A victory for union workers everywhere.

**CivilWars** · 11-28-12, 03:06 PM

I haven't logged out since we changed from TTP to TPG. EVER.

**triggerhappy2005** · 11-28-12, 03:09 PM

I love you then.

Welcome back.

**-Lazarus-** · 11-28-12, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

So they would've ended up with 25% ownership of something that was hemorrhaging money and in the middle of its second bankruptcy in 7 years. Yeah, sounds like a great idea lol. Let's take a second paycut (they'd taken one previous to this situation) and then use some of our significantly smaller paychecks to pay extra expenses. What could possibly go wrong?

I realize most of America pays for at least a portion of their healthcare, but when salaries are already getting slashed by a permanent 4% and a "temporary" 4%, adding new/additional expenses to that just isn't going to work. I honestly can't fault them for declining that offer.

The other thing to remember is that ownership doesn't come with just a voice in how things are done. The union, by taking a 25% stake in Hostess, also would've assumed 25% of the risk involved in the company....and considering they were deeply in debt and in their second bankruptcy, that risk is rather high.

~Morningfrost

Um, stockholders don't share in the debt liability of a company. Especially not stockholders who get that stock for free (unless you somehow in your mind link the stock ownership with the pay cut, which is really not the case. The pay cut was absolutely necessary. Giving the employees 25% ownership was certainly not.

If I were one of those guys I would be like, HELL YES, give me a share in the company. If it succeeds and I help it succeed I get even more for my effort than just a paycheck. And as Civil said, it's preferable to being unemployed.

**SmokenScion** · 11-28-12, 04:27 PM

You think they'd mind if they were making say, Healthier treats to compete in the growing market? Poor decisions is what got them here to begin with, why trust em again?

On a Lighter side somewhat, You think any of the twinkie bakers were proud going into work knowing that when the Zombie/Nuclear Apocalypse comes they will feed Americans who will survive and repopulate the world?

**Hocus Pocus** · 11-28-12, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Um, stockholders don't share in the debt liability of a company. Especially not stockholders who get that stock for free (unless you somehow in your mind link the stock ownership with the pay cut, which is really not the case. The pay cut was absolutely necessary. Giving the employees 25% ownership was certainly not.

If I were one of those guys I would be like, HELL YES, give me a share in the company. If it succeeds and I help it succeed I get even more for my effort than just a paycheck. And as Civil said, it's preferable to being unemployed.

It's implied, trying to save face . In this scenario they do assume debt because without the paycut and ownership stake they could have vested money elsewhere.

It's a little late in the game to tie incentives to performance eh?

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

**Morningfrost** · 11-28-12, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I haven't logged out since we changed from TTP to TPG. EVER.

You need a life Civil

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Um, stockholders don't share in the debt liability of a company. Especially not stockholders who get that stock for free (unless you somehow in your mind link the stock ownership with the pay cut, which is really not the case. The pay cut was absolutely necessary. Giving the employees 25% ownership was certainly not.

If I were one of those guys I would be like, HELL YES, give me a share in the company. If it succeeds and I help it succeed I get even more for my effort than just a paycheck. And as Civil said, it's preferable to being unemployed.

I realize stockholders don't share in the debt liability. That's why I said they would assume 25% of the risk, rather than 25% of the debt. My point about the risk is that the 25% ownership wouldn't end up being worth a thing to the employees, because when the company went through it's inevitable 3rd bankruptcy their ownership would be worth exactly $0.00. The only way this would've provided any sort of monetary benefit to the employees is if, when the company was eventually liquidated, there was anything left over after creditors were paid off because then the Union and it's members would've gotten 25% of what was left. That's not bloody likely though.

As 25% owners, the Union would've ended up with a say in the running of the business, but I honestly don't see that as making any sort of difference. It's not a controlling stake, the people making the final decisions will be the same people who made the decisions previously....the decisions that aided this problem in the first place.

I won't deny that the Union's stubbornness accelerated Hostess' demise, but in this case it was the difference between a gut wound where you linger and eventually die, or a headshot where everything just ends. At least this way the employees will have more time to look for a new job. It can be done, but looking for a job while already working a full-time job is a pain in the ass, because when you get home from most full-time jobs all you want to do is eat and then sleep lol. This obviously isn't a perfect solution, but it was a situation that had no good solutions. If they'd have accepted the deal and then looked for a new job my opinion would be the same. When there are no good solutions, it's hard to fault any outcome.

~Morningfrost

**Kanati** · 11-28-12, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Obviously you're wrong about the unions misjudging the outcome. Otherwise they would have changed their minds on this last attempt. They knew it wasn't worth saving, just get a job a Del Taco. It's more reliable.

Not necessarily. Hostess had already stated that they had lost too much money to even start up again even if the union accepted the offer. In other words, Hostess was shutting down regardless and nothing the union said at that point was going to make a difference.

**SmokenScion** · 11-28-12, 06:25 PM

Did anyone read the Pabst Article?

It said something like, The fact that the Union was no longer an issue made the company More Viable, and valuable for the owners to sell off. You don't think maybe, Just maybe they could've been planning this from the start?

**deathgodusmc** · 11-28-12, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Did anyone read the Pabst Article?

It said something like, The fact that the Union was no longer an issue made the company More Viable, and valuable for the owners to sell off. You don't think maybe, Just maybe they could've been planning this from the start?

Nope because the judge agreed this was the only option.