Skip to main content

View Diary: Private equity-owned Hostess blames striking workers as it liquidates (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Please Give Us The Exact Scenarios of the Private (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    unclebucky, skyounkin, drewfromct, laurnj

    Laura,

    Please give us a detailed scenario of the private investors wanting to force Hostess to liquidation and what would have been the private investors benefits had the union capitualted.

    Here is a link to David Stockman's takedown of Romney's Bain Deals which sounds like a template for the Hostess debacle:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

    •  Your "template" meme... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skyounkin, Boise83702, tinfoilhat, BYw

      Exactly what I was thinking of and then posted.

      Burning down the company to salvage the brand and then opening back up in East Cupcake, F**kyoukistan.

      Meh. Hostess. Corporate. Bainish.

      Ugh. --UB.

      "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

      by unclebucky on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:20:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Financing and corporate voodoo (3+ / 0-)

        aren't in my realm of knowledge. Given that, isn't there a way to let the employees take over the company. Naive, yes but frigging tired of these corporate butchers harvesting corporations to feed their unending greed. how can employee take overs accomplished? It's not like its an unknown brand.

        “When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.” ― Groucho Marx

        by Sam Sara on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:32:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is my beef with unions: (4+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          bobtmn, rmx2630, Omir the Storyteller, LostBuckeye
          Hidden by:
          unclebucky
          isn't there a way to let the employees take over the company.
          Unions should be using their members' dues to buy up stock in the companies they work for until they have at least a 51% stake. And I don't want to hear anyone say it's a "conflict of interest". I own my own business. I work for myself, and I pay myself. That's not a conflict of interest

          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

          by drewfromct on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:49:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll second that. (6+ / 0-)

            It is kinda conflicting because the management of the union now has to take profitability into account and management of the company, in working for the shareholders, has to take labor, it's share holders, into account.
            But that conflict can be resolved, mutually beneficially.
            When workers get a piece of the pie, particularly if it's related to profitability, they have incentive to pick up the pace, work efficiently, raise their game. It strengthens the company and raises profits.
            I had a boss in LA who broke out a piece of his net every month and divided it among his crew (small business turning under $1m/y) apportioned by hours worked. We knew when massive load of work came in, that the bonus would be good that month. And in lean months, everyone looked for ways to conserve, to make more out of less. It got to be habitual and our boss had a nice house in Los Feliz.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:06:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  employee ownership is great (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rmx2630, sfbob, happymisanthropy, laurnj, BYw

            But unions, their pension funds and their spending are TIGHTLY regulated -- indeed it is an area when Republicans have always found the more rules the better.  So not as easy as it sounds . . .

            •  Regulations can be changed (0+ / 0-)

              Ever heard of one of the Repugs favorite phrases--deregulation?

              Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

              by drewfromct on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:48:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  In a leverage buyout, (0+ / 0-)

              the union pensions are gone, used  to pay Bain, or the Company that took them over to pay off the debt incurred in the takeover and pay the masssive profits to upper management and the raiders that took them over. The new owners know nothing about baking and baked goods, just how to strip a company bare and leave the workers holding the bag.
              The union is just a scapegoat for management's greed and incompetance.

              What do we want? Universal health care! When do we want it? Now!

              by cagernant on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:06:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  just wondering, unclebucky why did you feel (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobtmn, drewfromct

            this comment should be hidden? Did I miss something?

            “When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.” ― Groucho Marx

            by Sam Sara on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:53:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Pension plans need diversified investments... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sfbob, skohayes, WillR

              So you can't use them to buy up the employer. Same with ESOPs- a good idea, but don't invest all your money in one. As for investing union dues, they're typically about 2% of wages and thus not adequate to buy a company. That said, it's possible that a broad coalition of workers, suppliers, communities, and customers could buy up parts of Hostess and reopen them.

              •  The company owes $944M to the union pension funds. (0+ / 0-)

                "An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty." Alexander Hamilton, Fed. Paper No.1

                by FriedmanIsDead on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:52:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  It couldn't be done (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy, BYw

            Hostess was taken private thus there were no publicly traded shares that the union could buy anyway. Hostess' biggest problem was the debt that its takeover by Ripplewood Holdings forced it to take on compounded by the insane management fees it had to pay which left now room for any re-investment.

            Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: DemSign.com. Get your We are the 99% Yard Sign.

            by DemSign on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 11:35:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  25% - that is the ownership... (0+ / 0-)

          ...the employees were offered.   And they turned it down.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site