-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
CEO Gregory Rayburn of Hostess Brands, maker of Twinkies, Ho Ho’s, and Sno Balls, has announced plans to liquidate the 83-year old company. The company is in its second bankruptcy in a decade. Hostess sold about $2.5 billion worth of snack products last year with Twinkies leading the pack. However, the company has nearly $1 billion in debt and has $2 billion in unfunded pension obligations.
About 18,000 jobs are at stake. The unionized employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM). BCTGM in September rejected a last, best and final offer from Hostess and went out on strike.
While Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn was planning to ask his employees for wage and benefit concessions, he was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000). Nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises.
Over the eight years since the first bankruptcy, Hostess employees have watched as:
money from previous concessions that was supposed to go towards capital investment, product development, plant improvement and new equipment, was squandered in executive bonuses, payouts to Wall Street investors and payments to high-priced attorneys and consultants.
BCTGM stated that “Our members are on strike because they have had enough.” The union’s members voted 92% to reject the company’s “best and final offer.”
Hostess plans to sell its most popular brands like Twinkies, CupCakes, Ding Dongs, Ho Ho’s, Sno Balls, and Donettes. In the mean time, Hostess products are flying off store shelves.
Competitors like Bimbo Bakeries USA (pronounced “Beembo”), also employing union workers and the largest bakery corporation in the US, may be a likely purchaser of some of the Hostess brands.
H/T: LGM, Think Progress, Policy Mic, Sacremento Bee, WSJ, Courthouse News.
Poppies of the field.
Some might agree with that as first phrased, Tony. Not me. But some might. 😀
Bankruptcy judge just ruled that Hostess liquidation can proceed.
http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2009/05/taser-related-deaths-in-united-states.html
@Hubert: Unions were a private-sector response to the failures of government, to ensure that workers were being treated safely and fairly by employers.
As such they had a flawed inception; for example they used violence to enforce their strikes, which was a way of enforcing their “law” against the employer. Violence should be reserved to the State, but the State was in corrupt and in bed with the wealthy industrialists even then, and thus was created the failure of government that could only be corrected by private violence.
Eventually, because of unions, the State did do its job and pass laws that protected workers (and unions), because even the unions did not want the risk of enforcement. So in that sense, as we have protected workers better, the usefulness of unions is declining.
But they will not have outlived their usefulness until the fair conditions, fair pay, and fair legal standing with respect to other debtors is 100% law. That just isn’t true yet.
Oops, “Lilies” of the field, right? Whatever. Wildflowers.
So my point was, JESUS would demand no money whatsoever, he had no need of it and would encourage you to spend all of it on the poor and needy without him as an intermediary. I think Jesus would be appalled at a church in his name demanding any money at all.
@Bron: Actually, Jesus was opposed to money in general. Depend on God, ask and ye shall receive, look at the poppies of the field, they do no work and yet God provides for them. Be like them.
Jesus was also opposed to organized church. Wherever two people gather in God’s name, God is there. The intermediary of the priest, “experts” in religion, “leaders,” and the organized church were all invented post-Jesus.
What Jesus was saying about taxes is that the money was never yours to begin with, it is the property of the man that put his picture on it, so give it back to him if he demands it.
(I am an atheist for anybody reading that doesn’t know that already. But I am an atheist that did my homework and read the Bible).
hUBERT:
Unions are not un-American, everyone has a right to sell their labor for the most they can get. And Jesus would agree as long as you gave unto Caesar and 10% to God.
However I dont think Jesus would vote for democrats due to abortion. That I knew you in the womb stuff kinda predicts against it.
I also dont think unions have outlived their usefulness, they just need to start spending more money on the rank and file and less on politicians.
As to the Philistine part? You are somewhat dogmatic.
Thanks unions for destroying yet another business. Unions have outlived their usefulness. Yet another twisted metal fireball of a wreckage caused by obama’s getting another election. All those fraudulent votes are helping our economy go from bad to worse in this sickening tailspin.
“Thanks unions for destroying yet another business. Unions have outlived their usefulness. Yet another twisted metal fireball of a wreckage caused by obama’s getting another election. All those fraudulent votes are helping our economy go from bad to worse in this sickening tailspin.”
