Hostess Brands Says It Fails to Reach Labor Deal in Mediation

Grupo Bimbo is thinking of buying them and will keep the 18k jobs in the US rather than Mexico. ;)

democratic anti-trust laws will prevent grupo bimbo from buy up hostess in total. they may be able to get a small piece of the assets.
they won't be able to save all those jobs... and they won't be paying someone 130k to drive a truck either.
 
Last edited:
Grupo Bimbo is thinking of buying them and will keep the 18k jobs in the US rather than Mexico. ;)

That would be interesting. Since products like Twinkies and Wonder Bread have such a short shelf life, it would make sense to make some of the products in the US. However, with pay 1/4 or less in Mexico, I think a Mexican company would try to figure out a way to produce some of the products in Mexico. At least produce the products in the rural Southeast and rural Southwest where pay is lower than the rest of the US.
 
Last edited:
That would be interesting. Since products like Twinkies and Wonder Bread have such a short shelf life, it would make sense to make some of the products in the US. However, with pay 1/4 or less in Mexico, I think I Mexico company would try to figure out a way to produce some of the products in Mexico. At least produce the products in the rural Southeast and rural Southwest where pay is lower than the rest of the US.

I should have made my comment more sarcastic. I don't actually expect Grupo Bimbo to keep any US jobs.
 
democratic anti-trust laws will prevent grupo bimbo from buy up hostess in total. they may be able to get a small piece of the assets.
they won't be able to save all those jobs... and they won't be paying someone 130k to drive a truck either.

I read that they wanted some IPs not the whole company. About the jobs, I don't think they'll keep any.
 
The new owners could cut their pay 40% and have people lined up around the block to take those jobs.

Hell,I'd come out of retirement and drive a bread truck for $78,000 with no health insurance or pension.
 
Last edited:
Someone on a different message board posted this info. It's tough to support the board of directors giving the management team huge raises when the company obviously sucked for quite a while. It doesn't look good and it's a black eye on free market capitalism. I know the board is free to do what they want as far as administration salaries......it just reeks. I know that these salaries aren't what broke the company.....that can be set at the feet of the Unions. Thoughts?

While Hostess management wants to blame BCTGM International Union members for its demise, the truth is that had it not been for the valiant efforts of BCTGM members over the last 8 years, including accepting significant wage and benefit concessions after the first bankruptcy, this company would have gone out of business long ago.

As the company was asking for more givebacks from workers, a group of creditors said in court papers that the company “may have manipulated its executives’ salaries higher in the months leading up to its Chapter 11 filing,” again according to the WSJ. According to the creditors’ court filing, the following Hostess executives saw substantial salary increases in July 2011:

Brian Driscoll, CEO, from around $750,000 to $2,550,000
Gary Wandscheider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000
John Stewart, EVP, $400,000 to $700,000
David Loeser, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
Kent Magill, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
Richard Seban, EVP, $375,00o to $656,256
John Akeson, SVP, $300,000 to $480,000
Steven Birgfeld, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000
Martha Ross, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000
Rob Kissick, SVP, $182,000 t0 $273,008


A Hostess spokesman, in reply to the creditors’ filing, responded that the executives’ salaries were increased at a routine compensation review “to align them with industry standards and because the executives were being asked to take on significant additional responsibilities associated with trying to restructure the company outside of bankruptcy proceedings.” All this while asking workers such as Mr. Peruzzi, a 47 year old father of three, who, according to the WSJ article grossed about $51,000 last year, to take further pay and benefit cuts.
 
Last edited:
Someone on a different message board posted this info. It's tough to support the board of directors giving the management team huge raises when the company obviously sucked for quite a while. It doesn't look good and it's a black eye on free market capitalism. I know the board is free to do what they want as far as administration salaries......it just reeks. I know that these salaries aren't what broke the company.....that can be set at the feet of the Unions. Thoughts?


looks like everyone is over paid.
 
Someone on a different message board posted this info. It's tough to support the board of directors giving the management team huge raises when the company obviously sucked for quite a while. It doesn't look good and it's a black eye on free market capitalism. I know the board is free to do what they want as far as administration salaries......it just reeks. I know that these salaries aren't what broke the company.....that can be set at the feet of the Unions. Thoughts?

Saw the writing in the wall and cashed out. Fuckers for sure. I can see asking them to do more as the company struggles to survive, but if your livelihood is on the line you make sacrifices. They weren't in danger of losing anything and there was only upside. Not illegal, but spineless, gutless and pitiful.
 
So the workers are rebelling against their labor leaders for misleading them???? Golly golly gumgrops!! It can't be true! Labor leaders manipulating their own people??? No way!!!

