Hostess Brands — Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo Global Management's APO+3.31% new incarnation of the baking company that liquidated in Chapter 11 — is reopening four bakeries in the next eight to 10 weeks, aiming to get Twinkie-deprived consumers the classic snack cake starting in July.
Chief Executive C. Dean Metropoulos said the company will pump $60 million in capital investments into the plants between now and September and aims to hire at least 1,500 workers. But they won’t be represented by unions, including the one whose nationwide strike sparked the 86-year-old company’s decision to shut down in November.
Hostess Brands — Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo Global Management's APO+3.31% new incarnation of the baking company that liquidated in Chapter 11 — is reopening four bakeries in the next eight to 10 weeks, aiming to get Twinkie-deprived consumers the classic snack cake starting in July.
Chief Executive C. Dean Metropoulos said the company will pump $60 million in capital investments into the plants between now and September and aims to hire at least 1,500 workers. But they won’t be represented by unions, including the one whose nationwide strike sparked the 86-year-old company’s decision to shut down in November.
I think the new owners are going to find it difficult to hire people that will do the jobs the union members did at the rates they will offer.
Looks like the gap between the worker and the owner is widening yet again, I dont find much to cheer for personally. Now someone else can do the job at a lower rate so the owners can make more money..sounds like the mentality that has decimated the middle class and is why our country is cratering economically.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
Truck driver 14 strikes again
Cool the bashing please.
I think the new owners are going to find it difficult to hire people that will do the jobs the union members did at the rates they will offer.
Looks like the gap between the worker and the owner is widening yet again, I dont find much to cheer for personally. Now someone else can do the job at a lower rate so the owners can make more money..sounds like the mentality that has decimated the middle class and is why our country is cratering economically.
If the owners agreed to offer the employees the same things they were getting before (wages, medical/dental, 401K, etc) would you feel different?
Of course. To me it isnt about the union, it is about middle class jobs with benefits and wages that can support families AND put away for the future being replaced with lower wage jobs which does nothing more than keep heads above water while saddling society with future costs.
Widening the gap between those who have and those who do not is a huge issue which carries large societal costs..but thankfully private equity will feast off the worker for big bonuses and profits.
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
Wall Street:
If the owners agreed to offer the employees the same things they were getting before (wages, medical/dental, 401K, etc) would you feel different?
Of course. To me it isnt about the union, it is about middle class jobs with benefits and wages that can support families AND put away for the future being replaced with lower wage jobs which does nothing more than keep heads above water while saddling society with future costs.
Widening the gap between those who have and those who do not is a huge issue which carries large societal costs..but thankfully private equity will feast off the worker for big bonuses and profits.
It will be interesting to see how many employees they end up with.
Here is another article:
The bankrupt assets of Hostess Brands, Inc., the company responsible for Twinkies, Ho Ho's, Sno Balls and Ding Dongs, are being put back to work by a buyout firm. What's not being put back to work are the former Hostess unionized employees.
The unionized workers had been on strike when the company folded late last year.
The company had imposed a contract that would cut its 19,000 workers' wages — 15,000 of whom belonged to the workers from the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) — by 8 percent. (The Teamsters was Hostess' largest union, followed by BCTGM.) The contract would have also cut benefits by 27 to 32 percent.
It will be interesting to see how many employees they end up with.
Here is another article:
The bankrupt assets of Hostess Brands, Inc., the company responsible for Twinkies, Ho Ho's, Sno Balls and Ding Dongs, are being put back to work by a buyout firm. What's not being put back to work are the former Hostess unionized employees.
The unionized workers had been on strike when the company folded late last year.
The company had imposed a contract that would cut its 19,000 workers' wages — 15,000 of whom belonged to the workers from the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) — by 8 percent. (The Teamsters was Hostess' largest union, followed by BCTGM.) The contract would have also cut benefits by 27 to 32 percent.
To me it isnt about the union, it is about middle class jobs with benefits and wages that can support families AND put away for the future being replaced with lower wage jobs which does nothing more than keep heads above water while saddling society with future costs.
Nice presentation of a false choice you got going there.
Remember, nobody at a non-unionized work place can "support a family"
No siree.
0
To me it isnt about the union, it is about middle class jobs with benefits and wages that can support families AND put away for the future being replaced with lower wage jobs which does nothing more than keep heads above water while saddling society with future costs.
Nice presentation of a false choice you got going there.
Remember, nobody at a non-unionized work place can "support a family"
I guess if you find joy in others difficulties then today is a great day.
Alternatively, I realize going from zero jobs to 1,500 jobs is a good thing.
You're here pretending said jobs are "low wage" and will saddle somebody with "future costs"
Pretend?
Are you saying the pay and benefit package will be the same for the new ownership that it was before?
The job total did not go from 0 to 1500, it went from 1500 to 0 to 1500, there is nothing to cheer about.
