Canadian Chat → Re: R.I.P. Twinkee?

I think it's more about not having to pay the pension costs more then anything else.

If I saw "management" cutting back it would be more palatable , but make the guy on the line take the hit instead .

What do you mean? On the face of it, everyone is hit, they're selling all assets and shutting down. In the end, no one will be working.

If they cut back it would be a drop in the bucket. Sure per person it might be a lot, but overall it would be nothing other than symbolic. Of course that does not mean that they should not have done it, they should just for leadership purposes.

the pension issue is certainly a strong reason they are unable to continue business...while management will likely have their share of responsibility, just like the auto business, these "legacy" companies who had been held hostage for decades from their unions finally have their chickens come home to roost...when the constant threat of "give us this or else" becomes too much (as it often will), the unsustainable business model that union leadership demands eventually comes crashing down.

i don't all the ins and outs of Hostess, but my guess is their workforce is likely well paid (most of these big companies are) and being saddled in ridiculous benefits/pension costs in today's economy become too much to survive...while the union held tight and stood its ground, i have a feeling they are in for a rude awakening when those 18,500 workers hit the job market looking for employment that will (a) match what they were already getting or (b) get any job at all...sure, some of the trades guys may find work, but the regular joes on the line are in for a long tough search.

No uncommon for pensions to be not-funded, it's a pay-as-you-go system. That important because places that do the pre-paid, like OMERS, make the rules and there is nothing the union can do about it. But it's not bankrupt. Just a lot of pissed off employees because our contributions went up 50%....but at least it will be there..can't be raided.

Once again your ant-unionism comes through.

Short of going through their financial statements, you have to ask how did the underfund their pension responsibilities? More money for the execs and shareholders?

Teamster DID go through their financial statements. The bakers union did not. Teamsters urged the bakers to agree to concessions based on that internal financial data.

it has nothing to do with "anti-unionism" and everything to do with fiscal reality...i have nothing against unions...what i object to is their "power" to shut a company down and essentially hold them hostage.

here is a story this week regarding the CAW union at the Martinrea plant that makes rear end components for the Chevy Equinox that is assembled at Cami in Ingersoll:

»www.lfpress.com/2012/11/ ··· mi-plant

had the union not accepted the offer, and chose to go on strike (which they had already refused prior offers, threatening a strike if their timeline wasn't met), it would have jeopardized the 2500 CAW workers at Cami, since they wouldn't be able to make the Equinox vehicles without these components...GM also makes the Equinox at their Spring Hill Tennessee plant, and had apparently stated if there was any disruption of work at the Cami plant, they would shift the production to their Tennessee plant...so, even though a deal was reached in the "11th hour", the 50 or so workers at Martinrea almost jeopardized the 2500 in Ingersoll.

even the local CAW president said they need to work more closely together.