Now do you suppose Mr. Hurt was promised "something" in exchange for fucking the workers and closing the factory. Who was he working for exactly?
 
Someone on a different message board posted this info. It's tough to support the board of directors giving the management team huge raises when the company obviously sucked for quite a while. It doesn't look good and it's a black eye on free market capitalism. I know the board is free to do what they want as far as administration salaries......it just reeks. I know that these salaries aren't what broke the company.....that can be set at the feet of the Unions. Thoughts?
CLICK on the link ===> http://www.hark.com/clips/mkwzrwjtfn-because-it-is-wreckable

While Hostess management wants to blame BCTGM International Union members for its demise, the truth is that had it not been for the valiant efforts of BCTGM members over the last 8 years, including accepting significant wage and benefit concessions after the first bankruptcy, this company would have gone out of business long ago.

As the company was asking for more givebacks from workers, a group of creditors said in court papers that the company “may have manipulated its executives’ salaries higher in the months leading up to its Chapter 11 filing,” again according to the WSJ. According to the creditors’ court filing, the following Hostess executives saw substantial salary increases in July 2011:

Brian Driscoll, CEO, from around $750,000 to $2,550,000
Gary Wandscheider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000
John Stewart, EVP, $400,000 to $700,000
David Loeser, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
Kent Magill, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
Richard Seban, EVP, $375,00o to $656,256
John Akeson, SVP, $300,000 to $480,000
Steven Birgfeld, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000
Martha Ross, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000
Rob Kissick, SVP, $182,000 t0 $273,008


A Hostess spokesman, in reply to the creditors’ filing, responded that the executives’ salaries were increased at a routine compensation review “to align them with industry standards and because the executives were being asked to take on significant additional responsibilities associated with trying to restructure the company outside of bankruptcy proceedings.” All this while asking workers such as Mr. Peruzzi, a 47 year old father of three, who, according to the WSJ article grossed about $51,000 last year, to take further pay and benefit cuts.
 
Last edited:
Someone on a different message board posted this info. It's tough to support the board of directors giving the management team huge raises when the company obviously sucked for quite a while. It doesn't look good and it's a black eye on free market capitalism. I know the board is free to do what they want as far as administration salaries......it just reeks. I know that these salaries aren't what broke the company.....that can be set at the feet of the Unions. Thoughts?

The current CEO has only been around for 6 months. The unions are still pouting about things that happened to guys that aren't even there any more. And, as was pointed out, divided by the number of employees per year, those pay raises work out to about $150 per year per employee. And the CEO pay is about 10% of what CEOs of comparable size companies get. Perhaps if they actually paid for talent, instead of for truck drivers, they'd get a CEO worth a damn.

And after all that - those salaries were not what was bankrupting the company. The health and pension benefits - worth tens of millions of dollars every year - is what was breaking the company.

I also read on the boards, but couldn't verify it - that the executives were working for $1 this year, but were indeed going to start drawing a salary next year. ETA: http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/04/09/hostess-cuts-four-executives-pay-to-1-after-big-july-raises/

Liberals are just nasty, greedy, people who add nothing of any value to anything they touch.
 
Last edited:
Scott Quenneville, a Hostess truck driver represented by the Teamsters, said he feels his colleagues were misled by Mr. Hurt into believing that a buyer would swoop in for the company. Mr. Hurt on Sunday said he thought there was a good chance a buyer would emerge who would give union members their jobs back.



"Frank misled a lot of people. He was not going to settle for anything less than closing the company down, because they didn't want that 8% pay cut," said Mr. Quenneville. "If you don't want the job, leave the job. Why ruin 18,000 jobs?"



"I didn't mislead anybody on anything," Mr. Hurt said. He said he didn't tell workers preparing to strike that a buyer for Hostess was definitely waiting in the wings.



Mr. Hurt said, "I don't want anybody to think that anybody is guaranteeing anyone anything, but we did know that there were people taking a look at this company."

This would be a truly fantastic drama, if people's lives were not at stake. And no, not one former Hostess worker will retain their job at the new company: that much is certain.

As we said, if only people had a basic understanding of how bankruptcy truly worked, and what the real state of the economy was, then Hostess' workers may have had a chance and some amicable comrpomise would have been possible.

Then again, if people in America actually understood economics and simple finance, then the "Ohio outcome", and many others, would have likely been quite different.

Now we can only hope we were not correct about the ultimate outcome too: namely that the US government will effectively hijack the bankruptcy process, and in doing so "bailout" a junk food maker, just so 18k votes can be preserved at the expense of creditors and making yet another mockery of the bankruptcy process, and property rights in the US.