Hubert,
How sad that you don’t realize that you will be damned in Hell for your lack of understanding of what Jesus really was saying. Jesus would be a member of the Carpenter’s Union and voted for the Democratic Party. You would be seen by him as a Philistine. I pray for your soul.
Self correction: Should have been “conscience” in the previous post.
@Bron: Why can’t you ask a question without exaggerating things into absolutes? everything paid for? Who advocates for that?
The Left is not hell bent on discouraging industry, we are hell bent on preventing harm to people. If you think it is impossible to have industry without harming people, then I see your cognitive dilemma, if one thinks that wealth is only possible by phucking somebody over, they want the freedom to phuck people over.
But the Left does NOT think it is impossible to create value without phucking people over. We think it is possible for people to get wealthy without destroying the environment, without screwing or lying to or endangering the health or lives of your investors or employees or suppliers or customers, and we believe they can do all of that AND ensure that after a life’s work is done, a person can survive in relative comfort and health without desperation.
But the Left also apprehends reality, we know full well that it is easier to get wealthy by phucking people over. We know full well that there are millions of people that are not restrained by conscious, sympathy or empathy, that are only restrained by law and punishment. So we pass laws for that minority of millions that just cannot play nice without the threat of punishment.
Mike S:
Why do people who are able bodied need to have everything paid for? Why do we have a system that discourages people from working?
Why is the left so hell bent on discouraging industry?
Why did we institute national health care to cover 30,000,000 people who could be covered for around $400/month which is $12 billion dollars? which would amount to about $85.71 per working person per month or about $1,000 per year.
Helping people does not need to lead to financial suicide.
OS,
Correction duly noted….
AY sez:
“Thanks for the link…… Christians you say….”
*******************************************
Wasn’t me that said it. That’s what they claim. As for my own view, the evidence does not support the claim. I believe it was Gandhi who said something to the effect that he liked that Jesus fellow, but did not care much for his followers.
@Bron: Do you think we need 20 to 30 times more tax for only a little more than 3 times the population?
I am not trying to dodge the question, but it depends on what you mean by “need.” Seriously. For example, does Intel “need” a research and development arm? It is not a necessity for them to continue selling the products they have already developed. If they fired everybody and sold all the buildings and equipment in 2013, they would have a big boost in profits. But most people would argue that is suicide, and they DO need it, and although we have no specifics about what they will invent or create we do know that Intel cannot survive many years without their R&D arm. Or spending even more for R&D done by others. (Why more? Because others will tack on a nice profit for their work in the form of licensing or royalties, which is an expense Intel avoids by developing its own intellectual property in-house.)
In 1913 (in inflation adjusted dollars) the USA GDP was 22 times smaller than in 2011. So, if the population roughly tripled, their productivity and income has grown by roughly a factor of seven.
You can attribute that increase in productivity to many things, but what is clear from the comparative analysis of countries in various states of development is that MOST of that increase is the result of a public infrastructure that eases commerce and expands markets for business owners. Not just roads and bridges, but ubiquitous power, communications, police, courts, contract enforcement, grade and high school education, cheap transportation, health care, expertise, and on and on.
Much of that infrastructure is due to taxation. So we return to the definition of “need.” Does Intel “need” an R&D arm? Only if it wants to continue being a profitable company in twenty years.
Do we “need” 30% taxation? Well, if I earn roughly 7 times as much as I could in 1913, and I am taxed 30%, I take home roughly 5 times as much money. We “need” 30% taxation only if we want to continue living in a country that lets us, on average, earn five times as much money as our 1913 ancestors. And do not forget, that is inflation adjusted; not some arithmetic trick. If our two monthly incomes were converted into white bread, we’d have five times as much bread per capita as they do.
Because we are educated where they were not; we are healthy and able to work where they were sick, we can drive twenty miles to work without a thought where they were limited to home industry, a low-margin farm, or about a 5 mile radius for work (which means our geographic area of exploitable opportunity is about 16 to 20 times larger).
So for me the answer is yes, we need the taxation to create a common infrastructure and order that did not really exist in 1913.