If Job A was paying 5000 a month, ownership changes and now the same job pays 3500 a month, what happened to the 1500? It is taken from the worker and shifted to the ownership/private equity.
It is no secret how VC firms work and how they steal capital, it is taken from the worker and company and shifted to the equity owner.
If someone that was making 50k-75k a year now does not have a job or has to settle for a job making 40k, how does that put society in a better short or long term position?
I know you are anti worker and support the VC framework but how can you ignore the obvious?
If I make less money doing the same job, how does that put me in a better short or long term position?
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
I guess if you find joy in others difficulties then today is a great day.
Alternatively, I realize going from zero jobs to 1,500 jobs is a good thing.
You're here pretending said jobs are "low wage" and will saddle somebody with "future costs"
Pretend?
Are you saying the pay and benefit package will be the same for the new ownership that it was before?
The job total did not go from 0 to 1500, it went from 1500 to 0 to 1500, there is nothing to cheer about.
If Job A was paying 5000 a month, ownership changes and now the same job pays 3500 a month, what happened to the 1500? It is taken from the worker and shifted to the ownership/private equity.
It is no secret how VC firms work and how they steal capital, it is taken from the worker and company and shifted to the equity owner.
If someone that was making 50k-75k a year now does not have a job or has to settle for a job making 40k, how does that put society in a better short or long term position?
I know you are anti worker and support the VC framework but how can you ignore the obvious?
If I make less money doing the same job, how does that put me in a better short or long term position?
It is no secret how VC firms work and how they steal capital, it is taken from the worker and company and shifted to the equity owner
It apparently is a "secret" because it sure as heck doesn't work like that.
So sure as heck how does it work?
How does a firm like Bain acquire a company and make the profits they do..
Is it from expanding profits 100 fold? Is it from expanding production without hiring as to increase margins?
How does a firm like Bain profit? Since it surely isnt from what I suggested how about you put forth an explanation as to how a company like Bain acquires and distributes dividends as they do.
I am thrilled to hear your in depth reply...
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
It is no secret how VC firms work and how they steal capital, it is taken from the worker and company and shifted to the equity owner
It apparently is a "secret" because it sure as heck doesn't work like that.
So sure as heck how does it work?
How does a firm like Bain acquire a company and make the profits they do..
Is it from expanding profits 100 fold? Is it from expanding production without hiring as to increase margins?
How does a firm like Bain profit? Since it surely isnt from what I suggested how about you put forth an explanation as to how a company like Bain acquires and distributes dividends as they do.
The job total did not go from 0 to 1500, it went from 1500 to 0 to 1500, there is nothing to cheer about.
============
It went from 15,000 unionized to 0. Which demonstrates the value unions have for their members.
Instead of pretending that these workers should be making $80,000 to stuff sugar in a big bin or help package Twinkies, maybe we can realize it is better to work for a profitable, stable company at a lower wage for a long period of time, than it is to work for a company at an inflated labor rate for short period of time.
0
The job total did not go from 0 to 1500, it went from 1500 to 0 to 1500, there is nothing to cheer about.
============
It went from 15,000 unionized to 0. Which demonstrates the value unions have for their members.
Instead of pretending that these workers should be making $80,000 to stuff sugar in a big bin or help package Twinkies, maybe we can realize it is better to work for a profitable, stable company at a lower wage for a long period of time, than it is to work for a company at an inflated labor rate for short period of time.
It is no secret how VC firms work and how they steal capital, it is taken from the worker and company and shifted to the equity owner.
I like how someone who writes this is demanding how I write a detailed explanation that it isn't true.
I mean, who wouldn't think it is such a grand business plan to have say $60 million laying around, become a Venture Capitalist, invest a bunch of money in a company, so you can try and profit "off the backs" of 1,500 people making $40,000! I mean, that's such a sane assumption, and rich people like do it all the time! When you have $10's of millions, you don't have many options and piling together a few thousand dollars a month is really your main goal.
Totally.
I have a rule based on experience that people who use the terms:
"Off the backs of workers"
"Tax cuts for the rich"
"Bush lied"
"Fair share"
Have no credibility, understanding of economics, nor are to be taken seriously.
0
It is no secret how VC firms work and how they steal capital, it is taken from the worker and company and shifted to the equity owner.
I like how someone who writes this is demanding how I write a detailed explanation that it isn't true.
I mean, who wouldn't think it is such a grand business plan to have say $60 million laying around, become a Venture Capitalist, invest a bunch of money in a company, so you can try and profit "off the backs" of 1,500 people making $40,000! I mean, that's such a sane assumption, and rich people like do it all the time! When you have $10's of millions, you don't have many options and piling together a few thousand dollars a month is really your main goal.
Totally.
I have a rule based on experience that people who use the terms:
"Off the backs of workers"
"Tax cuts for the rich"
"Bush lied"
"Fair share"
Have no credibility, understanding of economics, nor are to be taken seriously.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
