Banned
Nov 10, 2011
453
7
0
Canada
18,500 Hostess Workers Out Of Jobs - Business Insider

Deal was a 8% paycut in the first year followed by a 10% pay raise split over the next 3. Benefits etc apparently stayed the same. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Guess they get zilch now. Congrats.

R.I.P.

gty_twinkies_jp_121112_wg.jpg
 


Meh.. That food is so bad for you, how can you feel good working for a company that literally poisons people with unhealthy foods, lol.
 
contract said:
Meh.. That food is so bad for you, how can you feel good working for a company that literally poisons people with unhealthy foods, lol.
Click to expand...

But they taste so good!!! It's like the sure-fire American way to reach 400lbs. - Twinkies and Ding Dongs!

It's a sad day for America bros.
 
Hostess has been around for 82 years. It's always a bit depressing when a company that old has to fold. Especially when they gave into considerable demands from the union, realized a couple years later that the terms were financially unsustainable and proposed a 3 year plan that would have pretty much fixed things just to get shot down by a short sighted union.

Well kudos now none of you are employed.
 
lol the unions should have smartened the fuck up once they noticed hedge funds/investment firms taking the reigns of a now private company.

Businesses don't exist to give employees a paycheck. They exist to make a profit.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgsNFGER7HE]Zombieland Grocery Store Scene - YouTube[/ame]

Just give me my twinkies..
 
What I don't really get is when a union strikes, why doesn't the business just hire all new people? Are there laws or something stopping them from doing that?

In this case I think the company was already in bankruptcy so they couldn't afford a strike and couldn't hire new people fast enough. (I believe that was the situation).

Anyway, if low skill people go on strike, I don't understand why the company doesn't just hire all new people on better terms.
 
r3p1v said:
What I don't really get is when a union strikes, why doesn't the business just hire all new people? Are there laws or something stopping them from doing that?

In this case I think the company was already in bankruptcy so they couldn't afford a strike and couldn't hire new people fast enough. (I believe that was the situation).

Anyway, if low skill people go on strike, I don't understand why the company doesn't just hire all new people on better terms.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% clear but I know replacing the entire workforce is tough and members of a union even if they vote against the strike are prohibited contractually from working. Companies do usually hire workers or "scabs" to keep things running during strikes but the logistics of replacing everyone to reach full capacity are staggering.
 
r3p1v said:
What I don't really get is when a union strikes, why doesn't the business just hire all new people? Are there laws or something stopping them from doing that?

In this case I think the company was already in bankruptcy so they couldn't afford a strike and couldn't hire new people fast enough. (I believe that was the situation).

Anyway, if low skill people go on strike, I don't understand why the company doesn't just hire all new people on better terms.
Click to expand...

The Crystal Sugar factories around the MN-ND border did that. Their Union employees have been on strike since August 2011.

I sometimes see them picketing outside of the staffing company that provided the replacement workers. They don't do it often though because it is about a 4-5 hour drive from most of the factories and their homes. I think they still picket outside the factories daily.
 
BigWill said:
Pretty fucking awesome. Now they can hire employees who actually want to work..
Click to expand...

Quite true. Once the company is broken up and the divisions acquired and re-staffed by various entities headlines will read:

"18,500 new jobs created under Obama."
 
I hope Hostess outsources that shit to a country that appreciates the fact that they have a job at all.
 
Lexicon said:
I'm not 100% clear but I know replacing the entire workforce is tough and members of a union even if they vote against the strike are prohibited contractually from working. Companies do usually hire workers or "scabs" to keep things running during strikes but the logistics of replacing everyone to reach full capacity are staggering.
Click to expand...

Too true. They are no small operation. Although not everyone in the company was striking I still think it would mean hiring and training several thousand people. The cost alone of doing so is pretty epic, not to mention the time and by the looks of it, they didn't have time to do it.
 
r3p1v said:
What I don't really get is when a union strikes, why doesn't the business just hire all new people? Are there laws or something stopping them from doing that?

In this case I think the company was already in bankruptcy so they couldn't afford a strike and couldn't hire new people fast enough. (I believe that was the situation).

Anyway, if low skill people go on strike, I don't understand why the company doesn't just hire all new people on better terms.
Click to expand...

When Shell thought there was a possibility of a strike a couple years ago they brought a decent percentage of their white collar workers down to learn how to properly manage the refineries in case a strike happened. At least in this case you can't just hire anybody off the street because it requires a lot of very technical training to run a refinery and screwing up isn't really an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom