A new article goes much deeper into the Hostess story than any I have read. I was interviewed several weeks ago for it and it is clear that a lot of research went into this in the meantime. However there are a few things wrong with the story.
Also, I have not yet shared my views on the role of the Teamsters in the Hostess debacle. My choice was to not pick fights, following the leadership of my Union. That does not appear to be a returned sentiment. They should stop while they're ahead.
My response is in the comment section of the article.
Overall this is a great story that covers many of the details that are left out of most media reports. I appreciate you pointed out that both Unions gave concessions the first bankruptcy and the hedge funds failed to live up to their end of the deal- fixing infrastructure and running the company. All while giving themselves repeated bonuses.
There are a few things wrong though. You discuss this as if the Bakers refused to negotiate with the company. That is false. The hedge funds were only willing to negotiate in bankruptcy court and refused to work out a deal in head to head negotiations, as is the historical standard. Negotiating in court is not a negotiation. The Bakers know the history of the judge and the hedge funds involved and saw NO reason pretend like we would be treated fairly. At this point, the hedge funds had already stolen our pension contributions ($4.25 an hour) and the judge had approved the theft.
You also portray the Teamsters as 'taking a lead' because of the (false portrayal of) Bakers as not negotiating. The Teamsters do not 'lead' the Bakers and thank goodness for that. They failed to enact the will of their membership and everyone who worked there knows it. As Mr. Storz attested to in this article. You point out the narrow vote of 4400 Teamsters but fail to mention the 'disqualified' ballots outnumber the 'yes' votes.
I also find the printing of the story about the Bakers alternative offer highly suspect. I have been immersed in Hostess news for years and am an active Union member. I have never heard this in my life until this moment. Who is the source of this claim? How do you know that they aren't misrepresenting the deal proposed? Why are they unnamed if they are telling the truth? Did you confirm this with anyone? Apparently not with any officials at the Bakers Union, as you point out.
Worst of all there's this. "Instead of mailing out ballots to its membership, like the Teamsters had, they held voice votes in their union halls." Says who? I voted by secret ballot in Lenexa, KS- the first bakery to vote. I can't speak for every bakery but clearly whoever told you that lie cannot either. Someone should ask the Teamsters why a mail in would be better since theirs was a colossal failure, and offended the MAJORITY of their membership at Hostess.
This article is fairly accurate about the company but is too generous to the Teamsters and too speculative about the Bakers. But thanks for including the previous concessions and the reasons the Bakers didn't trust the hedge funds.
And please stop using the phrase 'Union bosses', they are elected officials who are supposed to do what they are told by the membership, not the other way around. Maybe the Teamsters confused you.