Then again, this is precisely what the Union was likely hoping for all along, because once the government starts bailing everyone out, just where does it draw the line?

Well, the union leader, mr. hurt, seems very flippant about the whole thing, as if he has some sort of back-up plan. I think that a Twinkie Bailout is very possibile. No doubt the media will portray it as the company leaders taking a bailout ('evil greedy rich people!!!!', they'll say), and not mention anything of the role the Baker's Union played in all this.
 
And that as they say, is that:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-21/will-be-blamed-sandy-too

Following yesterday's news that the Hostess mediation with its workers has collapsed, formalized earlier today, we get the next update which will likely make for a less than happy thankgsiving for a whole lot of former workers:

HOSTESS CEO SAYS MUST TERMINATE 15,000 EMPLOYEES TODAY

We wonder if this surge in initial claims reported next week will also be attributed to Sandy?
 
And that as they say, is that:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-21/will-be-blamed-sandy-too

Following yesterday's news that the Hostess mediation with its workers has collapsed, formalized earlier today, we get the next update which will likely make for a less than happy thankgsiving for a whole lot of former workers:

HOSTESS CEO SAYS MUST TERMINATE 15,000 EMPLOYEES TODAY

We wonder if this surge in initial claims reported next week will also be attributed to Sandy?


correction: Super Storm Sandy :rolleyes:
 
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-21/goodbye-hostess


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/21/2012 15:35 -0500

Jones Day None Perella Weinberg Unemployment Unemployment Benefits


Everyone loses:

HOSTESS JUDGE APPROVES MOTION TO WIND DOWN COMPANY
HOSTESS WINS APPROVAL TO CLOSE AND BEGIN SELLING ASSETS
Next up: the Twinkie economy.

Fom Leveraged Loan:

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain this afternoon approved Hostess Brands’ emergency wind-down plan, as well as an amendment to its debtor-in-possession credit agreement that will allow Hostess to access the full amount of its $75 million DIP loan during its liquidation.

Drain also denied a motion filed by the U.S. Trustee to convert the case to Chapter 7, though he did not rule out the prospect of a conversion at a later date.

Hostess returned to the bankruptcy courthouse in White Plains, N.Y., this morning after a last-minute mediation yesterday between the company and its main bakers’ union failed to produce a settlement to halt liquidation of its assets. The hearing began Monday afternoon, but was delayed shortly thereafter to give the company and the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers Union a final opportunity to engage in mediation to avert the strike the BCT began last week. But by Tuesday evening, Hostess announced that the mediation was “unsuccessful.”

Judge Drain opened today’s hearing with a brief, private chambers conference to discuss the mediation, the details of which remain confidential.

Back in open court, Hostess financial advisor Joshua Scherer, of Perella Weinberg, took the witness stand to discuss the company’s failed efforts to sell the company as a whole, and the status of its newly launched liquidation strategy.

During its Chapter 11, Hostess fielded six bids for the sale of the company as a whole, none of which passed muster, Scherer said.

In the past five days, however, since Hostess officially launched its liquidation process, the company has received “a flood of inquiries,” said Hostess lawyer Heather Lennox, of Jones Day. The company expects to file a number a number of stalking-horse bids for its assets within the next few weeks, she said.

“The number of inbound calls has been surprising, on a number of fronts,” Scherer said. Those inquiries fall into four “buckets,” he explained. Offers have come from regional bakeries, national competitors, customers (such as Wal-Mart, Kroger and Giant Eagle), and a fourth catch-all category, including large consumer products companies. Scherer said the liquidation sale has generated “very significant interest” from international buyers as well.

Many of the buyers were uninterested in the assets when Hostess was weighed down by its union liabilities, he said. “We have very significant momentum right now with, from a selling perspective, positive press,” Scherer said. “It’s critical to maintain momentum and a competitive dynamic.”

“Every day our product is off the shelf, it’s diminishing in value. Our customers get used to selling goods without our brands, and the end-users learn to live without Twinkies and Wonder Bread.”

On the stand, Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn said he needs to terminate about 15,000 employees today so that they can collect unemployment benefits. Drain approved an employee retention plan that would keep about 3,200 employees on the job during the wind-down process.
 
I just bought some "Little Debbie's" Cloud Cakes the other night (equivalent of Twinkies). Now I remember why I was never a fan of Twinkies.
 
“Every day our product is off the shelf, it’s diminishing in value. Our customers get used to selling goods without our brands, and the end-users learn to live without Twinkies and Wonder Bread.”

[sarcasm]OMG I can't live without twinkles and wonder bread.[/sarcasm]
 
All this talk about hostess is making me crave a twinkie. Perhaps this is just an elaborate marketing idea to sell more product.
 
Back
Top