I will also note the “free market” had over a century to develop that infrastructure and did not; certainly in 1913 markets were much more free and unregulated than they are now. I do not think that infrastructure develops without taxation that supports development for the common good, and regulations (which require taxation for enforcement).
Tony C:
yes that did strike me as slightly ironic but I do see your point.
I have a feeling we disagree on the amount. But you are correct that some taxes do need to be paid.
The population in 1913 was 97,225,000 people. When the income tax was implemented it was around 1%. We have 310,000,000 now. Do you think we need 20 to 30 times more tax for only a little more than 3 times the population?
I can understand some increase to take care of our modern world but not that much more.
ID707:
this post should explain a lot to you:
OS,
Thanks for the link…… Christians you say….
@Bron: I just reviewed half a dozen dictionaries for the definition of “irony,” and it seems clear they don’t have a 100% grip on it either. What they have in common is the requirement of a fundamental incongruity. I would add that the examples of somebody being purposely ironic are easier to identify than somebody calling a situation or somebody else’s statement “ironic.”
I saw the quote you used; and I agree that is ironic: The incongruity is that the brain that lets you understand so much has so much trouble understanding itself. It is like the fire safety inspector’s house burning down, that is ironic. The people on the ethics committee caught taking bribes.
However, that said, I still think you incorrectly used the word in describing my post; I do not see an incongruity there. Unless you are talking about your opposition to my liberal-socialist politics in which I claim people have an obligation to protect and support their society, and you think that is incongruous with my defense of “MY time and MY feelings.”
If that is the case, I can see how you might think there is an incongruity, but there is none. I have never argued that you have a 100% commitment or obligation to society. After my societal duties are met I still have plenty of time, money and property that is mine to do with as I please; and that is what I was referring to as “MY time.”
“Unless you are talking about your opposition to my liberal-socialist politics in which I claim people have an obligation to protect and support their society, and you think that is incongruous with my defense of “MY time and MY feelings.””
Bron,
I’m not jumping in here to defend Tony, since he is more than capable of defending himself. What I want to discuss though is the use of a particular meme on the Far Right that is not only fallacious logically, but mendacious in its implication. The meme can be described as “If a “Leftist” cares so much for people in need, why doesn’t she/he give all of their money to them?” The notion is ridiculous on its face, but in truth what it implies is that
a person is a hypocrite about expressing caring for others, if they don’t completely immerse themselves in that task. This meme is used by many conservative to imply that all expressions of caring are false. What I really think it exposes is the users inability to care as projected onto others who do. i.e. If I don’t care, then they are full of it if you say you care.
Beyond that is at base a real inability to understand that caring for others lives does not mean you have to live a life of altruism and/or poverty. I have many friends and acquaintances that are quite wealthy. Most of them are quite liberal in their caring for others. They, for instances approve of the President’s stance on taxes even though it will affect them. They are under no responsibility to stop living their lifestyle to the fullest by believing in social fairness, but it is to their credit that they have empathy for those who are not faring as well in this unfair society.
Even though my career was as a Social Worker and Psychotherapist, I very rarely took the pain I saw on my job home. I live my life by the Gestalt Philosophy which can be described by these words:
“I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.”
(Fritz Perls, 1969)
There is no dichotomy between that and believing in:
“That which is unpleasant to you, do not to your neighbor. That is the whole law and the rest but it’s exposition.”
Rabbi Hillel (fl. 30 BC – 10 AD)
and:
“If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?”
Rabbi Hillel (fl. 30 BC – 10 AD)
lottakatz:
I once worked for a company that profit shared but I only stayed there for 2 years so I did not get vested. They would split a certain % of profits and give them to you as part of your retirement fund. When I left I had around $4,000 in the fund which stayed with the company. I only made about $30k so that amounted to about 7% of my salary.
If I had a company with, say, 49 employees I would take 50% of profit and split between the 49 employees and I think I would split it equally among the employees. With the assumption being the senior people already did pretty well and it would be a good bonus for the jr. people.
What is your theory?
eighth grade teacher:
and you notice I did not use that example, did I.
Back to the question, why is the quote I used not irony?
And what are your credentials, if you are going to offer yourself up as an expert in irony, it would be helpful to know your background.