Hacker News Reader

Comment by ebbv | Hacker News Reader

Holy straw man Batman. That's not at all what I said. What I said was the executives pulled shenanigans to get rich and the workers pay the price. That's the reality of the situation.

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.

View on HN

"As to a better way to handle the situation; how about negotiate with the union in good faith"

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.

> The baker's union is the one that was negotiating in bad faith (or perhaps "stupid faith" would be a better term).

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.

You claimed the company was run into the ground on purpose to void the union contract/s so they could fire the workers.

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.

> You may think my question was a straw-man - it was intentionally leading actually, to set-up these following points.

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.

It's not even the same company. It's a new company that purchased the brands. Actually, the Hostess assets were sold off to multiple companies, but the one under discussion here purchased the Hostess and Dolly Madison snack cake brands for $410 million. The problem was that the old Hostess company was $860 million in debt.

The OP's theory that the old executives got rich is completely without merit.

Your point isn't without merit. It's also important to remember that it's usually only under great pressure (like successive bankruptcies) that creative solutions like this level of automation can occur. More so in a stale industry like baking.

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.

"Your point isn't without merit."

His point is entirely without merit. Far from "executives getting rich", the investors in the old Hostess lost all of their capital.

The investors may have lost their money (aka the business was overvalued and there was a correction they did not foresee) but that does not mean executives lost out. Executives were likely remunerated well until the end, even if their negotiation strategy was poor and they were against spending on R&D and innovation.

Would it be fair to say that you feel the company should have continued to pay low-skill workers for jobs that didn't need to be done because that would be better for the people?

No that wouldn't be fair to say at all. Please re-read my comments. I don't think you could come to that conclusion if you read them fairly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com