What's your argument in favor of claiming the people working there were perpetually entitled to their jobs?
As to a better way to handle the situation; how about negotiate with the union in good faith instead of pulling shenanigans in order to invalidate the contract for starters? It may not have been possible to keep all the workers on staff, but given that the company came back and is making tremendous profits and expecting to be valued at $2 billion and looking towards an "IPO" that seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely they just saw a potential for greater profits and bonuses for themselves and decided to do whatever it takes no matter how reprehensible and how many lives were ruined.
The Teamster's union (not exactly noted for being pushovers in negotiation) audited the books and agreed that there was no more money to be had.
The baker's union disagreed.
The baker's union is the one that was negotiating in bad faith (or perhaps "stupid faith" would be a better term).
"given that the company came back"
No, the company did not "come back". The brands were sold off and the stockholders of the original company lost their money. This is a new company that purchased the right to use the brands in the bankruptcy sale.
Maybe so, I'm skeptical.
> No, the company did not "come back". The brands were sold off and the stockholders of the original company lost their money. This is a new company that purchased the right to use the brands in the bankruptcy sale.
It has new owners but how much of the executive staff have been replaced beyond the very top level? I couldn't find any details.
1) You'd have to prove such a dramatic claim. I don't see where you've presented a single shred of evidence. Given the size of the claim, to then not back it up with any proof, more than throws the credibility of the claim into question.
2) You're simultaneously claiming the company was fine as it was (and or at worst needed a mild adjustment perhaps), and that it didn't need to so significantly restructure its labor costs. You also didn't provide any proof of that claim either. How do you know the company could continue to operate with seven times as many employees as it has now? What financial statements is that claim based on?
3) If it was run into the ground on purpose, and that somehow violated the agreements they had with the unions, then there would be a very large recourse for the unions. That clearly wasn't the case given the outcome so far. They clearly found no more evidence for that premise that what you have, which is to say: none. How is it you're in a position to know so much more than what the unions have been able to prove?
4) What makes the workers entitled to anything beyond the contracts they signed via the unions? The workers aren't going to keep going in to work if they don't get paid. Why should the owners keep operating a business if it's in an impaired condition and is going bankrupt?
5) Your premise is that the former owners intentionally ran the company into bankruptcy, so they could sell it for $410 million, all so that somebody else could get vastly richer by rebooting it over just a few years to be worth $2.3 billion. That's wildly illogical. It blows a hole in your theory a mile wide.
You may think my question was a straw-man - it was intentionally leading actually, to set-up these following points. You proclaimed a dramatic and empty theory with nothing backing it up.
The OP's theory that the old executives got rich is completely without merit.
Bullshit. I could have just as easily responded with "No." Give me a break.
Of course I can't present any evidence I didn't work for Hostess, where am I supposed to get evidence from short of a whistleblower? My point isn't that I'm saying 100% this is what happened, I'm saying I'm skeptical of the story being sold that the union is at fault and the executives did all they could to save the company, etc.
I'm not interested in any more discussion with you, so this will be my last response.
Re your better way to handle the situ: if a business can operate with larger fixed upfront cost but significantly less operational labor cost, why would you not take this route?
Probabilistic thinking would have you believe the union would not negotiate anywhere near the labor cuts Hostess was able to accomplish with the bankruptcies.
I'm not talking bonuses and profits, their decisions look like sound decisions, albeit sterile and perhaps insensitive.
His point is entirely without merit. Far from "executives getting rich", the investors in the old Hostess lost all of their capital.