Some facts about Hostess

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (17 posts)
  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

    1 - The CEO had a salary of $1.5 million, with up to $2 million in long-term bonus compensation. Over a 5 year period, if he got all $2 million, plus $1.5 million a year, that would equate to $9.5 million. Yes, it's a lot of money, but this is why CEO salaries generally aren't the problem: If he distributed all of that income to the employees, that would come out to $102 per employee, per year. If all executive compensation were distributed, the figure would be about $150 per employee per year. 0.2-0.4% of employee's compensation.

    2 - Hostess had 372 different collective-bargaining agreements. Hostess had to maintain 80 different health and benefit plans, and 40 pension plans. Union agreements stated that cake and bread products had to be delivered to a location on separate trucks. Drivers weren't allowed to load or assist in loading. Workers that load bread weren't allowed to load cake. More than double the employees required for any particular delivery were required. Hostess wasn't allowed to make the company efficient. Effectively, the unions engaged in activity that would normally be illegal: price-fixing and conspiring to reduce competition.

    I'm not saying the management was perfect, but consider how shackled they were by the unions. A company without union labor would be able to consolidate operations, consolidate benefits, and negotiate wages that the majority were willing to negotiate.

    Think about it. 6000 employees were able to overrule the voice of 12,000 other employees, and all of management, and cause the company to close.

    1. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Although your post won't be popular among the masses, it is an accurate snapshot of what has been happening countless times and will continue to happen in this country under the current climate.  Personally, I am witnessing something very similar right now, but am helpless to do anything but watch the slow burn already in motion.

    2. tussin profile image58
      tussinposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      When dealing with toxic chemicals, it's best not to mix them.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Lol, that's funny

    3. profile image56
      Asno Mudoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That is a ridiculous way to look at remuneration.  Perhaps the President of America should be paid the equivalent of $100 per American ... and so on.

      Hostess had clearly failed pre-2009 it was given a second chance and the CEO failed to turn the company around, so why should he get paid a single penny for being a failure?

      The owners of the capital behind Hostess had basically got everything they figured they could get out of it ... heck robbing the pension fund is a pretty good haul.

      The largest single unsecured creditor was the pension company to the tune of ~900m

      The free market killed Hostess, there simply wasn't the demand for the product anymore.

    4. Tom Joad II profile image60
      Tom Joad IIposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If it were not for the union strife I'm sure Hostess would be blaming Obamacare.

  2. innersmiff profile image65
    innersmiffposted 10 years ago

    In agreement. Bumping for a response.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Nobody will respond. This is Bain Capital all over again. I posted facts, backed by SEC documents, going as far as to notate page and line numbers if necessary, but the haters gonna hate.

      I would love to hear someone who is pro-union explain why it is OK for a group of providers to get together and fix prices for a service, but illegal for a group of providers to get together and fix prices for a service.

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        From my experience most of the folks in the union are not completely for the union.  Even if they see the company being ruined by the union though they are afraid to voice their opinion for fear of retaliation.  They too, have to watch it burn.  Not likely anyone will speak up, I suppose.

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        For the same reason that the burden of proof lies on the state, because the state (or the company) with it's larger resources could otherwise overwhelm the individual (or the labourer) I don't know about this particular example because I have not had time to study it and it's entirely possible that this union did something dumb/wrong but I will say that the issue is usually much larger than a single company, if a union gives in on one issue to one company than all companies will demand the same and soon the union has lost any power or ability to protect it's workers. Unions do their jobs successfully by getting better wages and conditions for their charges and the statistics bear out that they do just that.

        The coal miners unions suffered from making this mistake in giving too many concessions until the unions became meaningless and powerless and now wages have fallen and the rate of things like black lung is actually rising.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Now that sounds like a good answer.  The union is quite willing to forego their responsibilities to the union members paying their dues, sacrificing them and their jobs for the good of the rest of the union. 

          Of course, we see the same type of thing when unions "deal" with employes of companies that have chosen to set their own destiny rather than let the union VIP's do it for them.  Drive the non-union company under, sacrificing the non union member that just wants to be left alone to do their job.  All for the good of the country, or so goes the reasoning.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah it's a balance of morality issue if you like. The point is though the union has a job to do, it's not a charitable organization out to help society at large it's job is to help union members which means the majority of their charges to have better wages, better treatment etc. sometimes that requires making tough choices, there is nothing wrong with making tough choices.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Just a little "collateral damage", isn't it?

              The unions aren't concerned with the working stiff, any more that any other politician or corporate manager is.  They are concerned with the pocketbooks and power of the top level union management.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                See there we disagree I have volunteered for unions and have a pretty good knowledge of their inner workings, I do that because I had my house an my family and my quality of life etc. saved by a union after I suffered a workplace accident the medical bills for which I would never have been able to pay without the legal aid etc. I received from my union, most people working for and in unions generally for relatively low pay are people who believe in the cause of making a better "world" for hard working Americans and god bless them for it.

                More to the point it's an empty argument entirely, it's like saying a company does not care about the consumer only their own profit, that may be true but because the company wants customers (or union laborers) it has to provide a good service that people want, the statistics bear out that unions do exactly that as to this day union workers are much better compensated than non union workers.

                As for collateral damage, as I said those are tough decisions but making tough decisions is good, avoiding making tough decisions isn't good it's cowardice.

  3. secularist10 profile image61
    secularist10posted 10 years ago

    We've already seen what having no unions produces. It's not like we don't know. It's not like this is a theoretical exercise. It's not theory, it's history. Specifically the history of the working class in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (when governments were actively anti-union... how's that for government intervention in the marketplace?), and in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

    The purpose of unionism is to level the playing field between employers and workers. In the process, some unions have gotten so big and powerful, now they are even more powerful than individual businesses. So what is needed is a balance.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this


  4. profile image53
    h8kliedposted 10 years ago

    The product they offer is simply out of touch with common society. Once relevance is lost profits subside.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)